FBI reopens Clinton case

[iuwclurker1]

2) I don't think anybody's blaming Comey for Chaffetz leaking the memo. They're upset at Comey for sending it in the first place -- at least at this particular time. Some are mad at Chaffetz for making it public.....but that's kind of absurd. If the FBI sent a letter to a (Democratic) House Oversight Chairman about an investigation involving Donald Trump (or Mitt Romney in 2012) a bit more than a week out from election day, would anybody seriously expect that Congressman to keep it under wraps?

Pure genius. Your logic is it's right to do wrong because "everyone" would do the same wrong thing. The irony is that any investigation about emails is looking into wrongdoing. So wrongdoers are investigating possible wrongdoers.

Even more ironic is that when the wrongdoers happen to be investigating the security of documents and the wrong the investigative wrongdoers did was expose secure documents.

Keep on celebrating, genius.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Let me try one more time, in reference to your metadata.

The fact that they found emails sent to or from Huma's state.gov account, or to or from any clintonemails.com account, would be enough to get a warrant, but not enough to draw the conclusion you've been pushing this whole thread: that this is really bad because we know those emails shouldn't be there. No, we don't know that, because we need to read the text itself to know that.

I believe the first time I tried to get you to calm down and not jump to conclusions was on page 2. We are now on page 10. So I'm done with this.

I was about to touch on much the same. Their program looked at to/from addresses and they found adresses matching what judicial watch asked for. That is all. It has appeared to me that CO is implying that an inference of guilt is fair here, or the FBI would not invetigate. My bar being low comment is simply this, all the FBI knows is an address matched. For all they know, every matched address has been handed over to them previously. No guilt, or innocence, can be presumed. We know nothing about these emails.

 

[iuwclurker1]

For me it is that the letter isn't more clear. Media rumor is at the time none of the emails had been looked at. Media rumor is they had not been checked to see if they were already turned over. If that if true, the memo should have said so. If they had been vetted, it should have so. The exact state of the investigation of those memos should have been detailed.

Yeah, I get that. You're concerned about the text in a memo none of us should even know exists.

 

[iuwclurker1]

CO is implying that an inference of guilt is fair here, or the FBI would not invetigate.

Which is exactly why CoH was all over George Zimmerman as guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin, right?

 

[Hank Reardon]

Let me try one more time, in reference to your metadata.

The fact that they found emails sent to or from Huma's state.gov account, or to or from any clintonemails.com account, would be enough to get a warrant, but not enough to draw the conclusion you've been pushing this whole thread: that this is really bad because we know those emails shouldn't be there. No, we don't know that, because we need to read the text itself to know that.

I believe the first time I tried to get you to calm down and not jump to conclusions was on page 2. We are now on page 10. So I'm done with this.

It could be bad for Huma if she indeed testified under oath that she'd turned over all email and listed all of the devices that she'd used. Now that doesn't directly implicate Hillary in anything whatsoever. Unless Huma ends up under one of those bright interrogation room lights knowing she has some sort of Get Out of Jail Free card.

Pure speculation of course.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Well, since you haven't seen any of the emails (and neither has the FBI until today), why don't you STFU, moron, because YOU don't know about what you're talking? Why don't you link your information? Also, you imply sensitive information is some sort of classified information, when "sensitive" can be anything.

Link it.

Says the internet clown who knows jack squat about CUI, classified, government security rules or anything much at all pertaining to this issue.

 

[DrHoops]

Link it.

Says the internet clown who knows jack squat about CUI, classified, government security rules or anything much at all pertaining to this issue.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Let me try one more time, in reference to your metadata.

The fact that they found emails sent to or from Huma's state.gov account, or to or from any clintonemails.com account, would be enough to get a warrant, but not enough to draw the conclusion you've been pushing this whole thread: that this is really bad because we know those emails shouldn't be there. No, we don't know that, because we need to read the text itself to know that.

I believe the first time I tried to get you to calm down and not jump to conclusions was on page 2. We are now on page 10. So I'm done with this.

That's pretty much all wrong

In order to obtain a warrant, facts must be presented to a judge or magestrate that there is probable cause to believe the search would produce evidence of a crime. If all they have is an email from Huma to Tony, there is no grounds to issue a warrant. The email might be about dinner plans. There must be more.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It has appeared to me that CO is implying that an inference of guilt is fair here, or the FBI would not invetigate.

That is kinda correct. The standard is probable cause that the search would produce evidence of a crime. In this case, the FBI knows what the crime is and it also knows who the defendant is, so I suppose it is fair to say that any new evidence this new investigation produces would be evidence of guilt.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That's pretty much all wrong

In order to obtain a warrant, facts must be presented to a judge or magestrate that there is probable cause to believe the search would produce evidence of a crime. If all they have is an email from Huma to Tony, there is no grounds to issue a warrant. The email might be about dinner plans. There must be more.

I'm tapping out. When you start repeating my own points as evidence for your position, conversation is impossible. You're talking in circles.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Pure genius. Your logic is it's right to do wrong because "everyone" would do the same wrong thing. The irony is that any investigation about emails is looking into wrongdoing. So wrongdoers are investigating possible wrongdoers.

Well, I don't see the first thing wrong with what Chaffetz did. My feelings about what Comey did, however, are a little more complex. I get the criticism he's taking (although I do find it funny, given that Comey has long been cited by many Democrats as being a "straight-shooter"....and now, suddenly, he's a partisan hack).

When I say that, if the tables were turned here, a Democratic committee chairman would've done the same thing, I'm not saying "it's right to do wrong"....I'm chastising those who are griping about Chaffetz making it public. The implication is that they're griping about it not because of what he did, but because of who he did it to.

Even more ironic is that when the wrongdoers happen to be investigating the security of documents and the wrong the investigative wrongdoers did was expose secure documents.

First, that seems like a horribly written sentence. Have you been drinking?

Second, assuming I do understand what you're trying to say, who exposed secure documents here?

Keep on celebrating, genius.

I'm not celebrating anything.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm tapping out. When you start repeating my own points as evidence for your position, conversation is impossible. You're talking in circles.

No, you are reading in circles. The warrant was ISSUED. Ergo there is more to this.

 

[DrHoops]

On Saturday, according to the Washington Post:

"Officials familiar with the inquiry said it was too early to assess the significance of the newly discovered emails. It is possible, they said, that some or all of the correspondence is duplicative of the emails that were already turned over and examined by the FBI."

And...

"Comey made a similar point in his letter, sent to congressional committee chairmen, saying that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.”"

So, no, it's not "fair to say that any new evidence this new investigation produces would be evidence of guilt." It's fair to say that the FBI has probable cause that there are emails relevant to the case on that laptop. That's it.

No, you are reading in circles. The warrant was ISSUED. Ergo there is more to this.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

On Saturday, according to the Washington Post:

"Officials familiar with the inquiry said it was too early to assess the significance of the newly discovered emails. It is possible, they said, that some or all of the correspondence is duplicative of the emails that were already turned over and examined by the FBI."

And...

"Comey made a similar point in his letter, sent to congressional committee chairmen, saying that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.”"

So, no, it's not "fair to say that any new evidence this new investigation produces would be evidence of guilt." It's fair to say that the FBI has probable cause that there are emails relevant to the case on that laptop. That's it.

I think we are saying the same thing.

Comey already completed the investigation and said there will be no prosecution. (Not his call, but Lynch gave him that authority) With that as a preface, the sole reason for further investigation and rummaging around on a private hard drive is to find evidence of guilt. Otherwise, why bother?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No, you are reading in circles. The warrant was ISSUED. Ergo there is more to this.

Is that not the very definition of "begging the question"? Media claims that nothing has been compared to see 1) if it is confidential or 2) not previously turned over.

If all they have are header information, I don't see how they have any clue unless an email was sent with the subject "stuff we are hiding from FBI". Which frankly I am now going to use for all my non-work emails.

 

[DrHoops]

Well, you're implying in your posts that they think they have evidence of guilt or the FBI wouldn't be issued a search warrant. That's not true.

They're rummaging around on a hard drive because they think they have found emails related to the case. Full stop.

I think we are saying the same thing.

Comey already completed the investigation and said there will be no prosecution. (Not his call, but Lynch gave him that authority) With that as a preface, the sole reason for further investigation and rummaging around on a private hard drive is to find evidence of guilt. Otherwise, why bother?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Is that not the very definition of "begging the question"? Media claims that nothing has been compared to see 1) if it is confidential or 2) not previously turned over.

If all they have are header information, I don't see how they have any clue unless an email was sent with the subject "stuff we are hiding from FBI". Which frankly I am now going to use for all my non-work emails.

"Begging the question" has probably been used on this forum about a billion times, and you are the very first to use it correctly.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

"Begging the question" has probably been used on this forum about a billion times, and you are the very first to use it correctly.

Says maha goat, but you are wrong

You said the FBI doesn't know anything about the emails except where they are and who sent them. I said that isn't enough for a warrant. I think you agreed, but you went in circles so much I'm not sure what you said. The warrant was issued. You take it from there.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Is that not the very definition of "begging the question"? Media claims that nothing has been compared to see 1) if it is confidential or 2) not previously turned over.

If all they have are header information, I don't see how they have any clue unless an email was sent with the subject "stuff we are hiding from FBI". Which frankly I am now going to use for all my non-work emails.

I don't think it is. The warrant was issued. That shows facts in the affidavit sufficient to cause the judge to believe there is probable cause they will find evidence of a crime. I said, with I think goats agreement, that the location of the emails, and the sender, isn't enough to issue the warrant. Thus there are more facts.

Begging the question would be like this:

Q. Upon what basis did a judge issue this warrant
A. Based upon facts sufficient to show there is probable cause to find evidence of a crime.

The answer is simply an alternative way to phrase the question.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

"Begging the question" has probably been used on this forum about a billion times, and you are the very first to use it correctly.

Blame Buzz, I believe he was the one on the proper use kick.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Says maha goat, but you are wrong

You said the FBI doesn't know anything about the emails except where they are and who sent them. I said that isn't enough for a warrant. I think you agreed, but you went in circles so much I'm not sure what you said. The warrant was issued. You take it from there.

I don't agree with what you are saying. If, for example, Huma did in fact fail to tell the FBI about this laptop, the mere existence of emails from one of her own accounts that was part of the probe would be enough for probable cause. You wouldn't even need subject headers. They could all end up being messages about her Kroger Plus account.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Blame Buzz, I believe he was the one on the proper use kick.

I don't bother pointing out when people use the phrase incorrectly. Besides, incorrect usage is so common, it's hard to really justify calling it incorrect anymore, anyway. But when someone actually uses it in the traditional sense, it's worth a verbal high five.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't bother pointing out when people use the phrase incorrectly. Besides, incorrect usage is so common, it's hard to really justify calling it incorrect anymore, anyway. But when someone actually uses it in the traditional sense, it's worth a verbal high five.

I'm always willing to learn. The way I use the phrase "begging the question" is like my torts professor drummed it into our heads 45+ years ago, and it is as I said. The answer rephrases the question without providing an answer. Can you give me your use in a Q & A format?

 

[iuwclurker1]

I'm always willing to learn. The way I use the phrase "begging the question" is like my torts professor drummed it into our heads 45+ years ago, and it is as I said. The answer rephrases the question without providing an answer. Can you give me your use in a Q & A format?

Here's a practical explanation.

 

[UncleMark]

It could be bad for Huma if she indeed testified under oath that she'd turned over all email and listed all of the devices that she'd used.

PBS Newshour reported that Huma claims she has no freaking idea how that email is showing up on that particular laptop. I would find that incredible, except I've also seen just how absolutely technically stupid and ignorant most of the players in this whole drama are. Supposedly a yahoo.com address is involved in large part, which very possibly was accessed via the web interface instead of using the Outlook client, and what they've found are web caches. <shrug> I've known people that think reading their Yahoo Mail online and "downloading" their email with Outlook are two completely different things.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

PBS Newshour reported that Huma claims she has no freaking idea how that email is showing up on that particular laptop. I would find that incredible, except I've also seen just how absolutely technically stupid and ignorant most of the players in this whole drama are. Supposedly a yahoo.com address is involved in large part, which very possibly was accessed via the web interface instead of using the Outlook client, and what they've found are web caches. <shrug> I've known people that think reading their Yahoo Mail online and "downloading" their email with Outlook are two completely different things.

That would make way more sense. If she was using Weiner's laptop, she probably accessed it through the browser.

 

[UncleMark]

That would make way more sense. If she was using Weiner's laptop, she probably accessed it through the browser.

We could all have a much more intelligent discussion if the FBI was more forthcoming with the details from a technical standpoint. Are all these servers they keep referring to set up for IMAP or POP access? Are they being accessed with IMAP clients, POP clients, web interfaces? And how are the various clients on the various devises configured? If we knew any of that, then folks with a little bit of clue on this stuff could cut through a lot of the crap and speculation.

 

[UncleMark]

That would make way more sense. If she was using Weiner's laptop, she probably accessed it through the browser.

It would also explain Huma not realizing/understanding that her email is on that machine, even though she didn't "download her email" on it with Outlook. Of course, assuming a nefarious explanation is much more satisfying for many.

 

[Hank Reardon]

That would make way more sense. If she was using Weiner's laptop, she probably accessed it through the browser.

It's possible, but not really likely. Here's a read on that subject.

https://www.magnetforensics.com/com...mail-analysis-browser-artifacts-you-may-find/

Basically the browser cache would only contain artifacts from anything actually accessed since the last time the cache was cleared. And if someone occasionally used another person's laptop to access their Yahoo mail then the only thing you'd see is what they actually read. Since we're apparently talking about thousands of emails over many years this seems unlikely to be the source.

More likely it's a local PST cache. But obviously I don't really know. Of course the nightmare for Hillary would be if it really was a CYA stash, but I suppose that's too cool to hope for.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It's possible, but not really likely. Here's a read on that subject.

https://www.magnetforensics.com/com...mail-analysis-browser-artifacts-you-may-find/

Basically the browser cache would only contain artifacts from anything actually accessed since the last time the cache was cleared. And if someone occasionally used another person's laptop to access their Yahoo mail then the only thing you'd see is what they actually read. Since we're apparently talking about thousands of emails over many years this seems unlikely to be the source.

More likely it's a local PST cache. But obviously I don't really know. Of course the nightmare for Hillary would be if it really was a CYA stash, but I suppose that's too cool to hope for.

PST's are a bet, but that requires an affirmative action. Creating the PST. If she truly does not remember, I am still betting the cached mode. The problem with that is I would assume the emails stored are a couple years worth to get to the numbers reported. I don't recall that long being possible.

It is also possible she had someone work on the laptop before they took a trip together, and the person put pst files on their for her. She doesn't recall using the computer, but also doesn't recall someone saying they will set up her computer for email. If I were Donald Trump wealthy and could afford two laptops I could see setting both up for my wife and I before a trip just in case something went wrong with one.

 

[Hank Reardon]

PST's are a bet, but that requires an affirmative action. Creating the PST. If she truly does not remember, I am still betting the cached mode. The problem with that is I would assume the emails stored are a couple years worth to get to the numbers reported. I don't recall that long being possible.

It is also possible she had someone work on the laptop before they took a trip together, and the person put pst files on their for her. She doesn't recall using the computer, but also doesn't recall someone saying they will set up her computer for email. If I were Donald Trump wealthy and could afford two laptops I could see setting both up for my wife and I before a trip just in case something went wrong with one.

Well, I'm dismissing the "I don't remember" claim anyway. Hillary, just maybe could be technically clueless. But I'm guessing that Huma knows exactly what she's doing when it comes to these things.

If they can demonstrate that she actually used this device or devices with any regularity to send/receive relevant email, Huma might be staring at a perjury charge, and that would, or should, scare Hillary. This stuff isn't going to swing the election, but it might just be a cloud over HRC for a long time unless she can clean house and get more cooperative people in charge. I'd guess she's up to that task.

 

[zeke4ahs]

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html Donald really has reason to take the high road on deleting emails.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Well, I'm dismissing the "I don't remember" claim anyway. Hillary, just maybe could be technically clueless. But I'm guessing that Huma knows exactly what she's doing when it comes to these things.

If they can demonstrate that she actually used this device or devices with any regularity to send/receive relevant email, Huma might be staring at a perjury charge, and that would, or should, scare Hillary. This stuff isn't going to swing the election, but it might just be a cloud over HRC for a long time unless she can clean house and get more cooperative people in charge. I'd guess she's up to that task.

I'm not sold the election is over. On the various threads I see that is conventional wisdom. I think Clinton will win the popular vote, by a fairly wide margin. I just haven't ruled out Trump sneaking past in Florida, Ohio, and New Mexico. Sure, at the moment that looks dang hard. But I never dreamed Trump would easily win the nomination. I have seen too many old Hammer movies to discount the monster until there is only 2 minutes left.

 

[IU1]

While the Democrats are tut-tuting over Comey the reality is they put forth a horrendously flawed candidate with no integrity and an active pay to play scheme working for the world to see. Why? Because she thought she was above the law.

This is what happens when you run real fast and real hard with the rules, thinking you can't be stopped. Maybe she won't be, maybe she still wins the election? But if she loses, it won't be Comey's fault, it will be the Democratic Party.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Here's a practical explanation.

That's pretty much the same thing. I learned about it in rigorous socratic Q & A environment instead of stated "arguments".

 

[hootch1]

I learned it from Dobie Gillis.

 

[mjvcaj]

Didn't know where else to ask this and didn't want to start another thread, but what is the legality and ethics regarding this?

Kadzik is an assistant AG for the DOJ.

@TheOriginalHappyGoat ... any thoughts?

 

[stollcpa]

I don't know much about the legal aspects of all this, I'll leave that to the attorneys. But I've seen a couple articles where both sides of the aisle are criticizing Comey for the handling of this. My original thought was that he was the proverbial rock and hard place, in deciding whether to announce or wait until he had more info. There are also reports that he did release to GOP before the Dems and that Chaffetz tweeted about it before the Dems even had the information. It also appears that he defied the DOJ in releasing the letter.

How could he defy the DOJ if Lynch did as she said and left this all up to Comey? I guess that only applies if Comey did what she wanted. I know, I know. That was then and this is now. Lol

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Didn't know where else to ask this and didn't want to start another thread, but what is the legality and ethics regarding this?

Kadzik is an assistant AG for the DOJ.

@TheOriginalHappyGoat ... any thoughts?

Not really. Need more context. If the DOJ source Fox talked to is accurate, I'd say nothing illegal or unethical, but that doesn't mean there might not be DOJ policies violated.

 

[mjvcaj]

Not really. Need more context. If the DOJ source Fox talked to is accurate, I'd say nothing illegal or unethical, but that doesn't mean there might not be DOJ policies violated.

This is from Wikileaks. Basically an email from the AGA informing Clinton's campaign manager about the investigation.