I have to say this rumor started by Eric Prince has had a lot of legs and isnt substantiated  Good on You Nice to see the truth about this finally being mentioned  This is indeed fake news.  The NYPD did not seize the computer.     I've seen the FBI Subpoena docket  I think you are not talking about a subpoena docket, but a search and seizure warrant. Voat's not letting me post links but here is the warrant www DOT documentcloud DOT org SLASH documents SLASH 4465430-WEINER-Search-Warrant-2016 DOT html is the actual federal warrant that allowed the FBI to seize the laptop. Bad on You Bad on you for this.  Here you are passing fake news  It says they could search and seize Weiner equipment from a Tech shop he gave his laptop over to to try and wipe the data clean.  This is false.  This is a conclusion that anons who didn't understand what was going jumped to. If the laptop was wiped, the FBI would have charged Weiner with obstruction of justice. Here's what actually happened.    The day after the story broke the US Attorney subpoeaned Weiner....but didn't have a warrant yet. You can find news articles on this on Sept 22 2016.    A common type of subpoena is a document/information preservation subpoena.  Specifically they wanted his electronic devices: his phone, his laptop and his tablet.    The US attorney could not search these devices yet.  They didn't have a warrant and they didn't have evidence of a crime yet.  To get a warrant you have to show that you are searching for evidence of a specific crime.  So FBI agents went and interviewed the girl and her family to gather the evidence they needed to actually look at the devices. When they had enough evidence, an FBI agent swore out an affadavit  stating the evidence of a possible crime and they wrote up their warrant and asked the judge to approve it. Before that was approved they couldn't do anything to Weiner's devices. So what happened when Weiner gave his devices to a security company is he was COMPLYING with the subpoena.  He wouldn't be able to modify the info because he didn't even have the devices.  The security company has several ex-prosecutors on its staff and probably has good relationships with the courts.  There's another giant reason for Weiner to give these to a third party which I will get to in a second. This exchange was done with the knowledge of the US Attorney's office, probably negotiated with Weiner's attorney once they got the subpoena.  How do we know the US Attorney's office knew about this?  Because the search warrant knows exactly where the items to be seized are.  They knew they were not at Weiner's home. And this is probably the biggest reason to give them to a third party.  Weiner lived in a big NYC apartment building.  By turning his devices over to a trusted third party, he avoided a news story of FBI SERVES WARRANT AT WEINER'S HOUSE. He knew that would be a media frenzy.     so I am not satisfied in evidence that the NYPD were ever actually in physical possession of the laptop  This is absolutely correct.  The NYPD was never in physical possession of the laptop.  This is quite clear in the DOJ IG report.  There's a whole chapter on Weiner's laptop. Once they found Clinton's emails on the laptop, they couldn't turn it over.  Remember the issue with Clinton's emails were they might contain classified info.  And they did find emails with classified info and when they did.  The guy working the Weiner case had to move to a secure computer. The Erik Prince/True Pundit hoax was just that a hoax.  Intended to inflict political damage right before the election.  AND it didn't even start with Prince (who was secretly working with the Trump campaign and got his sister chosen as Secretary of Education) or with True Pundit.  It was going around the internet for days.  It was already being pushed by bots on Twitter and Facebook.  All these people were claiming they personally had NYPD sources.  Of course, they didn't.  But since there was no news story about the FBI seizing the laptop, they got their basic facts wrong.