Blog Archives

The debate over FBI director James Comey’s new Clinton email letter, explained

And here I was thinking that the FBI investigation into Hillary’s emails pertained to her using a private server. What is the FBI going to do next — get a warrant for Trump’s computers to see if he emailed Hillary?

The Fifth Column

james-comey-fired-fbi-director-hillary-clinton-email-private-server-election-letterFBI Director James Comey (Getty)


On Friday, FBI Director James Comey sent a three-paragraph letter to several members of Congress, in which he said that new emails related to the Hillary Clinton email investigation had been discovered.

The timing of Comey’s letter — sent just 11 days before the presidential election — created a media and political firestorm, and seemed to pose the prospect of some sort of smoking gun deeply implicating Clinton that could swing the election.

But as more facts have emerged after hours of leaks from anonymous government officials tovariousmediaoutlets, it’s become pretty clear that what actually happened is not necessarily all that earth-shaking. Namely:

  • The new batch of emails is from a laptop that Clinton aide Huma Abedin shared with her husband, former Congressman Anthony Weiner.
  • The FBI came upon them because they’re investigating Weiner’s reported sexting of an underage girl…

View original post 1,986 more words

Illinois Law Does Not Prohibit Recording On-Duty Law Enforcement

On Twitter, it started with circulating the headline of an article published on The Free Thought Project titled “Illinois Just Made it a Felony for Its Citizens to Record the Police and the Media is Silent.” The article claimed that Illinois passed a law making it a felony to record police officers. That is not factual. The emotional state of many Americans with the thought that a law prohibits the video recording of police officers using excessive force, was at the forefront of the headline that misrepresents the amended Illinois law.

Snopes has already printed about the apparent confusion of the law, which isn’t a new law at all but rather, an amendment to an existing law and does not prohibit the recording of on-duty police officers.

The Free Thought article states that the wording from the legislation is vague, and it included the following;

(a) Eavesdropping, for a first offense, is a Class 4 felony (from Ch. 38, par. 14-4) and, for a second or subsequent offense, is a Class 3 felony.

(b) The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication of any
law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 3 felony, and for a second or subsequent offenses, is a Class 2 felony.

Had readers clicked the link to the Bill, they would have read two words that should have stood out.  Those two words are;

  1. eavesdropping

  2. private

eavesdropping2When I read the first tweet reporting this, (and expressing disgust that Illinois would legislate such a law), I didn’t respond.  I didn’t respond because my first impression that anyone reading the word “eavesdropping” would understand its meaning.  I was wrong, not taking into consideration that people passing the tweet around are not residents of Illinois understanding how “eavesdropping” is defined in Illinois law. Read the rest of this entry

%d bloggers like this: