oldtime dfl_er (5,480 posts)
L.A.-based Holocaust claims lawyer sues FBI over Clinton warrant
E. Randol Schoenberg was confused when he read a New York Times article in the waning days of the presidential election reporting the FBI had obtained a warrant to seize new material in the Hillary Clinton email case.
“I thought, ‘What does that mean?’†he told the Journal. “Normally you have to show probable cause. That’s what it says in the Fourth Amendment.â€
http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/l.a._based_jewish_art_lawyer_sues_fbi_over_clinton_warrant
MADem (134,104 posts)
2. Wow--what he's saying, in essence, is that someone lied to the FBI to make trouble for HRC....
“It’s like somebody’s been to your house and searched ten times and says, ‘Oops, there’s a drawer I missed. Can I go back in?’†Schoenberg said.
The New York Times article was the last time Schoenberg saw mention of a search warrant in the press. So he decided to file a request on Nov. 12 under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to review the warrant. Two days later, the FBI acknowledged receiving his request.
The transparency law allows government agencies twenty days, excluding holidays and weekends, to determine whether it will comply with the request and notify the petitioner. When that time period elapsed, Schoenberg contacted David B. Rankin, a Manhattan-based attorney specializing in FOIA requests, and filed suit in the United States District Court of Southern New York.
In an interview with the Journal, Schoenberg speculated one of two things happened to allow the FBI to obtain a search warrant: Either a lax judge didn’t care enough to scrutinize the warrant application, or “it could be something more nefarious."
Not unlikely, by his estimation, is that somebody provided the FBI allegedly incriminating information that turned out to be untrue.
(emphasis by Proglodyte)
Also not unlikely:
* The FBI requires more than mere hearsay before it will swear to a probable cause affidavit
* The NYT got its story wrong
* Plaintiff is a loon
* so are the rest of you
world wide wally (6,814 posts)
3. I'm glad someone is using his brains
Where?
progressoid (39,169 posts)
4. This is potentially very serious, something that if traced back to Donald Trump...
“This is potentially very serious, something that if traced back to Donald Trump might even lead to impeachment,â€
I'd be surprised if it leads back to Drumpf. At best it will end at one of his lackeys.
Let me see how this is supposed to work.
Trump, realizing he's losing, puts on a fake moustache to disguise his voice then calls up Comey and fabricates a claim from thin air that Hillary is hiding something suspicious in her underwear draw. With no sense of credulity the FBI draws straws to see who will have to go through Hillary's underwear drawer. The agent who draws the short straw then writes up a probable cause affidavit and hands it a judge who, also with no sense of credulity, issues the warrant. The episode is then brought to the attention of the NYT and only the NYT who flawlessly reports every detail in a report nobody ever talked about during the campaign because that's how you derail a candidacy.
Well, by all means, let's turn on the impeachment machine.
madaboutharry (24,166 posts)
7. My money is on Giuliani.
He was crowing about it on tv like he had inside information, information coming from himself.
Yes. That thing no one heard any specifics about is totally what derailed the election.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028341323
