Duhiki, you're not really understanding the problem with the inaccurate headline that @pizzalawyer is trying to explain. I am going to remove this repost per Rule 3, and ask you to add a correction headline to the top of your original post, for the reasons explained in my comment there . Thanks for being willing to repost. Please feel free to include these additional interesting links in your original submission.

original post here, comments important

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2549145

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/clinton-email-investigation-search-warrant-released-232852

Clinton allies rip into FBI after search warrant unsealed

Hillary Clinton's allies blasted the FBI on Tuesday after court filings were unsealed showing more details about the law enforcement agency's basis for renewing its probe into Clinton's private email setup and roiling the presidential race just over a week before Election Day.

Clinton's camp says the FBI had remarkably little evidence to go on when it sought a search warrant on Oct. 30 to look for classified emails on a Dell laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The FBI says it discovered Clinton-related emails on the computer after initially seizing the device during a probe over Weiner's alleged sexually explicit online exchanges with a minor.

The court filings unsealed Tuesday show that the FBI said in an affidavit that the laptop was likely to contain evidence of illegal possession of classified information, apparently by Weiner or Abedin, although neither has been charged with a crime.

"There is probable cause to believe that the Subject Laptop contains evidence, contraband, fruits, and/or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793 (e) and (f)," an FBI agent wrote, citing felony Espionage Act provisions for illegal possessions of classified information.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................

Just how many warrants were issued for the laptop?

also want to put my comment in Great Awaking here, it goes with this article .............................................................................................................................................................

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/04/28/fbi-never-investigated-abedin-clinton-laptop-emails-in-october-2016/

FBI Never Investigated Abedin/Clinton Laptop Emails In October 2016…

According to the September 28, 2016, messages from FBI Agent Peter Strzok it was the SDNY in New York telling Andrew McCabe in DC about the issue. Pay close attention to the convo:

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/ha-laptop-1.jpgJPG

Pay super close attention. This is not an outcome of a New York Police Dept. raid on Anthony Weiner. This is Weiner’s attorney going to the U.S. attorney and voluntarily turning over emails. The emails were not turned over to the FBI in New York, the actual emails were turned over to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District.

♦If the U.S. Attorney in New York has the actual physical emails on September 28th, 2016, why would they need a search warrant on October 21st, 2016?

Why would Weiner’s attorney be handing over evidence?

Think about this carefully. I’ll get back to the importance of it later; but what I suspect is that Weiner had physical material that was his “insurance policy” against anything done to him by Hillary Clinton. Facing a criminal prosecution Weiner’s lawyer went to the U.S. Attorney and attempted to exploit/leverage the content therein on his client’s behalf.

Please note that at no time in the FBI is anyone directing an actual investigation of the content of the Clinton emails. Every single second of every effort is devoted to shaping the public perception of the need for the investigation. Every media outlet is being watched; every article is being read; and the entire apparatus of the small group is shaping coverage therein by contacting their leak outlets.

On page six of the IG report on Andrew McCabe (point number 4) we find a conference call between Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and the FBI field office in New York where the subject of the Weiner/Abedin/Clinton email findings overlap with: the Clinton Foundation (CF) investigation; the Clinton Email investigation; pressure for Asst. Director McCabe to recuse himself, and Washington DC via Loretta Lynch using DOJ Main Justice leverage from the Eric Garner case against the NY FBI office and New York Police Department.

( interesting article, shows e-mails between Page and Peter Strzok, a lot of name drops here, its says NY Police did have laptop and opened it , FBI was covering for e-mails handed over, don't think they realized the Insurance file was in laptop, but I think Lynch did)

Duhiki, if you are required to repost again feel free to borrow any information from me... just give me credit...alternatively I think you can refer to my accumulated commentary by referance to my comments at deleted post #so and #so. I helped Mammy with a similar problem. She has only posted a few times but you can search her history and how she neatly incorporated my comments into her post and saved me from having to respond again.

Ignore any negative comments that came your way. This is hard stuff to handle. I'm so impressed with the quality of research at this forum which has improved greatly in the last 6 .months. Are-We-Sure is right about alot of things he has challenged but he's so caustic in his comments that he becomes not trustworthy. And then he makes the poster look untrustworthy. We need to nurtue one another, not attack.

Thanks also for the press release which reiterates that the federal authorities and NYPD are working together on this matter as there is probably joint jurisdiction.

Duhiki: thanks for the attorney information but you missed the mark again. Please read the Order slowly and carefully. It is the Search Warrant.that is being disclosed, not the evidence seized by the search warrant. We cannot even tell what the prosecutor wants to search until we see the Warrant and Attachment A. You are leapfrogging to a desired result. For all we know, its a request to search a car, or an airport locker or Weiner's weiner.

Typically (and Im not.from NY) the warrant application spells out the evidence wanted and the attached affiidavit is the sworn statement that there is probable cause to believe that a computer, or a car or a doctors office records will reveal the evidence wanted pertinent to the criminal charges.

If the search produces evidence of other crimes and the warrant is valid, then the new, unexpected evidence found can be used accordingly.

We can expect more litigation in this matter. Once we know what evidence is sought , there will a motion to disclose that evidence seized. Then everbody from the prosecutor to Hillary to Al Capone's ghost will fight to keep that evidence sealed.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, we need to keep up with this matter as it unfolds.