No , no its not. When you email sealed documents to a reporter , you are guilty of several felonies
Good gosh. We have spent two years on a Russian/collusion investigation based on (originally) an unsupported dossier or (after that looked ridiculous) on some Russian telling a person that the Russians had some emails with no hint of action based on that statement.
And now we are advised that conservatives presume crimes based on guessing.
Heck, if it was collusion the Russian wouldn’t have had to tell Papa… that they had emails.
Which felonies are those?
If he had leaked that warrant to the press, why wouldn’t they have printed it?
OMFG LOOK at the dates and wonder who the source is LOFL
New york times Oct 30th (next day)
Play Clinton Campaign Pushes Back Hard Against New Probe of Clinton Emails
Clinton Campaign Pushes Back Hard Against New Probe of Clinton Emails 4:14
The FBI obtained a warrant to search emails related to the probe of Hillary Clinton’s private server that were discovered on ex-congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop, law enforcement officials confirmed Sunday.
The warrant came two days after FBI Director James Comey revealed the existence of the emails, which law enforcement sources said were linked to Weiner’s estranged wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The sources said Abedin used the same laptop to send thousands of emails to Clinton.
The FBI already had a warrant to search Weiner’s laptop, but that only applied to evidence of his allegedly illicit communications with an underage girl.
Agents will now compare the latest batch of messages with those that have already been investigated to determine whether any classified information was sent from Clinton’s server.
isnt that probable cause to search struzks gmail account ? How did so many good men follow these slugs down a dark path
This is how a person, who knows he is innocent, should act.
I am sure he will testify and that nothing will come of it. Just because you may not like a person, doesn’t mean you forged evidence. I mean, did This guy make 11 trump campaign associates speak to or elicit information from Russians?
It’s only probable cause to search his gmail account if it’s confirmed that sealed information that he held was leaked to the press.
As for whether leaking documents under a court seal is a felony - it’s not.
A judge could (and likely would) throw you in jail for contempt (and you’d probably be disbarred, if you’re a lawyer), but there’s no federal law against it.
Mueller dismissed him because of people like you who would claim their was a bias…
1 Like
we dont talk about that around here…Makes them look like hypocrites
DEVIN NUNES IS A LEAKER
"We had whistleblowers that came to us in late September of 2016 who talked to us about this laptop sitting up in New York that had additional emails on it. The House Intelligence Committee, we had that, but we couldn’t do anything with it,” Nunes told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham on Thursday.
this will be ignored by them because it doesnt fit into their projections about the FBI being anti trump. This is what makes their arguments so ■■■■■■■ stupid. Because in their world they dont care about the FBI being “weaponized” if it worked in their favor. Thats perfectly legal in their brains.
I hope he does testify. Should make for some good tv.
The new york times published a story that was written the day after struzk forwarded sealed materials to his gmail account. The narrative of the story is clearly written to fluff clinton.
Who demanded that leak?
I’m sure you have the link.
The existence of the warrant was not “sealed”. The affidavit showing the cause for the warrant was.
Was that affidavit leaked?
again from the report Pg. 426
Most troubling, on October 29, 2016, Strzok forwarded from his FBI
account to his personal email account an email about the proposed search warrant
the Midyear team was seeking on the Weiner laptop. This email included a draft of
the search warrant affidavit, which contained information from the Weiner
investigation that appears to have been under seal at the time in the Southern
The new york times story was dated October 30 , 2016
I don’t know why you’re repeating yourself. I read it the first time.
I suggest you read it a little closer.
under seal at the time in the Southern
Yes. The affidavit (which is the document the FBI submitted to the judge to get the warrant - including the evidence to show probable cause) was under seal.
The existence of the warrant was not.
