BREAKING: Clinton Email Case Just Reopened!

a reply to: BlueAjah

Well you've loaded your "serious question" about as full as you could but sure, I'll answer.

I would look at the facts regarding my friend. I don't care what the police say (as I don't trust authority.)

I would do the same thing I'm doing in the Clinton Email Situaiton and the Unknown Contents of Weiner's Server that Might Possibly have Something to Do with HIllary Clinton.

I'm looking at the facts.

I've explained before, as you are asking a personal question, that I'm not a "Hillary Supporter." I'm voting for her because I'm voting against Donald Trump. I don't think she's innocent or honest or overly ethical; I think she's a career politician.

So, if you intended that as anything besides a loaded drive-by to further your belief that Clinton is a super-villian ... there you go.

originally posted by: kosmicjack

originally posted by: Gryphon66
weekend.

Instead, Abedin has apparently gone into hiding. To me and probably everyone else, that suggests culpability.

No one knows more than her what happens when you cross the Clintons.

Let me guess ... you're suggesting murder?

Whatever. Beliefs are impregnable to facts.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

They had permission to access the device from Weiner, so they had full access.

They needed a warrant to be able to use the information found in the Clinton case, but they already had permission to access them.

You're mixing timelines and reports. When did they have permission to access the device, and if they did, why were they seeking a warrant?

Permission to access trumps a warrant. A warrant isn't needed if I invite you in.

I believe you're mistaken and/or confused.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, there it is. You use your powers of reasoning to determine that Hillary is just a career politician. I guess you think all politicians are as corrupt, dishonest, and criminal as she is.

That is where many of us differ from you. We use our powers of reason to see that she is a criminal attempting to gain access to the highest position in the land, and considering only the facts that are already out there, she IS a super-villian.

a reply to: Gryphon66

A warrant is needed because the evidence was found in the investigative process of the Weiner case, not the Clinton case.

The warrant was needed in order to use the evidence in the Clinton case.

We have 650K emails, some that hit on a state.gov, and HRC email query... rumors of an insurance file, all on Carlos Danger's laptop.....

Of course you are going to see Harry Reid trying to scream HATCH ACT...

I wouldn't be surprised if the SENATE approved such a move...

Why?

Because there is a lot of folks in the swamp that don't want Weiner's INSURANCE file to surface...

Just keep track of anyone in CONGRESS who backs REID in this effort... and make sure they NEVER EVER represent the people...

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh please.

Let's just pretend we aren't dealing with four people who are rabid with power, morally and ethically bankrupt and each with the goods on each other and everyone else in their universe.

What's to worry about, right?

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh please.

Let's just pretend we aren't dealing with four people who are rabid with power, morally and ethically bankrupt and each with the goods on each other and everyone else in their universe.

What's to worry about, right?

That's not the question I asked.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I've explained before, as you are asking a personal question, that I'm not a "Hillary Supporter."

If you don't support Hillary, why do you follow her on twitter?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Of course it "speaks volumes to you."

Are you saying they illegally accessed information that they're trying to CYA with a warrant now?

Jesus Jones, here you go from Comey's internal statement to the Bureau:

Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.

They don't "have them." If they don't "have them" they must "get them."

And further ...

At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.

Emphasis mine. Source: Washington Post

So, what's it to be VC? Is Comey Lying? Did they illegally access material without a warrant?

Think it through.

Oh brother...I have actually thought it through.

They didn't need a warrant...this came out because of an NYPD investigation into an underage sexting investigation where the electronics in question were already reviewed and because of what was found, were then brought to the FBI.

Comey even stated he was briefed on them. Do you think they walked in and said Hey...Comey...we have a laptop here....then Comey said....A laptop? Well since it is an electronic device and HRC used laptops then this laptop must have some info on it in relation to a case about her....

Comey asked for a warrant specifically to cover his butt and to show that the DoJ was dragging it's feet for HRC...no warrant was needed....he was simply appeasing the DOJ and jumping through the hoops to dot the i's and cross the t's.

He could not have come out in his opening statement with an accusation because he did not have all of the issues investigated at that point.

a reply to: Gryphon66

"I'm looking at the facts".

LOL!!

Thanks for the laugh! You've clogged up thread after thread after thread while blatantly deflecting and ignoring the facts of everything surrounding the Dems, time and time again, for months on end, and suddenly you're "looking at the facts".

Hilarious.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

A warrant is needed because the evidence was found in the discovery process of the Weiner case, not the Clinton case.

The warrant was needed in order to use the evidence in the Clinton case.

You just argued that the FBI could access the emails because Wiener gave them permission. Which is it?

If I tell LEOs they can search my car or my house or my laptop, I'm waiving my Constitutional rights, which is what a warrant overcomes.

Seriously, had this conundrum not occurred to you before now?

a reply to: BlueAjah

Didn't the original investigation stem for the New York PD to investigate Weiner?

If that was the case, then warrants were already approved.

It's when they found other things that they contacted the feds. The feds then needed a second warrant to place anything they found in the proper chain of evidence. Just to keep it legal.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Save your rhetoricals for another time, you are grasping at straws here. We have plucked every single straw from every single man you toss at us.

There is no argument to be made for Hillary at this point.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Gryphon66

"I'm looking at the facts".

LOL!!

Thanks for the laugh! You've clogged up thread after thread after thread while blatantly deflecting and ignoring the facts of everything surrounding the Dems, time and time again, for months on end, and suddenly you're "looking at the facts".

Hilarious.

And all you're doing here, and what you normally do, is make off-topic comments about another poster you don't like.

When's the last time you made a meaningful on-topic post, eh?

Further, and I say this with all decorum I can ... I have absolutely ZERO concern about what you think about me or my posts; they speak for themselves.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If Carlos Danger, surrendered the information, and is cooperating with the investigation...

is a warrant necessary?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BlueAjah

Didn't the original investigation stem for the New York PD to investigate Weiner?

If that was the case, then warrants were already approved.

It's when they found other things that they contacted the feds. The feds then needed a second warrant to place anything they found in the proper chain of evidence. Just to keep it legal.

Exactly.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: queenofswords
This may have already been stated, but just in case it hasn't, Trey Gowdy said today that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin and even Anthony Weiner could hold a press conference tomorrow and tell the public exactly what is on that computer where 650,000 emails were found pertaining to the HRC investigation.

Nothing is keeping them from revealing what that computer holds. Huma? Spit it out. Inquiring minds want to know.

Could we get an update on the Bureau's investigation of Trump ties to Russia, by any chance?

Oh...still waiting on the link to your unfounded claim of the FBI investigating Trump having ties to Russia by the way....feel free to post that link up anytime.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Gryphon66

Save your rhetoricals for another time, you are grasping at straws here. We have plucked every single straw from every single man you toss at us.

There is no argument to be made for Hillary at this point.

LOL ... what strawmen have I tossed again?

Aside from some of my own speculations which I have a right to post just as surely as anyone else here does ... have any of you answered the question I've posted?

How many emails involve Hillary Clinton? ANy of them? All of this hue and cry over 138 pages now, and there are ZERO facts that any of you have brought.

Not to overemphasize the point ... but you still arent' answering the question I put to you.

/shrug

a reply to: ab0vean0n

personally i think gryphon is like those trump supporters who don't say it out loud but come nov 8 will put a mark in his box. maybe not a hillary supporter but defenitely a hillary defender!