The Hillary-thread

[Brian Peacock]

Yrump supporters can be scumbags too.

[Tyrannical]

Probably just about every email Huma ever sent or received is sitting on a Yahoo server. I suppose hillary can claim she had no idea Huma was doing that.....

[Brian Peacock]

The Wikileaks emails do paint a rather revealing picture of Clinton as cold and hard-hearted. There were at least 30 emails from people in Manilla who had been robbed at the cash machine and had their money, cards and passports stolen. All they needed was $2000 wired by Western Union so they could get a ticket home. The cruel bitch deleted every one of them.

[Sean Hayden]

[Tero]

COMEY SAYS F.B.I. INVESTIGATING HILLARY’S TIES TO BILL CLINTON
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... ll-clinton

[pErvinalia]

Yrump supporters can be scumbags too.

Aye.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Clearly a false flag operation by the Clinton dirty tricks squad. No Trump supporter would do a thing like that.

[Tero]

This just in! New Hillary emails found on Weiner laptop. Three are orders for pant suits: red white and blue.

[pErvinalia]

Clearly a false flag operation by the Clinton dirty tricks squad. No Trump supporter would do a thing like that.

The Clintons will have you murdered for revealing that.

[Svartalf]

Clearly a false flag operation by the Clinton dirty tricks squad. No Trump supporter would do a thing like that.

Given that they are stupid enough to vote Frump in the first place, they are fully capable of signing their deed and causing all kind of negative publicity.

[Tero]

"Your damn emails" are media tool to keep race a race:
Thus, when Clinton’s lead increases, making it seem more likely that she will decisively defeat Trump, news outlets seeking to sustain the horse-race narrative find it opportune to reexamine what has consistently proven to be the most damaging story line for the Clinton campaign. Conversely, when her lead shrinks and the horse race appears competitive, the email story loses some of its luster — at least absent a new revelation, like Comey’s letter to Congress.
WP

[Tero]

Courts would object to any evidence. Even impeachment would be very tricky based on Weiner laptop

The decision by FBI Director James Comey to announce a new probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails just days before the election is under enormous political fire. But as a leading privacy scholar notes, Comey’s move also raises doubts about whether the investigation is legal under the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure.

The privacy issue has emerged because the FBI did not come across the emails in the course of a Clinton investigation, but from an unrelated probe into the underage sexting activities of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner. (One tabloid has since dubbed the matter “Dickileaks.”) In searching his laptop, the FBI says it found 650,000 emails belong to Huma Abedin, who is Weiner’s ex-wife and a long-time Clinton aide.

The problem, from a legal point of view, is that a search warrant isn’t supposed to let law enforcement get access to everything on a computer. Instead, in this case, the FBI should only have been able to retrieve information related to Weiner’s sexting activities. The other evidence should have been off-limits unless a court had given the FBI permission to look for it. It’s as if the police had a warrant to search Weiner’s closet, but then decided to snoop around his bedroom as well.

http://fortune.com/2016/11/01/fbi-clinton-email/

[Forty Two]

Likely indictment over Clinton Foundation issues? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _case.html

FBI probe likely to yield indictment, says Washington Times - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -indictme/

FBI moving toward indictment - http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/727378- ... hy-coming/

[Tero]

Those are not news. Those are Fox Breitbar The Hill type of "news".

[Forty Two]

Courts would object to any evidence. Even impeachment would be very tricky based on Weiner laptop

The decision by FBI Director James Comey to announce a new probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails just days before the election is under enormous political fire. But as a leading privacy scholar notes, Comey’s move also raises doubts about whether the investigation is legal under the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure.

The privacy issue has emerged because the FBI did not come across the emails in the course of a Clinton investigation, but from an unrelated probe into the underage sexting activities of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner. (One tabloid has since dubbed the matter “Dickileaks.”) In searching his laptop, the FBI says it found 650,000 emails belong to Huma Abedin, who is Weiner’s ex-wife and a long-time Clinton aide.

The problem, from a legal point of view, is that a search warrant isn’t supposed to let law enforcement get access to everything on a computer. Instead, in this case, the FBI should only have been able to retrieve information related to Weiner’s sexting activities. The other evidence should have been off-limits unless a court had given the FBI permission to look for it. It’s as if the police had a warrant to search Weiner’s closet, but then decided to snoop around his bedroom as well.

http://fortune.com/2016/11/01/fbi-clinton-email/

If it's weiner's computer and he gave the FBI permission, then they can look at whatever they want on it.

Further, a warrant gives the permission to search for whatever the warrant describes as the scope of the search. If evidence of another crime, X, is discovered during a lawful search of a computer for evidence in investigation of crime Y, the evidence found is not inadmissible. It's like if the cops have a warrant to come in and search for drugs in your house, and when they look under the bed they find an illegal, unlicensed, unregistered fully automatic rifle. They don't need another warrant to arrest you for the illegal gun, even if they didn't find any drugs and were only supposed to look for drugs.

If the FBI properly got your computer in a kiddie porn probe, and searched it, and on there they found emails sent to you by Donald Trump revealing that he had bribed a Congressman, they wouldn't need another warrant to read those emails to prosecute him for bribery. The evidence is not inadmissible unless the search was illegal and incidentally finding evidence of other crimes by happenstance is not illegal. The additional warrant in the case of Weiner's laptop is the FBI taking the warrant/search issue off the table. If they held back from reading the material before getting a warrant, then Clinton can't even raise the issue, because they had warrant based on probable cause. The best she could do is claim the warrant had insufficient cause, which she is free to make that argument, but probable cause is a very low standard. The metadata provides probable cause here.