It turns out that the FBI had not yet given up on 18 USC 793 (e) and (f) in October. A federal judge unsealed the warrant that authorized the search of Anthony Weiner’s laptop after a lawsuit from an attorney who specializes more in unearthing stolen art. The FBI had told the judge who issued the warrant that they believed it would unearth evidence relating to a criminal investigation:

The search warrant that authorized the FBI to examine a laptop computer in connection with Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state was released today.

A federal judge in New York ordered the warrant and supporting documents unsealed after attorneys opened a case requesting access. …

The FBI searched the laptop in the final days of the presidential election, months after FBI Director James Comey announced that the bureau had closed its investigation. In a July press conference he said, “No charges are appropriate in this case.”

The warrant can be found here, but these are the most interesting parts of it. USA Today’s Brad Heath highlighted the emphasis on the “criminal investigation”:

The attachment specifies the statutes involved, which turns out to be precisely the statutes that Hillary’s critics had argued were broken with her transmission of classified information through her home-brew e-mail system:


Heath points out the curious timing of the FBI request to seal the warrant:

That is rather curious. The warrant was submitted and approved on October 30th, but Comey’s letter to Congress leaked on October 28th. Why would the judge have approved the seal two days after the new search was leading the news in every national outlet? The answer is in the clip; the FBI told the judge that the “full scope” of the investigation “is not known to [redacted] or the public.” That can’t be a reference to Anthony Weiner, who knew full well the scope of the investigation aimed at him. The redaction might have cited Clinton, or possibly Huma Abedin, but either way it’s a curiosity. This might be boiler-plate language (but then why the redaction?), or it may suggest that the FBI’s got something cooking still on this front. At the very least, it puts paid to the idea that the FBI was just doing due diligence with its October warrant.

At this point, though, does the FBI still have any credibility to pursue violations of 18 USC 793 in relation to the e-mail server? Comey has publicly washed his hands of that option twice. Donald Trump seems uninterested in pursuing the matter further, even if the FBI still has its probe into the nexus between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department open. This looks like an addition to the historical archives of the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal, not a fulcrum for a renewed inquiry.