FBI just took Eastmans phone

Grokmaster said:
No warrant to search it o site.


" Eastman contends the agents "forced" him to unlock his phone. A seizure warrant document included in Eastman's filing noted any electronic devices agents seized were to be sent to Washington, DC, or the Justice Department inspector general's forensic lab in northern Virginia.

Eastman is asking a federal judge to force the Justice Department to return his property, destroy records it has obtained and block investigators from being allowed to access the phone.



IT's CALLED ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE. STANDARD DEMTHUG DOJ PRACTICE.
Click to expand...

you can't expect the DoJ to understand the complex laws regarding search warrants.......Garlock don't do no constitution stuff......
 
BidenPresident said:
Arrested in Santa Fe! Where I live. You are going down Mr Eastman.
Click to expand...

Not because of his phone or anything on it. The FBI screwed the pooch on that one. His phone and everything on it is inadmissible as they took it before serving him the warrant, and the whole thing is on video.
 
LurchAddams said:
If a judge granted the warrant then the DOJ must have convinced the judge a crime was being concealed. What crime? Wait until tomorrow!
Click to expand...

That's not how our system works. If Eastman committed a crime, or the feds think he committed a crime, then the feds have to tell him what he's charged with up front. They failed to do that, so none of what they did counts.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Not because of his phone or anything on it. The FBI screwed the pooch on that one. His phone and everything on it is inadmissible as they took it before serving him the warrant, and the whole thing is on video.
Click to expand...

FBI has authority to take his phone. Like any criminal investigation. You don't request permission.

Fact is, Eastman complied. Now he is whining like a sissy.
 
Nomad said:
You're full of shit.

Your security clearance to clean the toilets in a federal office building doesn't give you squat in terms of any kind of or level of special understanding of any laws concerning the issue.

There was neither an INTENT nor an ATTEMPT by Secretary Clinton, to pass classified information to unauthorized personal or representatives of foreign countries or governments.

That's all you need to know, sonny boy.

Now go change your poopy underoos.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter one iota. If you mishandle classified information, that alone is a crime. You'd know that if you ever had a security clearance, but of course you've never had one.
 
Agents seize phone of lawyer who pushed Trump false elector claims

Eastman’s lawyer, Charles Burnham, filed papers in federal court in New Mexico on Monday asking a judge to order the cellphone be returned to Eastman. It was seized pursuant to a search order when he left a restaurant on Wednesday — a day in which federal agents around the country delivered subpoenas, executed search warrants and interviewed witnesses in a significant expansion of the criminal probes surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/06/27/eastman-phone-seized-fbi-jan6/
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Doesn't matter one iota. If you mishandle classified information, that alone is a crime. You'd know that if you ever had a security clearance, but of course you've never had one.
Click to expand...

You're wrong, lying or both.

There has to be criminal intent for it to be a crime.

At worst, it was a highly technical violation of protocol that so many other officials were probably engaged in, it was overlooked in all but the most egregious cases.

But please, keep up the butthurt whining about it.

Your suffering brings me pleasure. :laugh:
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That's not how our system works. If Eastman committed a crime, or the feds think he committed a crime, then the feds have to tell him what he's charged with up front. They failed to do that, so none of what they did counts.
Click to expand...

The DOJ is under no obligation to tell YOU why they seized Eastman's phone. You're just going to have to be patient like the rest of us.

Sorry, Champ!
 
Nomad said:
You're wrong, lying or both.

There has to be criminal intent for it to be a crime.

At worst, it was a highly technical violation of protocol that so many other officials were probably engaged in, it was overlooked in all but the most egregious cases.

But please, keep up the butthurt whining about it.

Your suffering brings me pleasure. :laugh:
Click to expand...

When I was stationed on the USS Enterprise, a guy in Reactor Mechanical division took a Reactor Plant manual (RPM for sort), home to study so he could get qualified as a watchstander sooner. Those manuals are Confidential, meaning classified. He showed it to no one else, and only had a good intention in his actions. He got caught and was court martialed for it.

Since you haven't got the first idea what goes into getting a security clearance, or the rules when you have one, this is really like talking to an empty paper bag. You got nothing. You know even less. The Hildabeast is guilty as hell of several felonies at a minimum over her e-mail server.
 
BidenPresident said:
No. As usual, you have no facts.


US District of New Mexico allows "delayed notification." Per U.S.C. 2705. See page 14 of Eastman's own case filed in court today.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22071050-john-eastman-court-filing
Click to expand...

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

The warrant didn't contain what the probable cause was nor did it describe what and where was to be searched. You also clearly didn't read the filing. It is pretty much an open and shut case of an illegal seizure.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The warrant didn't contain what the probable cause was nor did it describe what and where was to be searched. You also clearly didn't read the filing. It is pretty much an open and shut case of an illegal seizure.
Click to expand...

Read the filing. Read the court order allowing agents to seize property without notice. You simply are wrong on the facts.
 
BidenPresident said:
No. As usual, you have no facts.


US District of New Mexico allows "delayed notification." Per U.S.C. 2705. See page 14 of Eastman's own case filed in court today.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22071050-john-eastman-court-filing
Click to expand...

Look again. To invoke that clause of the warrant one of the boxes below it must be checked, the days or date must be given. None of that is filled out meaning that clause was not in effect at the time the warrant was served. The document is pro forma and if that applied the box would have been marked and the blanks filled out. They aren't, and it doesn't fucking apply.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Look again. To invoke that clause of the warrant one of the boxes below it must be checked, the days or date must be given. None of that is filled out meaning that clause was not in effect at the time the warrant was served. The document is pro forma and if that applied the box would have been marked and the blanks filled out. They aren't, and it doesn't fucking apply.
Click to expand...

don't care what you believe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top