Pizzagate Subverse Network
/v/AskPizzagate – Pizzagate-related questions
/v/pizzagatewhatever – anything Pizzagate-related
/v/PizzagateMemes – Pizzagate memes
/v/pizzagatemods – meta concerns and Pizzagate moderation discussion
For Newcomers
Submission Rules
See also "subverse best practices"
Policy on linking dangerous research
1: Relevance: Posts must be directly relevant to investigation of Pizzagate: the sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of children by elites, child trafficking organized by elites, and/or cover-up of these activities and/or the protection/assistance provided to the people who engage in said activities. See definition of Pizzagate and examples of relevant posts.
2: Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link. If you ask a question: Explain what led to your question and provide sources. If you present opinion/argument, connect your dots and provide sources for them. Avoid baseless speculation. ALL posts must include at least one link.
3: Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate. EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post (except when markup is used to embed links in the specific text they support).
4: Meta submissions and general discussion submissions without sources will be removed. Please submit indirectly relevant posts to /v/pizzagatewhatever and unsourced questions to /v/AskPizzagate. Sourced activism / publicity posts and memes are allowed. Posts about the subverse itself go to /v/pizzagatemods.
5: You must label NSFW posts (“Not safe for work”; for example gore, nudity etc.) as such when submitting.
6: No Link Posts -- Only editable submissions made with the "Discuss" button are allowed. "Link" submissions have been banned by the community for the reasons described here. Link posts will be immediately removed.
Adspam, illegal content, and personal info about Voat subscribers will be removed, and the offender will be banned.
Moderator Rules and Removal Explanations
Submission Removal Log
WARNING! Due to the nature of this investigation, clicking some links could result in opening incriminating material. Always practice common sense before clicking links, and make sure you're browsing safely.
Use archive.is to archive sources.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] kestrel9 [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
YourNewsWire reported the 'passing off' of the laptop from NYPD to FBI. YNW is (well) known for adding fictional elements to their reports. Fair enough.
Could passing off really just mean 'returning to'? Possession vs. Access
If NYPD not in original possession of laptop, did NYPD have access to the computer?
Otherwise what was NYPD doing during the joint investigation into Wiener's sexting and (report of) months of online relationship with a minor? Getting coffee for the FBI agents?
But there were a minimum of 10,000 Clinton server related files.
Using the term 'insurance file' was effective, it's what came to my mind. Was there literally a tab marked 'life insurance' that was related to Clinton emails? You say nay, I don't know, but in hindsight it wouldn't make sense to mark something that sensitive under 'life insurance' on a computer, if one really believes they are in danger.
Could the contents of the additional Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop have been useful toward that end? Or alternatively, would Weiner keep damning Clinton emails, not so much as 'life insurance' but as leverage in a custody dispute? (saw that theory too).
Maybe we'll learn more. http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-probing-andrew-mccabe-response-fbi-clinton-email-investigation-2018-1?r=UK&IR=T
[–] Are_we_sure ago (edited ago)
I have not been able to find this out one way or the other. Again the story of the NYPD turning the laptop over and keeping a copy of the evidence is completely false as the FBI seized it originally. Remeber the "sexting" occurred with a girl in another state, thus this is federal jurisdiction. I think that there would be no reason for the FBI to turn over the laptop to the police. Especially once Huma's emails were discovered, the NYPD would not be cleared for any potential classified info that might be there and that was what formed the basis of the search warrant for Huma's emails.
What joint investigation? You are assuming facts not in evidence here. Where did you get the idea that there was a joint investigation? The NY Times did a big, deep report on what led Comey to write his letter and there's no mention of a joint investigation.
and? What's the connection you are making? There's no indication that Weiner or even Huma knew about this. I believe the FBI believe the Huma connected her blackberry to the laptop and did not consciously move the emails there, but the phone backed itself up.
This was an actual story that was pushed that Anthony Weiner had a folder marked Life Insurance on his laptop. This was never real.
The Inspector General is also looking into the conduct of the FBI around this.
Now you are speculating about it and about someone thinking they are in danger.
I very much doubt this, since they have been reviewed by the FBI.
This is funny, because this is actually longstanding Department of Justice policy, not to do anything significant within 60 days of an election. Comey violated this policy when he wrote his letter. And he did have an effect on the election.
The backstory to this is people believe the NY office of the FBI was leaking to the Trump camp. Comey is said to have issued his letter because he feared word of the investigation would leak from the FBI officers in NY. Evidence for this theory is Giuliani went on TV talking about a big FBI surprise that was coming out and he talked about getting info from current and ex FBI agents. He had to walk this back, because it would be illegal for FBI agents to be leaking this stuff. And Giuliani was certainly part of this fake story being pushed by Erik Prince on Breitbart and YourNewsWire and TruePundit and Alex Jones. Doug Hagmann went on Alex Jones with this "fake NYPD has evidence that will turn your stomach story" AND he admitted he was getting his evidence from Rudy Giuliani.
Now at this point, you may want to ask yourself, why invent this fake NYPD story, when the FBI sources would have served the same purpose? Because FBI agents were actually the ones pushing this fake story and didn't want their actions to be looked at so they pushed it off to the NYPD, even though the NYPD never had the laptop.
I suggest you read this deep dive on the weiner investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html
The Weiner part starts here
The NYPD is not mentioned at all.
[–] kestrel9 [S] ago
Long story short regarding the answer to that. I looked back to see where I had 'just read' about it earlier today. Turns out that the term 'joint investigation' (as I used it) was a case of unintended conflation while searching and reading on the topic at hand. I was reading a lot of info, also looking at various search pages.
I think I construed the following Fox News timeline excerpt as a "joint announcement" (on the face of it, it reads that way), after reading something right after it. (both below)
the mix up happened after glancing at the following on a search page afterwards
....
So as it turns out, I didn't read FBI and NYPD 'joint investigation' in one article, but unintentionally conflated the two statements above while I was skimming through a lot of info.
Don't have time to address your other questions right now, and I haven't had a chance to read the article regarding Comey, perhaps tomorrow I'll have a chance to read/respond.