FBI reopens Clinton case
- Thread starter dbmhoosier
- Start date
There is no 'reopening" of the Clinton case.
<q>
The Associated Press reported that the emails the FBI is investigating did not come from Clinton’s private server. NBC’s Pete Williams noted that the emails were not from Clinton and were not withheld by Clinton’s campaign.
</q>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ail-investigation_us_58138552e4b0990edc30cb36
My prediction is that Democrats will quickly make the claim that Comey is now a partisan Republican hack and that this letter to Congress was his attempt to help Republicans, or destroy HRC (which he could have done by recommending charges previously), or help Trump, or all of the above.
Discosure - I still don't want Trump to win and I don't think he will. However, Rubio, Bush or Kasich would probably be up double digits now and coast to an election win. Thanks for that Trumpsters. . .
Exactly, and it's all we have left to hope for. I'm banking on the HRC administration being the most entertaining administration of our lifetime.
He didn't re-open the investigation. He simply informed the relevant committee chairs that they were looking at new evidence that might affect his sworn testimony. That's it.
Because SCOTUS has held pledges to be Constitutional, the default would probably simply be to not count Michigan's or Utah's votes, if it came up. I suspect, however, that the justices might decide that a pledge is one thing, but removal is another, and strike down those laws.
Grin . . . .
Comey said before "The FBI had completed its investigation". Now he said "The FBI should take appropriate investigative steps . . . .".
I dunno, this sounds like he authorized investigation into a previously completed matter.
I hate your stupid bolding of posts, btw. You give the responders extra work.
Anywhoo...Wasn't this evident in the fact that he didn't go through with a press conference and only offered a statement?
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...n-calls-to-explain-fresh-clinton-e-mail-probe
I don't follow
If I knew more about "extra work" I'd stop. This is probably getting old anyway. Originally it was my act of civil disobedience to the formatting change.
If I quote you but want to call out a specific sentence or point in your post, I typically bold it and it conflicts with your first sentence bolding.
Any cop presented with new information that might be relevant to an old case is going to look at it. But that doesn't mean it's going to be an active investigation again. It's quite possible that Comey sends another letter on Monday saying, "We looked at it, and there's nothing new. Sorry to waste your time."
Wonder how quickly Chaffetz holds a press conference to announce that.
You like using the phrase "nothing burger." This is a nothing burger.
While I support the campaign to end first line bolding - I knew from the beginning why CO.H was doing it, but, yes, it's gotten old - I can help you out on this. Stop using bold type to highlight a specific portion you are responding to. Use your mouse to highlight a particular part of the text of someone's post, and when you do, underneath, a small tab will open with two options "+Quote" and "Reply." Click reply, and the portion of the text you highlighted will be placed in a quote, and your cursor will be moved to the reply box. In other words, it works the same way as the normal Reply button, but it only quotes the portion of the text you highlighted. It still tags the other poster, and all that jazz.
Practically speaking, how much difference is there in that distinction: "Looking at new evidence" vs. "Reopening the investigation"?
Probably not a whole lot.
It's the connotation. "Reopen the investigation" implies it's a big deal, whereas nothing Comey actually said in that letter suggests that to be the case.
I'm sure it's just a Security Review.
Seriously though, I understand why he made the statement that he did but I do think the banner headlines are a bit deceiving.
Podesta is asking Comey to fully disclose what they're reviewing. That makes me think he knows what it is, and it's a nothingburger. (<grin> @ CoH)
That doesn't really answer my question, though.
You're quoting Comey in saying that they're going to be "looking at new evidence" and distinguishing that from "reopening the investigation." I mean, I get that they haven't (yet, anyway) scheduled any new interviews or anything of that sort.
I'm just not sure I see much distinction between "looking at new evidence" and "reopening the investigation." What if this "new evidence" leads to the need to reinterview somebody? Would that, then, count? Something obviously compelled them to take this action. And I doubt that it was finding an oatmeal raisin cookie recipe.
FWIW, John Hinderaker is speculating that the FBI might have found something contradicting Huma's testimony:
Q. Okay. When you were working at the State Department, other than your Clintonemail.com account and your State.gov account, did you have any other e-mail accounts that you used at any point for work-related matters at the State Department?
A. I had a Yahoo e-mail, a Yahoo.com e-mail account that was purely a — a personal account where — that I rarely used. But there were occasions when I forwarded State Department press clips to that account to be printed.
Basically, he's guessing that, in going through Huma/Anthony's computer that they came across something that was more than she was letting on here, regarding "press clips" and such.A. I had a Yahoo e-mail, a Yahoo.com e-mail account that was purely a — a personal account where — that I rarely used. But there were occasions when I forwarded State Department press clips to that account to be printed.
I guess time will tell. All I'm saying here is that I don't think there's a whole lot of daylight between "looking at new evidence" and "reopening the investigation."
Y'all kill me.
Hillary could drive off a bridge drunk, drown a woman, leave the scene, and not lose a single Democrat vote.
This is a nothing sandwich. (See what I did there?)
Hillary could drive off a bridge drunk, drown a woman, leave the scene, and not lose a single Democrat vote.
This is a nothing sandwich. (See what I did there?)
I've learned my lesson. It doesn't matter anymore. I used to care.
There is a separate legal system for those with the right connections and knows people at the highest level. Sure, Comey was a Republican at one time. He is first a politician. He has to play along with his bosses even if he doesn't believe in it. It is how all politicians keep power. They all do things they don't believe in to stay in their job. There was no other decision that could have been taken by a FBI Director working for a Democrat AG serving under a Democratic President.
Hillary is corrupt and and she is good at it. All politicians from all parties are corrupt, but she is the best. We accept this and vote for people like this anyway. One crook is no better than another.
There is a chance Comey is having a temporary flirtation with honesty. It won't last very long and it really doesn't matter.
Dems loved Comey when he turned Clinton loose in July didn't they. Now, without even knowing what the FBI has got, the Dems are screaming that he's a bad guy attempting to influence the outcome against them. As long as you do their bidding, you're a hero. Take 1 step away and they'll crucify you. When will they
"draw and quarter" Huma?
Because she still wouldn't be the idiot you guys are running. But has she shot anyone on 5th yet????
Well, I think there's a ton of daylight, not because of what the phrases mean, but because of how they are interpreted.
That said, I just heard on CBS that this isn't 3 emails. It's thousands. Which means it will take some time to go through them. No way this is resolved before the election, either popular or electoral. So this is no longer a nothing burger. This will hang over the rest of the election, and the months of transition. And if Comey's last report on the issue is anything other than "After going through the new emails, nothing has changed; we found nothing illegal in them," then for some time thereafter.
Only that it's what Dave chose to post. My guess is Fox will treat it a bit differently than the real news stations.
There are some democrats being hilariously hypocritical in their response to Comey (Chaffetz is the bad guy, here), but you are absolutely not the person to be sending this message. You lack the self-awareness God gave a plum.
The default should be - This is a power given, by the People in enacting the Constitution, exclusively to the House of Representatives. We will take no part in that decision. End of Case.
Comey only lacked sufficient evidence of intent. That seems really easily proven to me and I can only hope they have found something solid. They are causing a heck of a sh!tstorm if this is all about nothing.
That's not accurate, though. The Constitution firmly places the method of selection of electors under the authority of state legislatures. It gives Congress the authority to choose when they vote, and it directly instructs the electors on how to go about it.
For electors, but not for what we were discussiing - less than 270 throwing it into the House and the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Based on what we know from today, why should anyone change their mind regarding the emails? Why should anyone change their mind about some vehicular homicide charge that still has me confused.
Clinton has called for a full disclosure by the FBI of what the FBI has. That's about as good a response as one could ask for under the circumstances.
The question I have is why on God's green earth would ANYBODY have anything to do with Anthony Weiner after the sexting scandals a few years ago.
The question I have is why on God's green earth would ANYBODY have anything to do with Anthony Weiner after the sexting scandals a few years ago.
