Today, the Department of Justice released portions of the FBI warrant used to obtain Hillary Clinton‘s email which were discovered as part of the Bureau’s Anthony Weiner probe. And, apparently, Brian Fallon, the former Clinton campaign spokesman, was not too pleased with what he read. Clinton, and her campaign staff, have long blamed FBI Director James Comey, in part, for costing them the election. In a series of tweets, Fallon called the FBI warrant “flimsy” and “utterly unjustified.” He also demanded that FBI Director account for his actions because “they were so unsupported.”
So was there probable cause to search the Clinton emails on the computer of Huma Abedin’s husband? Was the FBI search justified? It is hard to get a clear answer largely because a lot of the warrant application is redacted when the DOJ made it public. And, as with all things Clinton- related, legal experts seem to be divided on this one as well.
“I have done hundreds of search warrants —- the FBI was on solid ground on this one. It is important to remember that probable cause is a relatively low burden,” Bill Thomas, a former federal prosecutor told LawNewz.com.
On the other hand, some experts believe the search warrant application was “meritless” and that the government failed to meet the Constitutional requirements needed to search someone’s property. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution guards against unreasonable search and seizure and requires the government to have “probable cause” before they search someone’s emails.
“It was a fishing expedition,” Clark D. Cunningham, Professor of Law and Ethics at Georgia State University told LawNewz.com, “There is nothing that comes close to probable cause that I can see. (The warrant application) is no more than mere speculation.”