Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Fasc]

It doesn't matter if the President wasn't aware that her e-mail wasn't a state.gov address, because you're not supposed to send classified info over e-mail anyway.

Endus, this is blatantly false information. You can send classified information over any secured channels approved of by superior officers who have prevailing authority over that information. Just... ugh. You act like no one in the military ever sends anything via email (hint: we're all given secret clearance at a minimum and even BASIC training ops are considered sensitive). I get you're crusading right now pretty hard but don't add blatant lies to the equation.

/sigh

[Moggie]

Would be interesting if, after an investigation Comey was found to violate the Hatch Act.

[Fasc]

Why do you bother replying to me? Clearly you don't read my posts. Relevant to an investigation.

And it appears that they can get a subpoena to search an entire computer to find what they want.

Oh I missed this gem by Endus...

I guess if I keep all my kiddie porn in the folder "Cute Cat Pictures" and simply keep my "Kiddie Porn" folder empty, I'll always be able to keep ahead of the law since they'll NEEEEVER be able to guess which folder my stuff is actually in.../snicker

Endus, buddy, you really need to look at the actual laws instead of going off what you think/feel is the correct situation.

[Merkava]

Endus is entirely correct, you cannot get a subpoena for all emails relevant to an investigation. You have to get subpoenas for specific things, as you pointed out, like a computer. Or a house. Subpoenas have to be specific, sometimes excruciatingly specific (there is case law where a suspects house was named in the subpoena, but not the garage, and since it was a detached garage, it didn't count, and the evidence found was thrown out).
.

You're saying you can't issue a subpoena for electronic documents?

[Fasc]

Would be interesting if, after an investigation Comey was found to violate the Hatch Act.

And by interesting you mean nonsensical unless the current story brings up absolutely NOTHING and they can prove that he wasn't merely being negligent but willfully trying to sway public opinion. That an investigation is ongoing and possible and also happens to impeach Hillary's character and fitness as a President are coincidental and unfortunate until they can prove otherwise.

But then again if Hillary makes President, I'd be more surprised of this happening over him "found alone in his home, apparently the victim of suicide"

[DeadmanWalking]

Don't know about everyone else, but my opinion on Comey:

Was just a guy doing his job. There wasn't enough evidence to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt, so he did the best he could and chastised her.

Instantly he lost all support and confidence from the right.

Now he's buttmad about his career being destroyed over nothing and giving one last fuck you to Clinton on his way out since it was her case that ruined him.

He didnt chastise her, he was covering his own ass. If it turns out he has evidence that could of stopped her presidency the Rep Congress would have his ass even if it took until weeks after the election to find them. If not, then the FBI just made some really bad press for her that could of changed the outcome of the election. The only good news is that early voting started before he announced by several days.

[RobertoCarlos]

Don't know about everyone else, but my opinion on Comey:

Was just a guy doing his job. There wasn't enough evidence to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt, so he did the best he could and chastised her.

Instantly he lost all support and confidence from the right.

Now he's buttmad about his career being destroyed over nothing and giving one last fuck you to Clinton on his way out since it was her case that ruined him.

I agree hes just trying to do his job and I think he got caught up in this political train wreck. And if anything this shows how political members can have involvement/sway with an agency like the FBI. Doesn't fill you with confidence.

[Fasc]

You're saying you can't issue a subpoena for electronic documents?

You can.

"We need his computer as it likely contains documents proving evidence of public nuisance."
"Oh look we found all kinds of other nasty things too like child pornography and we're still charging you so... have fun in jail pedo!"

Much like the subpoena to search a home allows you to basically bring up ANYTHING you find in that home, the computer is fine as well. Remote accessing emails without needing a physical device is where it gets trickier as you're accessing accounts for specific items, like peering through an open window but never going in to look around. This isn't that case.

PS - Oh and the detached garage thing was due to the wording of the subpoena discussing a specific aspect of the property without actually constituting the ENTIRE land which would have been granted by the judge. Bad lawyering is all that happened there.

[cubby]

You're saying you can't issue a subpoena for electronic documents?

No, I'm not. I'm saying you have to be specific about which electronic documents you're after. "All emails relevant to an investigation" isn't specific enough - you have to say Person A used this computer, and their actions are relevant to the investigation, so I want a subpoena for all emails and documents on this computer from that person. Or if it was Person A's computer, then the entire computer could be under subpoena, regardless of what is found. And that info found on Person A's computer, regardless of relevancy, can lead to other investigations/subpoenas, related or not to the original subpoena.

This is how subpoenaing Weiner's computer got Hillary's emails.

[Merkava]

You can.

"We need his computer as it likely contains documents proving evidence of public nuisance."
"Oh look we found all kinds of other nasty things too like child pornography and we're still charging you so... have fun in jail pedo!"

Much like the subpoena to search a home allows you to basically bring up ANYTHING you find in that home, the computer is fine as well. Remote accessing emails without needing a physical device is where it gets trickier as you're accessing accounts for specific items, like peering through an open window but never going in to look around. This isn't that case.

PS - Oh and the detached garage thing was due to the wording of the subpoena discussing a specific aspect of the property without actually constituting the ENTIRE land which would have been granted by the judge. Bad lawyering is all that happened there.

Of course you can. I know that. I was just trying to figure out what Cubby was trying to say.

[Endus]

Endus, this is blatantly false information. You can send classified information over any secured channels approved of by superior officers who have prevailing authority over that information. Just... ugh. You act like no one in the military ever sends anything via email (hint: we're all given secret clearance at a minimum and even BASIC training ops are considered sensitive). I get you're crusading right now pretty hard but don't add blatant lies to the equation.

/sigh

E-mail isn't a secure channel. That's sort of the entire point of the FBI investigation. I've held both Classified and Secret level clearances up here in the Canadian government; classified material was never to be discussed over e-mail.

If e-mail were a secured channel that was approved for handling classified intel, the investigation would have turned up nothing at all; the only thing they uncovered that was an issue was some classified material that, by virtue of this being e-mail, was not allowed to be transmitted through that medium.

[cubby]

Much like the subpoena to search a home allows you to basically bring up ANYTHING you find in that home, the computer is fine as well. Remote accessing emails without needing a physical device is where it gets trickier as you're accessing accounts for specific items, like peering through an open window but never going in to look around. This isn't that case.

And subpoena's can also be very limiting in nature - such as search a home looking only for firearms related material. But then you get into Sticky Land when that search, such as looking at a gun safe, reveals other, unrelated information/evidence.

Subpoena's can be very broad or very narrow, they are fickle beasts. But they have to be specific, even if broad, if that makes sense.

[Merkava]

No, I'm not. I'm saying you have to be specific about which electronic documents you're after. "All emails relevant to an investigation" isn't specific enough - you have to say Person A used this computer, and their actions are relevant to the investigation, so I want a subpoena for all emails and documents on this computer from that person. Or if it was Person A's computer, then the entire computer could be under subpoena, regardless of what is found. And that info found on Person A's computer, regardless of relevancy, can lead to other investigations/subpoenas, related or not to the original subpoena.

This is how subpoenaing Weiner's computer got Hillary's emails.

Of course you have to be specific. The information has to be relevant to your investigation. If the FBI is investigating someone for selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese, they can obtain a subpoena for documents relevant to their investigation. They say, we're looking for anything involving nuclear information that might have been sent to anyone working for the Chinese government. The judge, or a GJ says ok, they seize the computer, and start digging.

Endus said you can't issue a subpoena for "the entire contents of a hard drive." My response to him was that that you can get a subpoena for the documents relevant to your investigation and then seize the drive and look for what you want. You don't have to subpoena documents and then trust that the person under the subpoena turn over everything on their own.

Edit - I see the confusion. Me and Endus began by speaking in generatlities, here

Subpoenas are specific. You can't get a subpoena for, say, "the entire contents of your hard drive". You need to specify what documents you want, specifically, and you need to have demonstrated to the judge how those particular documents apply to the case. So you'd have to ask for, say, "e-mails sent to or from Secretary Clinton between date X and date Y", or something. Everything not listed under the subpoena remains private and isn't going to become part of evidence.

and my reply here

Couldn't they issue a subpoena for relevant documents, and then copy the contents of the hard drive in question for analysis?

Then you'll see that I continued by asking again if

a subpoena be issued for all emails related to an investigation

, still speaking in general, and then Endus changed my statement and put quotes around it here

No, a subpoena can't be issued for "all emails related to [this] investigation". You need to specify exactly what subjects those e-mails are regarding, and you need to be able to convince the judge that those particular subjects are relevant to the case.

[cubby]

Of course you have to be specific. The information has to be relevant to your investigation. If the FBI is investigating someone for selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese, they can obtain a subpoena for documents relevant to their investigation. They say, we're looking for anything involving nuclear information that might have been sent to anyone working for the Chinese government. The judge, or a GJ says ok, they seize the computer, and start digging.

Just to be clear, the subpoena(s) would have to specify where they were looking for those documents. The subpoena couldn't just say what I bolded, it would have to include more detail, but I think you are saying that already, I just wanted to be clear.

Endus said you can't issue a subpoena for "the entire contents of a hard drive." My response to him was that that you can get a subpoena for the documents relevant to your investigation and then seize the drive and look for what you want. You don't have to subpoena documents and then trust that the person under the subpoena turn over everything on their own.

You're right, but you have to link the computer to the investigation - i.e. we think this guy is committing a crime, we have probable cause, so we're getting a subpoena for his entire computer, because we think there are documents/emails/whatever relevant to the case. You can't just get a subpoena for the documents relevant to your investigation and then go after anything you want, you have to get specific subpoenas for each thing you're wanting to search within the guise of that investigation. But again, I think that's exactly what you are meaning to say, so forgive my nitpicking.

I know, I'm the one being a semantic freak this time, the irony is not lost. But the law is all about semantics and wording. Misplaced comas have lost cases before.

[Merkava]

Just to be clear, the subpoena(s) would have to specify where they were looking for those documents. The subpoena couldn't just say what I bolded, it would have to include more detail, but I think you are saying that already, I just wanted to be clear.




You're right, but you have to link the computer to the investigation - i.e. we think this guy is committing a crime, we have probable cause, so we're getting a subpoena for his entire computer, because we think there are documents/emails/whatever relevant to the case. You can't just get a subpoena for the documents relevant to your investigation and then go after anything you want, you have to get specific subpoenas for each thing you're wanting to search within the guise of that investigation. But again, I think that's exactly what you are meaning to say, so forgive my nitpicking.

I know, I'm the one being a semantic freak this time, the irony is not lost. But the law is all about semantics and wording. Misplaced comas have lost cases before.

I understand. You can't issue a subpoena with generalized wording simply saying give me what I think I need. Of course. That would kind of defeat the purpose for a subpoena.

You're not being a semantic freak at all. My main point to Endus, was that if they wanted emails from someone regarding subject "X", they don't have to wait around for the person to produce them. They would grab the computer, or whatever storage medium they thought contained the information they needed and dig through it.

I really think a lot of these disagreements would never come up if we were all sitting at a table together. Someone would say something, someone else would attempt to clarify it, and you would immediately recognize that your point was misunderstood and you could seamlessly shift the flow of the conversation back. Here, it can be a little hard because 3 or 4 posts can go by, and you realize that your point was misunderstood, and the conversation has already gone in one direction and others have joined in.


@Endus, apologies to you for my previous snarky reply. I really think we were just talking about different things.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

O'keefe plans to release another tape: https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/s...07399097708544

Assange has Hillary 33,000 missing emails and his swears this will end Hillary campaign for sure this time guise. I have really big doubts about that one but we'll have to wait and see. He has been leaking stuff non stop and trying to play the leaks up which is something he does before disappointing people. His previous leaks were suppose to kill Hillary's campaign but he just kept downgrading the language over time from campaigning ending to significant.

I think O'keefe tapes will hurt Hillary polling but wiki leaks has been disappointing so far. John Podesta emails turned out to just be red meat for people who already hated Hillary.

[Endus]

Just to be clear, the subpoena(s) would have to specify where they were looking for those documents. The subpoena couldn't just say what I bolded, it would have to include more detail, but I think you are saying that already, I just wanted to be clear.




You're right, but you have to link the computer to the investigation - i.e. we think this guy is committing a crime, we have probable cause, so we're getting a subpoena for his entire computer, because we think there are documents/emails/whatever relevant to the case. You can't just get a subpoena for the documents relevant to your investigation and then go after anything you want, you have to get specific subpoenas for each thing you're wanting to search within the guise of that investigation. But again, I think that's exactly what you are meaning to say, so forgive my nitpicking.

I know, I'm the one being a semantic freak this time, the irony is not lost. But the law is all about semantics and wording. Misplaced comas have lost cases before.

Just as a for-instance, if we were talking about search warrants rather than subpoenas, if the cops had strong evidence that Billy was a drug dealer and dealt out of his house, they could, in theory, get a warrant to search his entire house; it would be expected that the drugs would be hidden, and without prior knowledge of where, they'd need to search the whole place. But if Billy was a mob accountant rather than a drug dealer, and you knew his mob files were all in the locked filing cabinet in his office, the judge would almost certainly restrict that warrant to that filing cabinet, MAYBE that office, not his whole house. You haven't established any cause to look through his kitchen and so forth; you know where the files would be found, if they're to be found at all.

Subpoenas are even more restrictive than search warrants, generally. If a lawyer's firm is subpoenaed about information regarding a client, they will ONLY be required to hand over information about that ONE client, not anything regarding their other clients. You can't extend that subpoena to cover other stuff they might have; you need to know at least what type of information you're looking for; a subpoena isn't a "we want to see if we can find anything" request, it's a "we have reason to believe there's information regarding X in there" request. You're more likely to get a search warrant for an entire computer than a subpoena; if a hacker's hidden info on his PC, you can get a warrant to search the whole thing, but if he's willing to play ball if obliged, you can subpoena the specific info and he'll hand over just that. A subpoena is not a search warrant, basically.

[cubby]

I understand. You can't issue a subpoena with generalized wording simply saying give me what I think I need. Of course. That would kind of defeat the purpose for a subpoena.

You're not being a semantic freak at all. My main point to Endus, was that if they wanted emails from someone regarding subject "X", they don't have to wait around for the person to produce them. They would grab the computer, or whatever storage medium they thought contained the information they needed and dig through it.

I really think a lot of these disagreements would never come up if we were all sitting at a table together. Someone would say something, someone else would attempt to clarify it, and you would immediately recognize that your point was misunderstood and you could seamlessly shift the flow of the conversation back. Here, it can be a little hard because 3 or 4 posts can go by, and you realize that your point was misunderstood, and the conversation has already gone in one direction and others have joined in.

I've never agreed with you more than I do now - especially the last part. The irony of the interwebs and forums is that written communication is one of the worst - and yet we rely on it so much.

You and I have been at each other's throats off and on for awhile, but I bet in your table scenario, we'd have either cleared it up almost immediately or had a really interesting discussion about what we do actually disagree on.

[Endus]

You're not being a semantic freak at all. My main point to Endus, was that if they wanted emails from someone regarding subject "X", they don't have to wait around for the person to produce them. They would grab the computer, or whatever storage medium they thought contained the information they needed and dig through it.

And that would be a search warrant, not a subpoena. Subpoenas require their target to produce certain evidence or testimony on request, they aren't about searching for that evidence against their will.

Yes, I'm being picky, because when it comes to the law, you can't use these kinds of labels interchangeably; they're very different things.

And before anyone points at the post of mine before this, where I used search warrants as an analogy, that was getting at some of these differences, I was explicitly not trying to equate the two; analogies are always between things that are different, because if they're the same, it's a tautology, not an analogy.

[Merkava]

I've never agreed with you more than I do now - especially the last part. The irony of the interwebs and forums is that written communication is one of the worst - and yet we rely on it so much.

You and I have been at each other's throats off and on for awhile, but I bet in your table scenario, we'd have either cleared it up almost immediately or had a really interesting discussion about what we do actually disagree on.

And I really think that if we were sitting face to face, the vast majority of us would realize that we have far much more in common than we have to disagree about. Thanks for understanding that. It means a lot to me.