3 hours ago, thaihome said:

 

Apparently they got the new search warrant on Sunday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/us/politics/justice-department-warrant-clinton-abedin-fbi.html

 

TH 

 

I heard that Weiner gave up his device so they didn't need a warrant for that. 

10 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

I heard that Weiner gave up his device so they didn't need a warrant for that. 

 

That only relates to the investigation against Weiner. I the investigation against Clinton, to use any evidence obtained from another investigation requires a warrant and a clean unbroken chain of custody. 

 

It looks defective from the outset.

11 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

 

That only relates to the investigation against Weiner. I the investigation against Clinton, to use any evidence obtained from another investigation requires a warrant and a clean unbroken chain of custody. 

 

It looks defective from the outset.

 

Fair enough. But who knows what's on Weiner's device if Uma shared it. Or did he share hers?

44 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

Fair enough. But who knows what's on Weiner's device if Uma shared it. Or did he share hers?

 

This is why in the other thread I detailed how problematic and possibly fatal this entire FBI evidentiary process is. The chain of custody needs to be unbroken to use the evidence. If the chain is that somehow emails got on Weiner's device (no pun intended), but not clearly linked how, then that is a broken chain link to later use that evidence against Clinton. Moreover, those emails have to be authenticated (by Clinton and anyone with security clearance enough to do so and who can provide direct testimony as to the authenticity of the communication - that it is not a fabrication planted by the Russians, Assange, whoever, etc., etc.,) , that they have been perfectly protected, proven untampered with, and proven that the user had authorization to use them. Not only that, the chain has to extend to how they finally ended up in the hands of the FBI. Who in the FBI? For what purpose? For what investigation? Under which authorizing warrant, what is the scope of the warrant, if limited scope, have to get new warrant, etc., etc., It's a maze of problems all leading to inadmissible evidence, or at worst, numerous counts of criminal charges against Comey and his band of merry G-men.

 

None of which of the above convicts Clinton of a crime before the election.

Edited October 31, 20169 yr by keemapoot
add stuff

If elected, Clinton faces awkward coexistence with Comey

 

That coexistence will only last a very short period of time. It should take less than a minute to get her in handcuffs and put her in the back of the squad car.

6 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I wouldn't disagree that it is too late. I have always believed Hilary was going to win. How on earth can you get someone who is absolutely despicable, hated by her own party and get them into the Whitehouse. simple. get an opponent who is as despicable, who can't help himself with his mouth, has as many skeletons in his closet as Clinton and will to the last day continually cause confrontation. So that's how you do it. you get Donald Trump in as her opponent.

 

Gravy opines: "How on earth can you get someone who is absolutely despicable, hated by her own party and get them into the Whitehouse." (?)

 

Not true.  She is not despicable and not hated by her own party.  She is a good person who has spent decades actively promoting women's and children's rights.  If you hate women and children, then perhaps that explains why you might hate HRC.

 

Name one Democrat who hates her, and include a quote.

 

Also, she's been 8 years in the White House already, and knows her way around halls of power.  Trump has spent 40 years bankrupting businesses and grabbing pussies without warning or permission.

There are plenty of indications that Hillary is a nasty, abusive person who occasionally flies into blind rages.  Secret Service, State Department security and others close by have stories. Then there's the unethical behavior...

 

She knows her way around the halls of money, too.  The Clinton Foundation is a complete scam.

Off-topic post and replies removed.

boomerangutang You want a Democrat that hates her, I'm one. Neither "candidate" should have ever been considered for election or appointment to anything in the US. OK, maybe garbage collector but then that is an insult to those that do that job. But regardless. Comey is toast and rightly so. Who got to him?

17 hours ago, Anthony5 said:

 

You think she's good at consulates and embassies?

 

Not sure if Chris Steven's family agree with that.

A new word for your vocabulary:

 

sardonic

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Gravy opines: "How on earth can you get someone who is absolutely despicable, hated by her own party and get them into the Whitehouse." (?)

 

Not true.  She is not despicable and not hated by her own party.  She is a good person who has spent decades actively promoting women's and children's rights.  If you hate women and children, then perhaps that explains why you might hate HRC.

 

Name one Democrat who hates her, and include a quote.

 

Also, she's been 8 years in the White House already, and knows her way around halls of power.  Trump has spent 40 years bankrupting businesses and grabbing pussies without warning or permission.

"

Not true.  She is not despicable and not hated by her own party.  She is a good person who has spent decades actively promoting women's and children's rights.  If you hate women and children, then perhaps that explains why you might hate HRC.

 

Name one Democrat who hates her, and include a quote."

 

ROFLMAO.  

 

Well, I guess you can start here...

Or here...

 

 

You must've been one of those guys in the other link who hated homework.  But FNO, do your own before bloviating here.  Or don't.  We can always use a good laugh.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Not true.  She is not despicable and not hated by her own party.  She is a good person who has spent decades actively promoting women's and children's rights.  If you hate women and children, then perhaps that explains why you might hate HRC.

 

Not fair Boomer. the inference from this is that if you hate Hillary then you also automatically hate women and children. 

4 hours ago, sgtsabai said:

boomerangutang You want a Democrat that hates her, I'm one. Neither "candidate" should have ever been considered for election or appointment to anything in the US. OK, maybe garbage collector but then that is an insult to those that do that job. But regardless. Comey is toast and rightly so. Who got to him?

 

11% of registered voters describe Hillary Clinton as "honest and trustworthy". 11% !!  Presumably some of the 89% who don't find her trustworthy or honest will be Democrats.

Edited October 31, 20169 yr by lannarebirth

12 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

11% of registered voters describe Hillary Clinton as "honest and trustworthy". 11% !!  Presumably some of those will be Democrats.

 

Boomer must be part of that 11% then