Clinton emails....yep....again....FBI Vault

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
So....FBI Vault just released this today. It is a document between the NY police and the FBI....I am guessing it was to Comey....but has been redacted.

Now...it talks about 340K emails that were on the computer. That is a LOT of emails. But the one part that caught my attention was this paragraph:

So whomever this is states a "significant number" of the emails are between Hillary and Huma. They then go on to say something really odd....the talk about these emails between them and specifically Hillary using multiple email addresses.

Sure...we all know she had multiples, but why would an investigator be giving a heads up to the FBI on this case, and specifically that Hillary used multiple email addresses?

Whole thing stinks of cover up.

Link to 2 page release below:

FBI Vault

I think it's really strange you would just look at a header and move on. So they looked at to who and subject? Would I REALLY put "Fake Trump Tapes" in the subject???? To me that seemed the strangest thing to me.

I believe it's because they had a specific warrant based on a search of Weiner's laptop for CP. The backed up Hillary emails weren't meant to be on there and would not have formed part of the investigation, and therefore would not have been part of the warrant.

But I'll bet anything that the investigators read as many Hillary emails as possible in the time they had, and made copies of their own. They would have been criminally stupid not to!

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
So....FBI Vault just released this today. It is a document between the NY police and the FBI....I am guessing it was to Comey....but has been redacted.

Now...it talks about 340K emails that were on the computer. That is a LOT of emails. But the one part that caught my attention was this paragraph:

So whomever this is states a "significant number" of the emails are between Hillary and Huma. They then go on to say something really odd....the talk about these emails between them and specifically Hillary using multiple email addresses.

Sure...we all know she had multiples, but why would an investigator be giving a heads up to the FBI on this case, and specifically that Hillary used multiple email addresses?

Whole thing stinks of cover up.

Link to 2 page release below:

FBI Vault

I think it's really strange you would just look at a header and move on. So they looked at to who and subject? Would I REALLY put "Fake Trump Tapes" in the subject???? To me that seemed the strangest thing to me.

I believe it's because they had a specific warrant based on a search of Weiner's laptop for CP. The backed up Hillary emails weren't meant to be on there and would not have formed part of the investigation, and therefore would not have been part of the warrant.

But I'll bet anything that the investigators read as many Hillary emails as possible in the time they had, and made copies of their own. They would have been criminally stupid not to!

I'd bet they read every single one.

What I am curious about is the timing. Did they read them and find something that led them to tip off the FBI?

Why would they specifically say a "significant amount" of emails? Out of 340k emails, would 33k be a significant amount? Would 120k? 240k?

I mean "significant" to me is a massive warning. They are basically telling them that there are more than 33k emails from Hillary on there....and on top of it state multiple different email addresses.....again....knew it and tipped the FBI off.

Anyone heard anything about Huma and Weiner actually getting divorced? Anyone? She is sticking with a convicted pedo?

Or is it for husband wife privilege?

Anywho.....this is a interesting release to me.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Spouses can't be compelled to testify against one another.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Spouses can't be compelled to testify against one another.

It is a very beneficial law for those with a political understanding....as well as MSM.

Latest was the Ohr's....

The Abedin/Weiner thing hasn't popped up in a while and this doc got me wondering.

The last I can find is that they decided to settle out of court, but no divorce....is that all "optics"?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Spouses can't be compelled to testify against one another.

I've explained this point to people many times over the years too, but I've recently read about circumstances where it might not necessarily apply. Someone else on here might recall the details...

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Spouses can't be compelled to testify against one another.

I've explained this point to people many times over the years too, but I've recently read about circumstances where it might not necessarily apply. Someone else on here might recall the details...

Can you link to something? I'd like to read about whatever circumstances that may nullify this and the particular states it applies to.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
If the emails involve child pornography and Hillary Clinton was involved. The Democratic Party is going to go down in flames .


If I remember right isn’t this the allegations the NYPD made?

Yep....that was the claim when the laptop first came up.

I haven't heard about it since....kinda odd.

My guess is because they were all on the same computer they were able to claim Federal rights over it.

I believe I remember hearing it was turned over to the FBI at some point.

a reply to: The GUT

Oh. My. God.

Forty thousand more E-mails? Is all these people do is send and receive e-mails all day long? If they were personal, why are they allowed to be chatting all day long with friends of theirs, don't they have a job they are supposed to be doing?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Spouses can't be compelled to testify against one another.

I've explained this point to people many times over the years too, but I've recently read about circumstances where it might not necessarily apply. Someone else on here might recall the details...

Can you link to something? I'd like to read about whatever circumstances that may nullify this and the particular states it applies to.

I'll see what I can find. By memory it might have been if both spouses are charged with the same crime, which wouldn't apply here, but that doesn't sound right.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Spouses can't be compelled to testify against one another.

I've explained this point to people many times over the years too, but I've recently read about circumstances where it might not necessarily apply. Someone else on here might recall the details...

Can you link to something? I'd like to read about whatever circumstances that may nullify this and the particular states it applies to.

I'm phone posting from work at the moment so I can read in too much detail, but according to Wikipedia (so relevant grains of salt required), it's only in cases where spouses are suing each other that it can't necessarily apply.

Interestingly, it seems to be more about protecting the marriage unit rather than someone having unfair access to information on the basis of being married. By that I mean I thought the protection stood even in the event of a marriage breakup, but according to Wikipedia the protection ends with the marriage.

I assumed it might not have been as simple as Huma stopping divorce proceedings, but it appears as though it legitimately is all that is required.

Hillary knew these were going to start being released. That is why she called for Democrats to win at least the House "at all costs". It's to save her skin.

But I doubt a Democrat-controlled House can affect the DOJ/FBI now. President Trump, Christopher Wray, Jeff Sessions, and Rod Rosenstein run the show.

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Spouses can't be compelled to testify against one another.

I've explained this point to people many times over the years too, but I've recently read about circumstances where it might not necessarily apply. Someone else on here might recall the details...

Exceptions

There are several exceptions when the marital privilege will not be allowed. Some of the exceptions include:
Crime against Spouse
One major exception to the marital privilege law is that it does not apply in cases involving a crime that a spouse committed on his or her spouse.

Crime against Child

Likewise, another common exception is that the marital privilege does not apply if the spouse perpetrated a crime on the child of his or her spouse, such as child abuse or sexual abuse.

Certain Crimes

There may be certain crimes that are involved in which the importance of marital privilege does not outweigh the harm that can be done by withholding the information in a criminal trial. For example, some states do not allow for this privilege to be asserted when human trafficking is involved. Some states do not permit this privilege to be asserted when the crime charged involves drugs or drug trafficking. Other courts have broad categories in which this privilege cannot be exerted, including all class 1, 2 and 3 felonies.

Fraud

Another exception that applies to the assertion of the martial privilege is when fraud is being committed by both spouses. Courts do not want this privilege to serve as a way for parties to get around criminal culpability.

Source

dammit!

double post.

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
So....FBI Vault just released this today. It is a document between the NY police and the FBI....I am guessing it was to Comey....but has been redacted.

Now...it talks about 340K emails that were on the computer. That is a LOT of emails. But the one part that caught my attention was this paragraph:

So whomever this is states a "significant number" of the emails are between Hillary and Huma. They then go on to say something really odd....the talk about these emails between them and specifically Hillary using multiple email addresses.

Sure...we all know she had multiples, but why would an investigator be giving a heads up to the FBI on this case, and specifically that Hillary used multiple email addresses?

Whole thing stinks of cover up.

Link to 2 page release below:

FBI Vault

I think it's really strange you would just look at a header and move on. So they looked at to who and subject? Would I REALLY put "Fake Trump Tapes" in the subject???? To me that seemed the strangest thing to me.

You are missing the part about this being the investigator for the weiner case. Things not belonging to weiner would be outside the search warrant in that case, this information is detailed in the content cut by the OP which you can read for yourself in their link.


To everyone else in this thread.

We knew about this fact already if you read the IG report on the Clinton email investigation...

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I dont think she could have even read all those emails.
Think about it.
365 x 8 years = 2900 ish

340k ÷ 2900 = 120ish

She would have to read 120 emails per day for 8 years.

Only read the Headers!!!!

um how many people put things like
murder him, assassinate him, kiddy porn ,,,
in the Header??

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: Vasa Croe

No one is more deserving of further scrutiny than the former First Lady.

Nice find! S&F

I completely agree, I surely thank you all for keeping this nothing burger conspiracy floating. Hopefully it will keep her from running in 20, and my side will stand a chance of winning for once

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I dont think she could have even read all those emails.
Think about it.
365 x 8 years = 2900 ish

340k ÷ 2900 = 120ish

She would have to read 120 emails per day for 8 years.

In my work I receive on average 200+ emails a day.
Most are a few sentences or a short paragraph at best. Every morning I have about 50 unread emails sitting in my box from overnight activity. I knock those out in about 10 to 20 minutes if I have to reply.
Are you suggesting that people cant read a lot in a day?

a reply to: Martin75

I am a consultant to several Firstnet entities and know many FBI agents. This is what they do. They were specifically authorized to only view the headers. ON PURPOSE. And, they followed those orders to the letter. Because, that's what they do, even though the temptation will still be there, even if they did, talking about it would bring charges against themselves.

These folks think things through differently than the average Joe.

Killary will withdraw any interest in another presidential run this coming Wednesday when the Red Wave hits.

Then, the investigations will be interesting, because once her and Bill lose that power, there will be nothing they have to stop the investigations.

EPIC.

Fred..