Confirmed: The NYPD never had Weiner's laptop. The claims of what the NYPD found are false. (pizzagate)

submitted ago by Are_we_sure

Folks investigating pizzagate have put a ton of energy and a lot of hope on a news story that I think we can conclusively say is fake. The idea that the NYPD saw on Weiner's laptop would take down Clinton and many others. Someone on here called Weiner's laptop the Rosetta Stone of Pizzagate. To mean it's like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, whatever you want to imagine is in there is in there. One voater said it would show

Money laundering Child exploitation Sex crimes with minors (children) Perjury Pay to play through Clinton Foundation Obstruction of justice Other felony crimes

This idea started on messageboards and twitter and then continued on the dozens of "news" sites that popped up recently. Then TruePundit put out a story purporting to quote an "anonymous NYPD chief" saying the laptop would put Hillary Clinton away for life and it turned his stomach and that the NYPD had the laptop and turned it over to the FBI.

There's one problem with this story. The NYPD never had the laptop. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html?_r=0

The Trump campaign would go on to hype this story. Erik Prince (serving as an unofficial advisor to the Trump campaign) went on Trump campaign CEO's Steve Bannon's radio show and backed this story up claiming high level sources at 1 Police Plaza

I started looking deeper into this a month ago. https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1747104

and did a thorough examination of the claims here.

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1774406

The New York Times is out with a giant story James Comey over the past year. It covers the Clinton investigation, Loretta Lynch, Trump/Russia, Weiner. So here's what we can now reconfirm* the NY office of the FBI got the laptop, the NYPD is not mentioned whatsoever in the investigation. This Weiner laptop bombshell was a false story put out to deceive you.

F.B.I. agents in New York seized Mr. Weiner’s laptop in early October.

The NYPD never had Anthoney Weiner's laptop and never examined its content. We can say that all claims of what the NYPD saw on Anthony Weiner's laptop is false.

*Why do I say reconfirm? Because the mainstream media had this right last year. This false story about the NYPD having the laptop never came from a real source even if you take out the claims made about the laptop, nobody was reporting the NYPD had it. And a reading of the search warrant would make it clear the NYPD could not have it. https://www.scribd.com/document/334714814/Weiner-Email-Search-Warrant

Are_we_sure ago

You're jumbling up a bunch of nonsense. What classified documents got sold? Plea deals usually secure a conviction with the time, cost and possible risk of no conviction that comes with a trial.

The emails related to Benghazi and the DNC are enough to put Clinton under the prison for life. Which emails are these? Are they public or rumors?

Are_we_sure ago

Even if this is true ........., it makes no difference

That says more about you than me. You are not letting the truth change your opinion.

The_Roman_Numeral ago

Lol @Are_we_sure. C'mon man, you can't come in here and quote the obviously lying and bias NYT and expect credibility. Why don't you watch the Ronald Bernard whistleblower interview and come back to us once red-pilled. Cool?

Are_we_sure ago

Does that video have anything to do with the fake NYPD stories

Are_we_sure ago

So the responses to this have been just not wanting to hear this news and finding ways to discount it. Carlos Slim, Judith Miller (!),

This hypothesis would be dishonest journalism. This is not how you protect a source.

Hypothesis: In order to protect an FBI source (under an extremely corrupt Lynch DOJ) the informant was falsely identified as a member of the NYPD, but in actuality is a member of the FBI New York Bureau.

Let's review the evidence.

The stories before the election said anonymous sources said the NYPD was basically going to revolt against the FBI to ensure this evidence got out.
These stories based on anonymous sources only appeared in dubious outlets. These anonymous sources got a basic fact of the case wrong: that the NYPD had the laptop and made copies This fact is contradicted by all other reporting from last year: that the Feds subpoenaed the laptop and were the one who seized it. This fact is contradicted by the details of the FBI search warrant. This fact is contradicted by the lack of a NYPD search warrant. The NYPD has never, ever said that they had the laptop. The NYPD has never, ever said that the FBI had the laptop, but they were allowed to examine it. This case crosses state lines, so it would be a federal case. So at the beginning there was a lot of reason to be skeptical of these stories.

Now months have passed. The FBI quickly reviewed the evidence and confirmed their original decision that no crimes occurred. No earth shattering bombshell arrests were made.

The NYPD has not gone public. The NYPD has basically done nothing. The Leadership at the Department of Justice has changed and still nothing. Reports about the prosecution of Anthony Weiner Now an in-depth report comes out detailing the Weiner investigation and confirms that FBI agents were the ones who seized the laptop and that NYPD never had the laptop and .......what?

Do you hear any pushback from Law Enforcement on this part of the story? If they NYPD had the laptop, a lot of people would be aware of that fact and the Times would be forced to issue an correction. Let's see what happens this week.

All this evidence is stacked up on the side of this story being fake.

What, other than blind faith, is the evidence this story is true?

JrSlimss ago

Seriously, how much do they pay you?

2impendingdoom ago

The NYT supports pedophiles, and promotes false stories, so its not a reliable source. The publisher hid Jimmy Saville's crimes for years at the BBC and they have no problem promoting false propaganda (for example Janet Miller and the missing WMD).

EDIT: this piece reads like a scramble by Comey to keep his job.

mathemagician33 ago

Yeah, this. There is also the fact that Carlos Slim, one of the largest NYT shareholders, has a ton of documented connections with the Clintons, including massive CF donations/partnerships (deals on the order of 9 figures). We're never going to hear the truth about anything Clinton-related from the NYT.

Mrs_Ogynist01 ago

I'm going to use some of that liberal mental gymnastics here:

Hypothesis: In order to protect an FBI source (under an extremely corrupt Lynch DOJ) the informant was falsely identified as a member of the NYPD, but in actuality is a member of the FBI New York Bureau.

EDIT: While on this matter, have there been any charges filed against Weiner? If not, why?

Are_we_sure ago

EDIT: While on this matter, have there been any charges filed against Weiner? If not, why?

This from 3 months ago is the last official word had on the case. It seems like they are trying to negotiate a plea deal. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/prosecutors-weigh-child-pornography-charges-against-anthony-weiner.html

In recent weeks, according to some of the people familiar with the matter, attorneys for Mr. Weiner have had discussions with federal prosecutors in Manhattan in hopes of dissuading them from bringing charges, or at least from bringing the most serious one: production of child pornography, which carries a 15-year mandatory minimum prison sentence upon conviction.

Mr. Weiner could face the production charge, some of the people familiar with the case say, because he allegedly solicited explicit images from the teenager. Prosecutors also are weighing other charges, including receipt of child pornography, for which conviction carries a five-year mandatory minimum, and possession of child pornography, which has no mandatory minimum.

Prosecutors could decide not to bring any charges.

The girl and her family have not cooperated with prosecutors. This might impede what kind of charge they can bring against Weiner.

dougG ago

Where did you hear of the recent meeting of the legal minds regarding Weiner? This us going on 6 months without a charge and they have evidence in hand. The text exchange was even posted on line between himself and the underage girl. I wonder if some of Wieners cronies (if he has any, he's an unemployed POS) got her not to press charges or the "deep state" convinced her in fear of Weiner spilling the beans, if there are beans to spill. This is just a highly abnormal timeline, especially in which they have digital evidence.

RweSure ago

not recent, but this from the WSJ seems be the last deep report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/prosecutors-weigh-child-pornography-charges-against-anthony-weiner.html

They seem to be going back and forth on plea deal. My guess would be that this is not as open and closed as we think it might be. I suspect the law might not have caught up to the technology. If the girl doesn't want to testify, that might complicate things.

DarkMath ago

"If the girl doesn't want to testify, that might complicate things."

Of course AreWeSure, she'd be a fool to testify. The FBI's James Comey did something never done to a rape victim, especially a 15 year old one: Comey released her name almost immediately. I heard he was going to release a picture of her twat too but someone said that would be in bad taste. Wha wha whaaaaaa. :-D

So James "Howdy Doody" Comey is no friend of justice. God knows what he'd do to her if she testified. She'd probably end up killing herself by unloading an entire 36 round magazine of a Browning Automatic Rifle into her brain pan.

What's that? Hardy har-har? Oh please AreWeSure shooting yourself in the head with 36 rounds from a BAR happens more than you think. [Insert N Word Here] please.

Hey when are @AreWeSure and your other brother @Are_we_sure going to finally address my request for an explanation of why I should believe NIST about no molten metal in the WTC basements after 9/11 when even YOU don't believe their story about it.

Can you get working on it please. It doesn't make any sense.

Thank you.

Mrs_Ogynist01 ago

The girl and her family have not cooperated with prosecutors. This might impede what kind of charge they can bring against Weiner.

Where did you see this? The only thing I've seen is this: https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/teen-who-allegedly-got-weiner-sexts-upset-with-comey?utm_term=.rfWwLGBr3#.yid3pnoek

Where they said she was interviewed for hours.

Also, even if the NYPD was never in physical possession of the laptop, that doesn't mean they didn't have access to it and view files on it. According to this article: http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2016/09/22/anthony-weiner-under-investigation-for-series-of-emails-he-allegedly-sent-to-teenage-girl-in-north-carolina.html

"Weiner is under investigation by federal authorities and the NYPD"

Are_we_sure ago

"Weiner is under investigation by federal authorities and the NYPD"

The was the day after the story broke, but the local prosecutor did not subpoena the laptop, the US attorney did. And the feds seized the laptop.

Read the warrant the FBI got for the Clinton emails, there are looking for classified info. The sex crimes unit of the NYPD is not cleared to view such material and certainly not to make and keep copies of it

Mrs_Ogynist01 ago

Yes - the warrant was for the emails from the laptop they already had because of the sexting. That's how they found the SOS emails, or metadata for them. Supposedly (wink-wink), they didn't read Huma/Hillary emails because they weren't relevant to the sexting.

I have not seen an original search warrant from when the laptop was seized in reference to the sexting.

Are_we_sure ago

The article today only mentions the FBI searching the laptop.

Are_we_sure ago

The family did not file a criminal complaint. You can be interviewed without cooperating.

Law enforcement got involved after the story broke in the UK. It's still unclear how the Daily Mail got the story if no criminal complaint was made.

Mrs_Ogynist01 ago

The family would not be required to file a complaint for "production of child pornography" nor "receipt of child pornography."

Are_we_sure ago

Agreed.

dickface8 ago

Are you sure though?