View Full Version : Attorney who sued to release FBI's Clinton warrant says it shows no probable cause
Cigar
12-20-2016, 04:40 PM
https://jkfinancialinc.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/gomer-pyle-surprise.jpg (https://street-cents.com/2011/04/21/surprise-surprise-earnings-strong-so-far-tomorrow-markets-closed/)
California defense attorney E. Randal Schoenberg, who successfully sued to have a search warrant for Hillary Clinton’s emails released, said on Tuesday that the order did not meet the standard of probable cause.
The warrant which was unsealed on Tuesday suggests that federal magistrate Kevin Fox in Manhattan granted the Oct. 30 warrant to search Anthony Weiner’s laptop “based exclusively on the FBI’s contention” that it may have contained classified emails exchanged between Clinton and Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, according to Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/clinton-email-investigation-search-warrant-released-232852).
Schoenberg wrote on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154232284756270&set=a.37856836269.52112.718391269&type=3) that he was “appalled” after seeing the warrant because the FBI had presented “nothing at all” that amounted to probable cause.
“You will have to ask Judge Fox, or the agent in charge (whose name has been redacted), or Director Comey, why they thought they might find evidence of a crime, why they felt it necessary to inform Congress, and why they even sought this search warrant,” Schoenberg said.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/i-am-appalled-attorney-who-sued-to-release-fbis-clinton-warrant-says-it-shows-no-probable-cause/
Grizz
12-20-2016, 04:41 PM
The Defense Attorney?
What the hell is he supposed to say, lol.
WoW .. he sure got to the bottom of THAT one!! :laugh:
hanger4
12-20-2016, 05:00 PM
WoW .. he sure got to the bottom of THAT one!! :laugh:
Actually no he didn't, the lawyer, he's manufacturing 'fake news'.
"Given the information indicating [the presence of] thousands of . . . emails located on the Subject Laptop — including . . . the regular correspondence between (redacted) and [Hillary] Clinton, there is probable cause that Subject Laptop contains correspondence between (redacted) and Clinton (lengthy redaction).”
Paragraph 26 continues, part:
Because it has been determined . . . that many emails were exchanged . . . [with various redacted names and accounts] and Clinton that contained that contained classified information, there is also probable cause to believe the correspondence between them located on the Subject Laptop contains classified information . . . produced . . . and owned by the U.S. Government. [A laptop not authorized to contain classified information]."
"In essence, the FBI Agent is telling the court that they found thousands of emails on a laptop (“Subject Laptop”) that the media has reported belonged to Anthony Weiner. Further, those emails evidently showed regular correspondence between someone (reportedly Huma Abedin) and Clinton. Additionally, the FBI Agent seemed to be concerned that some of the emails contained classified information — based on the evidence revealed by Comey earlier this summer — and with the fact that the Subject Laptop was not authorized to store classified material. Therefore, the Agent argued a search warrant of the Subject Laptop was justified to further investigate the substance of the Clinton emails."
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-search-warrant-unsealed-that-was-used-to-obtain-clinton-emails-during-weiner-probe/
Actually no he didn't, the lawyer, he's manufacturing 'fake news'.
"Given the information indicating [the presence of] thousands of . . . emails located on the Subject Laptop — including . . . the regular correspondence between (redacted) and [Hillary] Clinton, there is probable cause that Subject Laptop contains correspondence between (redacted) and Clinton (lengthy redaction).”
Paragraph 26 continues, part:
Because it has been determined . . . that many emails were exchanged . . . [with various redacted names and accounts] and Clinton that contained that contained classified information, there is also probable cause to believe the correspondence between them located on the Subject Laptop contains classified information . . . produced . . . and owned by the U.S. Government. [A laptop not authorized to contain classified information]."
"In essence, the FBI Agent is telling the court that they found thousands of emails on a laptop (“Subject Laptop”) that the media has reported belonged to Anthony Weiner. Further, those emails evidently showed regular correspondence between someone (reportedly Huma Abedin) and Clinton. Additionally, the FBI Agent seemed to be concerned that some of the emails contained classified information — based on the evidence revealed by Comey earlier this summer — and with the fact that the Subject Laptop was not authorized to store classified material. Therefore, the Agent argued a search warrant of the Subject Laptop was justified to further investigate the substance of the Clinton emails."
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-search-warrant-unsealed-that-was-used-to-obtain-clinton-emails-during-weiner-probe/
Yes, all that awesome evidence and Russian hacking won you the WH.
Congrats and enjoy!
hanger4
12-20-2016, 05:22 PM
Yes, all that awesome evidence and Russian hacking won you the WH.
Congrats and enjoy!
Hillary's incompetence handling classified information notwithstanding, what smoking gun did the Russians (supposedly) hack and release that harmed her Bo-4 ??
Hillary's incompetence handling classified information notwithstanding, what smoking gun did the Russians (supposedly) hack and release that harmed her ??
You're kidding i hope.
DNC/Podesta emails .. drippety drip.
Stick with the 400 pound dude on a bed in Mama's basement meme combined with abject denial.
Works better ;-)
hanger4
12-20-2016, 05:32 PM
You're kidding i hope.
DNC/Podesta emails .. drippety drip.
Stick with the 400 pound dude on a bed in Mama's basement meme combined with abject denial.
Works better ;-)
Why would I be kidding, I asked you a simple and direct question, What did the Russians hack and release that harmed Hillary ??
I would assume it's an easy question, after all you and scores of others claim the ruskies handed the election to Trump, so what was handed ??
MisterVeritis
12-20-2016, 05:33 PM
You're kidding i hope.
DNC/Podesta emails .. drippety drip.
Stick with the 400 pound dude on a bed in Mama's basement meme combined with abject denial.
Works better ;-)
Who went on record? When did the CIA and NSA brief the Congress?
Why would I be kidding, I asked you a simple and direct question, What did the Russians hack and release that harmed Hillary ??
I would assume it's an easy question, after all you and scores of others claim the ruskies handed the election to Trump, so what was handed ??
I'm going to have to man-nore that question (which i already answered) as all real men should.
Who went on record? When did the CIA and NSA brief the Congress?
Coming soon and you will be SO sad when the report(s) entirely delegitimize your new Fuhrer.
MisterVeritis
12-20-2016, 05:37 PM
Who went on record? When did the CIA and NSA brief the Congress?
Coming soon and you will be SO sad when the report(s) entirely delegitimize your new Fuhrer.
In other words, no one went on the record. And no one briefed the Congress.
German men need to drag Merkel out into the streets and beat her. Then they need to rampage through Germany, cleansing the nation of its male Muslims
SHHHH!!
You are probably in line for a plum Trumpf appointment as Ambassador to Germany!
:rofl:
hanger4
12-20-2016, 05:46 PM
I'm going to have to man-nore that question (which i already answered) as all real men should.
You answered nothing Bo-4 you did your usual two-step plus a bit of snark and claimed it as an answer.
What did the ruskies release that harmed Hillary Bo-4 ??
You answered nothing @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297) you did your usual two-step plus a bit of snark and claimed it as an answer.
What did the ruskies release that harmed Hillary @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297) ??
I answered your many questions .. now shoosh!! :)
MisterVeritis
12-20-2016, 06:02 PM
SHHHH!!
You are probably in line for a plum Trumpf appointment as Ambassador to Germany!
:rofl:
I can neither confirm nor deny...
hanger4
12-20-2016, 06:02 PM
I answered your many questions .. now shoosh!! :)
I've only asked one and you have yet to answer three times now Bo-4 I can only assume you have no idea and you're just parroting talking points without thinking them through.
I've only asked one and you have yet to answer three times now @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297) I can only assume you have no idea and you're just parroting talking points without thinking them through.
You're kidding ... RIGHT?
DNC/Podesta emails .. drippety drip.
I can neither confirm nor deny...
LoLz!! :cool:
hanger4
12-20-2016, 06:14 PM
You're kidding ... RIGHT?
DNC/Podesta emails .. drippety drip.
What was released Bo-4 ?? What were the puffing gun/s ??
Bob the Slob
12-20-2016, 06:15 PM
https://jkfinancialinc.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/gomer-pyle-surprise.jpg (https://street-cents.com/2011/04/21/surprise-surprise-earnings-strong-so-far-tomorrow-markets-closed/)
California defense attorney E. Randal Schoenberg, who successfully sued to have a search warrant for Hillary Clinton’s emails released, said on Tuesday that the order did not meet the standard of probable cause.
The warrant which was unsealed on Tuesday suggests that federal magistrate Kevin Fox in Manhattan granted the Oct. 30 warrant to search Anthony Weiner’s laptop “based exclusively on the FBI’s contention” that it may have contained classified emails exchanged between Clinton and Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, according to Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/clinton-email-investigation-search-warrant-released-232852).
Schoenberg wrote on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154232284756270&set=a.37856836269.52112.718391269&type=3) that he was “appalled” after seeing the warrant because the FBI had presented “nothing at all” that amounted to probable cause.
“You will have to ask Judge Fox, or the agent in charge (whose name has been redacted), or Director Comey, why they thought they might find evidence of a crime, why they felt it necessary to inform Congress, and why they even sought this search warrant,” Schoenberg said.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/i-am-appalled-attorney-who-sued-to-release-fbis-clinton-warrant-says-it-shows-no-probable-cause/
And? I don't know that there is nothing wrong doing about the emails...who can you trust with regard to info on Clinton?
What was released @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297) ?? What were the puffing gun/s ??
Me no more play hang dude .. must get into shower and out for my sushi delivery.
You're welcome to come over and after eating ... we finish convo ;-)
hanger4
12-20-2016, 06:23 PM
Me no more play hang dude .. must get into shower and out for my sushi delivery.
You're welcome to come over and after eating ... we finish convo ;-)
I'll be here Bo-4 and to make things easier for you I'll proceed in a different direction, What did the ruskies hack/release that was untrue ??
I'll be here @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297) and to make things easier for you I'll proceed in a different direction, What did the ruskies hack/release that was untrue ??
Again not the point. To suggest that it's okay for a hostile foreign country to meddle in our elections as long as what they leak is true, is chillingly mistaken.
Makes it even more unacceptable when they clearly had a finger on the scale for one candidate over another.
Ravens Fan
12-21-2016, 08:57 AM
Again not the point. To suggest that it's okay for a hostile foreign country to meddle in our elections as long as what they leak is true, is chillingly mistaken.
Makes it even more unacceptable when they clearly had a finger on the scale for one candidate over another.
But how did they meddle? How did they put a finger on the scale? Assange has already said that his sources were not Russian, And he hasn't lied to us yet...
In other words, where's the beef?
hanger4
12-21-2016, 09:00 AM
Again not the point. To suggest that it's okay for a hostile foreign country to meddle in our elections as long as what they leak is true, is chillingly mistaken.
Makes it even more unacceptable when they clearly had a finger on the scale for one candidate over another.
Moved to this thread Bo-4
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/75349-Russian-Interference
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.