Comey Letter is dubious for the obvious reasons, but as NSA metadata program showed, you can know a lot about emails w/out reading content:https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/792525927032852481 …
-
-
But it's possible that all he knows are some are w/HRC - making them "pertinent" - w/o knowing content or if they're duplicates.
-
You know more than me. Or can they just read subject line and then draw conclusion it could be relevant?
-
Subject line is content.
@ggreenwald -
Fair. But what about content in body of email?
-
Yeah, totally unclear (and seemingly conflicting reports on) whether Weiner investigators read body of emails.
@ggreenwald -
If they had warrant to search entire device. I'd have to imagine they read the body of emails in question.
-
There have been ongoing legal disputes abt how broadly FBI can search seized devices. This should highlight them.
@ggreenwald - 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
does relevance require knowledge of content? Couldn't discovery of email simply require further investigation?
@ggreenwald -
They're talking about getting a probable cause warrant, not an order based on relevance.
@ggreenwald -
ok but I'm confused, why is knowledge of content required to believe that emails are pertinent to investigation?
@ggreenwald -
wouldn't the discovery of any new email require investigation regardless of content?
@ggreenwald -
"ANY" new email? That Huma has an email account she used equates to probable cause?
@ggreenwald -
emails on newly discovered pc need to be processed if they're from Huma's HRC server accnt. Why is content relevant to warrant?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.