Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter
Biden

***

  • ***

********


« The absolute farce of modern American politics | Main | The "Comey Effect" - it ain't good »

October 30, 2016

Comments

Very intense movie and I remember it well. Interesting idea which will have no effect on Comey however seeing as he seems to have confused his personal reputation with national interest. I am watching the media pitch the idea that the Clinton campaigns is on the defensive in this matter. As usual they are wrong. The Clinton campaign is on the offense and Comey has provided a beautiful new front on which to fight. He has, in effect, been extremely careless with confidential and possibly classified information. This clearly warrants an investigation.

I do realise that mere evidential facts are of little interest here but even so:

a) The FBI has found *actual* Clinton e-mails on a sex pervert's computer.

b) Allegations that Trump's campaign has colluded with Russia are best described, as you yourself described them, as "widely rumored circumstance".

As far as I know, but perhaps you do things differently 'over there', the FBI does not conduct official investigations into rumours, er, however widely (or wildly) they are put about by political opponents.

And before the stench of humbug becomes too strong here, perhaps you would like to think back to the action of the late Lawrence Walsh who, despite having one injunction against Caspar Weinberger thrown out, issued another on the Friday before the election between Bush and Clinton.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/03/24/lawrence-walsh-and-the-abuse-of-power/

No they haven't dimwit. At the time Comey wrote his letter they did not have a warrant to examine these e-mails and so had no idea what they contain. Still don't apparently. The FBI traditionally does not reveal what they are investigating and often do not reveal who they are investigating. Hence the John Doe warrants that do not name the persons of interest. Now they have. So when the next press conference involving the FBI occurs and they are asked about whether or not an investigation of anything or anyone is active when they say they do not comment on such things they will be lying. They do now.

Alas, Peter, it looks as though 'dimwittedness' has spread to Canada! I never wrote of 'warrants' and my guess is that they are not required because the e-mails appear to have been found on the computer of a pervert under investigation on an entirely different matter.

And Comey was entirely right to inform Congress of the find.

So what you're saying is.....the guys who secretly sold weapons to a declared enemy of the US and used the proceeds to fund a terrorist organization had a reasonable expectation of privacy to go about their business. You're right for once Duffer. I do believe i now detect a stench of humbug.

Cannot someone rid us of this obnoxious English twit??

Well, David, it's interesting that you can't distinguish the "sex pervert" from the wife whose device contained the e-mails in question.

Too much Merlot for lunch, old chap?

All he wants is attention. To expect a mature statement from him would be like expecting a monkey to master linear algebra.

Perhaps you should ask the FBI then. Because according to the FBI they are seeking a warrant to do exactly that and without one they can't. If they had such a warrant it may get take as long as thirty seconds for a computer to scan through any such e-mails and determine if they are already in possession of the FBI. Unfortunately they seem to find it necessary to first emboss them into Braill Sanskrit and send them by pidgeon to Tibetan monks for examination. My guess is that people are going to ask them soon why they can't do what a fourteen year old computer nerd could do.

The problem with crying fire in a crowded theater is that very soon the people standing outside the theater start asking where the fire is and that's going to be the story.

Oh I hope not. He's kind of our right wing nutter mascot. I have spent a lot of time actually seeking out such people at places like Redstate and Townhall and even Infowars. One likes to know what passes for thought on the other side. With the Duffer we have home delivery.

An interesting examination of the warrants question can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conversation-us/in-getting-new-clinton-em_b_12713842.html

No, Peter, that is not what I am saying. The second injunction against Weinberger collapsed as fast as the first.

Ah, but of course, Clinton won the vote - so that's alright then!

Right you aren't David. An injunction requesting a court to intervene in a judicial dispute is exactly not like announcing an investigation. Consult a dictionary.

And the *political* difference is - what exactly?

Since Weinberger was pardoned, isn't it likely that Walsh was actually on to something, unlike the current snipe hunt?

Jest askin'!

Cutting to the heart of the matter, this is why Comey is fucked: actually determining whether the e-mails in question are copies even in any way relate to Clinton is very easy to do. It would take minutes to determine. And if he sits on that information for any length of time there will be no question of his intent to interfere in the electoral process. If his excuse for writing his advisory letter was that he did not wish to conceal its existence then he cannot delay or conceal the results. Now it's true that these are not only ideas or questions that would occur to your average journalist/typist I am putting bugs into ears. By e-mail.

I have no idea whether or not "Walsh was on to something", DA, because my point was that the sight and sound of Democrats swooning because the FBI has announced the re-opening of an investigation into 'HillBilly' just before an election simply indicates the monstrous size of their hypocrisy given that that is exactly what they did.

Similarly, may I point out that if 'HillBilly' really and truly wants the FBI to publish the e-mails, she could do it herself! Er, don't hold your breath!

Well let's see. An injunction is argued before a court, almost always publicly so, and decided by either a single judge or a panel of judges who are either elected from a party or appointed by a party politician. Comey's announcement is exactly not like that. But I find your tacit admission that it is politically motivated refreshing. You usually aren't that honest. Must have been an accident.

Oh dear! You really are hard work, Peter. I will try again.

It isn't the *MEANS* by which the news is released which is important but the fact that it is released at all!

I have no gripe about Weinberger being targeted, I just can't stand the stench of Democrat humbug when more or less the same thing happens to one of them.

So you do believe this investigation announcement was politically motivated! That's awesome. Let's spead the news. I doubt anyone is going to give a rodent's rectum about Weinburger. But I bet they care about this.

There's quite a lot of rulings about on comparable issues in the US and elsewhere in the world. If a hacker, for example, accesses your private information and a law enforcement authority recovers it they absolutely don't have the right to treat that information as if it were obtained by warrant. Good thing too. The only thing a contrary ruling would have produced is government sponsored hacking.

Unfortunately, David, her aides' e-mails may have been on her server at one time, but it's no longer in her custody, so your proposal is impossible for her to carry out.

"I have no idea" should be attached to all your commentaries, Duff, because that's what they are--fact-free speculations based on the likes of NRO.com and the American Stinker.

Unfortunately, that article misses the point by a mile.

Assuming the FBI had the legal authority to seize the computer for purposes of the Weiner investigation, the existence of the Abedin emails (assuming they were addressed to her or by her) would be in "plain view." Meaning, the authorities were in a place they "legally had a right to be" when they discovered them. The contents of the emails, however, wouldn't be in plain view so, yes, they need a warrant to read them. (As an aside, the feds can really overdo things. An acceptable affidavit and warrant can be drafted and taken to a judge or magistrate for signature in about two hours, day or night. Knowing the feds, they will compose something the length of War and Peace, though.)

The simpler solution, though, is to simply ask Abedin for her consent to read them. And as a practical matter, she'd have to say yes. I'm fairly certain Abedin is available for such a request, even if they want it in writing. All of this could have been done (and might actually have been done) Friday evening or Saturday morning. As a political matter, Abedin would give her consent, unless she wants to torpedo Hillary's chances by refusing. And the FBI is going to get to see these things eventually (though they couldn't use a refusal by Abedin as grounds for probable cause). Better they get them now, perhaps with the agreement that they will run duplicate-seeking software as a first step to determine whether these are new emails or simply copies of what they already have.

No, they can ask for Abedin's consent and avoid the warrant requirement entirely. She would have to say yes - the alternative is unthinkable. All of this should have been done no later than last Friday evening. Maybe it was, but no one's saying.

One, she has asked that the FBI do precisely that.

But, two, these are Abedin's emails, not Hillary's. Hillary can't force their disclosure if Abedin objects. But I have seen nothing indicating the FBI has even bothered to ask her.

Let's add a bit to the complexity. There's simply no way the FBI would ever be granted a blanket warrant to read all e-mails sent or received by Clinton as if that were per set something illegal for her to do. They don't get to by pass fundamental rights by saying hey look what we found over here as you say. And they certainly don't get to use guilt by association to deprive anybody else of their rights either. They have been tasked to determine only if anyone has violated security laws regarding government documents. Whether these passed through a server owned by the Clintons is essentially irrelevant. The illegality resides exclusively in knowing you were sending a classified document by means that you knew were insecure. Obviously that can't be a document classified after it was sent the stupidity of duffers notwithstanding.

But no human needs to read them to run a text comparison against a data base of e-mails legally obtained by warrant.

Nope. Abedin can certainly give consent for the FBI to examine her computer but she cannot give consent for them to examine "mail" that does not belong to her. There's lots of precedent on this. The police cannot get access, for example,to the previleged communications of a lawyer by leaning on that lawyer's clerk as part of a completely different investigation. While this is not necessarily a case of solicitor client privilege, it is a case that many of these communications "belong" to other people. That is why they need a warrant. Maybe more than one depending on the origin and destination of the communication. Be thankful this true. The temptation of authorities to use strong arm tactics to defeat the whole concept of warrants would probably be too much to resist.

The Mounties in Canada did this rather famously in the Mayerthorpe incident and for their trouble got four dead Mounties.

This gets better. Check out Harry Reid's letter.

It seems there is a real scandal here. Unfortunately for the Hillary Haters, it is not the stuff of their perverted fantasies. It merely the latest addition to the real scandal. At this point, I would love for Hillary Clinton to be the Queen Harpy of Corruption and High Priestess of Unholy Thuggery. After thirty years of "being leaned on by half wits '(to borrow a line from"The Usual Suspects") there is only so much testosterone fueled misery even the strongest of women can put up with before she's had enough. It's a pity there is no one to investigate the investigators. Every"man" that has made her life a misery the last few decades could use a good gelding, with the limited exception of her husband. She needs him for political purposes, but put him on notice. The next time he fucks up her life, cut him too and put him to pasture with the rest of them.

The comments to this entry are closed.