Who owns the emails??? Wait a second.....

Weiner got the emails...just like you and I...but he doesnt OWN the content contained in them. If all of us sends email to someone and we thought we were speaking in private...can the receiver give permission for anyone (DOJ-FBI) to look at them? Doesnt the content between the parties belong to original sender?

And to stand up in a court of law...and assuming all parties couldnt, cant, wont be contacted to view them...wouldnt it take a legal search warrant to use the facts found in them, so all the parties involved in a particular email can be held to the content?

Wouldnt permission from all parties be needed? I dont believe he has a legal right to let anyone see what was supposed to be private and affecting all involved...without a search warrant making it all legally obtained?

Once you send those emails out, you relinquish all privacy rights to them.

The 4th Amendment only applies to the physical medium on which the emails reside

a reply to: mysterioustranger

When those emails were subpoenaed but destroyed in the first place...

FBI has the right to them as they were already court ordered.

But it's cute to want them to be private even though law says the government and people have a right to the contents of our employees emails.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

What I think might have happened is the email account was setup on exchange or thunderbird and it has been collecting the emails since it was setup.

I have no idea what the legality is - if you have permission to setup the account do the emails then belong to you if it is your device? Does it matter if Huma set it up, or if Weiner somehow got the authentication info? I don't know.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

I like to think that the United States taxpayer owns them. At least the ones related to the government. I don't want to see Hillary in yoga pants. I would have to take an ice pick too my eyes.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
Weiner got the emails...just like you and I...but he doesnt OWN the content contained in them. If all of us sends email to someone and we thought we were speaking in private...can the receiver give permission for anyone (DOJ-FBI) to look at them? Doesnt the content between the parties belong to original sender?

No. it is well-established in case law that the recipient owns correspondence. That was established during the paper era with letters. By sending a letter you relinquish ownership. That is why, incidentally, Wiener can't do anything about the text messages the 15 yer old published. Of course, that begs the question of whether Wiener is the real "recipient" of the emails, but they were on 'his" (perhaps "our") computer and he had possession.

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: mysterioustranger

I like to think that the United States taxpayer owns them. At least the ones related to the government. I don't want to see Hillary in yoga pants. I would have to take an ice pick too my eyes.

Well yes, I would agree that anything related to the office of secretary of state should be owned by the Government, the question is do any of these emails meet that qualification.

Good lord this is a mess, especially if Hillary gets elected.

a reply to: proximo

How is she going to get anything done for the country if she is always covering her arse.

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: mysterioustranger

I like to think that the United States taxpayer owns them. At least the ones related to the government. I don't want to see Hillary in yoga pants. I would have to take an ice pick too my eyes.

Well yes, I would agree that anything related to the office of secretary of state should be owned by the Government, the question is do any of these emails meet that qualification.

Good lord this is a mess, especially if Hillary gets elected.

Yup, would be the first husband and wife team to both get impeached while they were serving as President...

And yet, I saw on CNN this morning that her supporters in Florida are putting in extra hours canvassing door to door "because Hillary is under attack."

Seriously, what is it going to take to break the trance?

a reply to: semperfortis

Makes sense. Thanks...

a reply to: CriticalStinker

That too, as also explained above by our supermod semperfortis...makes a lot of sense. Thank you!

a reply to: mysterioustranger

If Any of them pertained to National Security Concerns , the Patriot Act would give the NSA Authority over them .

a reply to: proximo

The general thought I had was if I send a mail to a friend....and Im expecting it to be between friends....ok...we KNOW the gov's got their ears on everything anyway...could they demand those emails?

I guess its an apples and oranges thing...they got 'em anyway....NSA n all. But using them and obtaining them with the public's knowledge for criminal prosecution.

I guess that answers my question. Thank you as well...MS

a reply to: schuyler

I can see that. And it makes sense. Appreciate your response....Best

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

As stated above...as long as we dont have to look at her in yoga pants! Bad enough she dresses like Chairman Mao or Kim Sung Fool 2...

a reply to: mobiusmale

If memory serves me...Bill Clinton was not impeached.

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: mysterioustranger

I like to think that the United States taxpayer owns them. At least the ones related to the government. I don't want to see Hillary in yoga pants. I would have to take an ice pick too my eyes.

Well yes, I would agree that anything related to the office of secretary of state should be owned by the Government, the question is do any of these emails meet that qualification.

Good lord this is a mess, especially if Hillary gets elected.

Yup, would be the first husband and wife team to both get impeached while they were serving as President...

And yet, I saw on CNN this morning that her supporters in Florida are putting in extra hours canvassing door to door "because Hillary is under attack."

Seriously, what is it going to take to break the trance?

Scott Adams made an interesting argument- if you vote for Hillary and you know she broke the law, and then she pardons herself doesn't that make you an accessory to the crimes, and to allowing her to get away with doing crime without punishment.

Might be an interesting argument to try on liberals who feel morally superior.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

On that point friend, you are correct. Having a S.C. with Homeland Security myself as well...my emails are under the same rules and regulations and subject to...everything as well if they want them...

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Question is , Who's Side is the NSA on here ? Hmm.....

What might be meaningful is: Are the emails on the computer stored under a specific user account name or email alias. The owner.

After 180 days in the U.S., email messages stored on a third party server lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become just another database record. After this time has passed, a government agency needs only a subpoena—instead of a warrant—in order to access email from a provider.

However, if the emails are stored on a user's personal computer instead of a server, then that would require the police to still obtain a warrant first to seize the contents

Given a warrant was obtained, it might be indicative.