Article

2016-10-30 -Lurid Crime Tales-

Reopened FBI investigation: Copy of FBI letter to congress

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2016-10-30 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 Could it be we're seeing "No man (or woman) is more important than the Party." in play?
(a) Hillary collapses and withdraws - later we get emotional speeches from Chelsea & Bill how their mom & wife were hounded by a combo of vast right wing conspiracy and Putin to the point of collapse.
(b) Kaine - who's cypher, while Trump was demonized for months, wins by a landslide.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2016-10-30 04:28|| 2016-10-30 04:28|| Front Page Top

#2 And now THIS

Posted by Blossom Unains5562 2016-10-30 13:08|| 2016-10-30 13:08|| Front Page Top

#3 The issue is complicated because the computer is considered to belong to Anthony Weiner, her estranged husband, and the case may raise spousal privilege legal protections for Abedin.
Government lawyers hope to secure the warrant to permit investigators to review thousands of emails on a computer Abedin shared with Weiner, officials said.
The new search warrant is needed because the existing authorization, covered by a subpoena, related only to the ongoing investigation of Weiner, who is accused of having sexually explicit communications with an underage girl.

A midnight call: "Anthony. Be smart. Do you want to live? We can make all dis go away.."

Posted by Frank G 2016-10-30 13:55|| 2016-10-30 13:55|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm wondering if it wasn't the FBI that discovered the emails in the first place.

Posted by Pappy 2016-10-30 15:33|| 2016-10-30 15:33|| Front Page Top

#5 Yahoo sez the FBI has known about this latest stuff for weeks.

Posted by Besoeker 2016-10-30 16:29|| 2016-10-30 16:29|| Front Page Top

#6 Spousal privilege? I thought that meant they couldn't force someone to testify verbally against their spouse. I don't think it means everything in sight is off limits, including physical evidence.

Posted by gorb 2016-10-30 16:41|| 2016-10-30 16:41|| Front Page Top

#7 I don't think it means everything in sight is off limits
Doesn't have to mean that, just has to be a usable excuse for what DoJ wants to do.

Posted by Glenmore 2016-10-30 17:09|| 2016-10-30 17:09|| Front Page Top

23:40 trailing wife
23:25 Zenobia Floger6220
22:53 Zenobia Floger6220
22:52 Zenobia Floger6220
22:41 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:40 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:18 phil_b
22:08 phil_b
21:39 Barbara
21:12 anon1
21:08 Bright Pebbles
21:07 anon1
20:45 Shising Lumumba1142
20:43 Whaviter Spaise4662
20:42 Dopey Splat8771
20:42 anon1
20:35 KBK
20:31 trailing wife
20:28 anon1
20:18 jvalentour
20:15 trailing wife
20:13 anon1
19:08 KBK
18:59 gorb