Welcome, Guest

 or  Register
NewsFeed

I am Watching Some Wierd Shit on Youtube...
#21
This is not "the" video. I don't ever want to see it or hear the audio of it. Knowing it exists is almost too much to bear.

This is merely the report of the existence of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZA3F_stoiM
Aquarius, JF Priest, ~mc~  likes this!
Reply Share
#22
(04-15-2018, 01:27 PM)JF Priest Wrote: I will ask the Question.. IF the NYPD has the "Tape"..Saying if the FBI does not arrest Hillary and Huma it will be leaked..Why doesn't the NYPD go and arrest Huma and Hillary themselves?? (Since the evidence is so damning)..

The FBI took the damning evidence away from the NYPD.

Quote:NYPD detectives and a [sic] NYPD Chief, the department’s highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices.

“What’s in the emails is staggering and as a father, it turned my stomach,” the NYPD Chief said. “There is not going to be any Houdini-like escape from what we found. We have copies of everything. We will ship them to Wikileaks or I will personally hold my own press conference if it comes to that.”

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/cr...y-for-life
CatBTX, JF Priest, WNC  likes this!
Reply Share
#23
These guys live again ??



~mc~  likes this!
Reply Share
#24
The NYPD had Weiner's laptop and were investigating a crime. A crime committed by the owner of the laptop.

I think that they did not have jurisdiction to investigate another, possible crime, inadvertently discovered on that laptop.

They trusted James Comey to do the right thing when they turned the laptop over to the FBI.
fromthefuture, JF Priest, WNC  likes this!
Reply Share
#25
(04-15-2018, 01:58 PM)SlowLoris Wrote: The NYPD had Weiner's laptop and were investigating a crime. A crime committed by the owner of the laptop.

I think that they did not have jurisdiction to investigate another, possible crime, inadvertently discovered on that laptop.

They trusted James Comey to do the right thing when they turned the laptop over to the FBI.

If they had a warrant to seize the computer, the warrant should apply to anything on that computer. Unless they knew exactly which folder on the drive they were going to search and listed the folder alone in the warrant, which is highly unlikely, the entire drive is evidence under laws guiding search and seizure. Since the original warrant would have been related to sex crimes, one would assume that would cover any videos and other evidence pointing to others, who might be involved. I don't see how they could ignore this, because it wasn't covered under a warrant. Just like a murder scene. If you get a warrant to search the murderer's home, the warrant would cover evidence that was discovered in that home implicating others in that murder. They would not ignore that evidence simply because the original perp's name is the only one listed on the warrant. They would need to get a new warrant to search co-conspirator's homes, but that original evidence would not be ignored or thrown out in a court of law.
Reply Share
#26
(04-15-2018, 02:09 PM)CatBTX Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 01:58 PM)SlowLoris Wrote: The NYPD had Weiner's laptop and were investigating a crime. A crime committed by the owner of the laptop.

I think that they did not have jurisdiction to investigate another, possible crime, inadvertently discovered on that laptop.

They trusted James Comey to do the right thing when they turned the laptop over to the FBI.

If they had a warrant to seize the computer, the warrant should apply to anything on that computer. Unless they knew exactly which folder on the drive they were going to search and listed the folder alone in the warrant, which is highly unlikely, the entire drive is evidence under laws guiding search and seizure. Since the original warrant would have been related to sex crimes, one would assume that would cover any videos and other evidence pointing to others, who might be involved. I don't see how they could ignore this, because it wasn't covered under a warrant. Just like a murder scene. If you get a warrant to search the murderer's home, the warrant would cover evidence that was discovered in that home implicating others in that murder. They would not ignore that evidence simply because the original perp's name is the only one listed on the warrant. They would need to get a new warrant to search co-conspirator's homes, but that original evidence would not be ignored or thrown out in a court of law.

Fruit of the poisonous tree

Quote:The FBI's New Clinton Email Search Is Likely Illegal Under the Fourth Amendment

By Jeff John Roberts November 1, 2016

The decision by FBI Director James Comey to announce a new probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails just days before the election is under enormous political fire. But as a leading privacy scholar notes, Comey’s move also raises doubts about whether the investigation is legal under the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure.

The privacy issue has emerged because the FBI did not come across the emails in the course of a Clinton investigation, but from an unrelated probe into the underage sexting activities of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner. (One tabloid has since dubbed the matter “Dickileaks.”) In searching his laptop, the FBI says it found 650,000 emails belong to Huma Abedin, who is Weiner’s ex-wife and a long-time Clinton aide.

The problem, from a legal point of view, is that a search warrant isn’t supposed to let law enforcement get access to everything on a computer. Instead, in this case, the FBI should only have been able to retrieve information related to Weiner’s sexting activities. The other evidence should have been off-limits unless a court had given the FBI permission to look for it. It’s as if the police had a warrant to search Weiner’s closet, but then decided to snoop around his bedroom as well.

Yes, the FBI has since gotten a separate warrant to search the Abedin emails, but that doesn’t change the fact the agency likely had no right to come across them in the first place.

As law professor Orin Kerr explained in a widely-read Washington Post article, the so-called “plain view exception”—which can let police seize evidence without a warrant—doesn’t appear to apply in this situation. Kerr’s piece is worth reading in full, but here’s a key paragraph from his argument (my emphasis):

The Fourth Amendment plain view standard doesn’t allow a seizure of emails based on a mere we-hope-to-later-determine standard. The government can’t seize the emails just because the Clinton investigation is extra important and any possible evidence is worth considering. Rather, the Fourth Amendment requires the initial look at the emails to generate “immediate” probable cause that they are evidence of a crime first, before their seizure is permitted and used to get a second warrant.

In other words, even if the FBI did find something incriminating about Clinton in Abedin’s emails, a judge would have to suppress the evidence because it would amount to what legal scholars call “fruit of the poisonous tree.” (As Kerr notes, it would be up to Abedin to make such a request as it is her privacy rights at stake).

http://fortune.com/2016/11/01/fbi-clinton-email/
CatBTX  likes this!
Reply Share
#27
^^^ That having been said^^^^^

If a damning video were to be found on the darkweb, separate from the laptop, and the existence of the video was reported to the proper authorities then it would no longer be fruit from a poisonous tree.
Reply Share
#28
(04-15-2018, 03:51 PM)SlowLoris Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 02:09 PM)CatBTX Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 01:58 PM)SlowLoris Wrote: The NYPD had Weiner's laptop and were investigating a crime. A crime committed by the owner of the laptop.

I think that they did not have jurisdiction to investigate another, possible crime, inadvertently discovered on that laptop.

They trusted James Comey to do the right thing when they turned the laptop over to the FBI.

If they had a warrant to seize the computer, the warrant should apply to anything on that computer. Unless they knew exactly which folder on the drive they were going to search and listed the folder alone in the warrant, which is highly unlikely, the entire drive is evidence under laws guiding search and seizure. Since the original warrant would have been related to sex crimes, one would assume that would cover any videos and other evidence pointing to others, who might be involved. I don't see how they could ignore this, because it wasn't covered under a warrant. Just like a murder scene. If you get a warrant to search the murderer's home, the warrant would cover evidence that was discovered in that home implicating others in that murder. They would not ignore that evidence simply because the original perp's name is the only one listed on the warrant. They would need to get a new warrant to search co-conspirator's homes, but that original evidence would not be ignored or thrown out in a court of law.

Fruit of the poisonous tree

Quote:The FBI's New Clinton Email Search Is Likely Illegal Under the Fourth Amendment

By Jeff John Roberts November 1, 2016

The decision by FBI Director James Comey to announce a new probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails just days before the election is under enormous political fire. But as a leading privacy scholar notes, Comey’s move also raises doubts about whether the investigation is legal under the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure.

The privacy issue has emerged because the FBI did not come across the emails in the course of a Clinton investigation, but from an unrelated probe into the underage sexting activities of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner. (One tabloid has since dubbed the matter “Dickileaks.”) In searching his laptop, the FBI says it found 650,000 emails belong to Huma Abedin, who is Weiner’s ex-wife and a long-time Clinton aide.

The problem, from a legal point of view, is that a search warrant isn’t supposed to let law enforcement get access to everything on a computer. Instead, in this case, the FBI should only have been able to retrieve information related to Weiner’s sexting activities. The other evidence should have been off-limits unless a court had given the FBI permission to look for it. It’s as if the police had a warrant to search Weiner’s closet, but then decided to snoop around his bedroom as well.

Yes, the FBI has since gotten a separate warrant to search the Abedin emails, but that doesn’t change the fact the agency likely had no right to come across them in the first place.

As law professor Orin Kerr explained in a widely-read Washington Post article, the so-called “plain view exception”—which can let police seize evidence without a warrant—doesn’t appear to apply in this situation. Kerr’s piece is worth reading in full, but here’s a key paragraph from his argument (my emphasis):

   The Fourth Amendment plain view standard doesn’t allow a seizure of emails based on a mere we-hope-to-later-determine standard. The government can’t seize the emails just because the Clinton investigation is extra important and any possible evidence is worth considering. Rather, the Fourth Amendment requires the initial look at the emails to generate “immediate” probable cause that they are evidence of a crime first, before their seizure is permitted and used to get a second warrant.

In other words, even if the FBI did find something incriminating about Clinton in Abedin’s emails, a judge would have to suppress the evidence because it would amount to what legal scholars call “fruit of the poisonous tree.” (As Kerr notes, it would be up to Abedin to make such a request as it is her privacy rights at stake).

http://fortune.com/2016/11/01/fbi-clinton-email/

Isn't it funny how they'll use Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, when it suits them politically? (Referring to the Russian collusion investigation, of course.) If the warrant was related to sex crimes, all evidence found on that computer related to sex crimes should be covered in the warrant...even if it implicates another person.
Reply Share
#29
(04-15-2018, 03:54 PM)SlowLoris Wrote: ^^^ That having been said^^^^^

If a damning video were to be found on the darkweb, separate from the laptop, and the existence of the video was reported to the proper authorities then it would no longer be fruit from a poisonous tree.

" Found Footage " it would become . Good observation Loris .
Celebrating 25 Years as a Designated " Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
DaJavoo, SlowLoris, WNC  likes this!
Reply Share
#30
Release the video and let's get it on with these evil bastards and any minion wannabe evil bastard that gets in our way
[Image: DYDe_Svk_VMAAMVb_P.jpg]
Reply Share

Post Thread  Back To Forum
[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Please select the number: 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10