A wise person once told me, "If you don't want people to get your goat, don't let em know where you keep it tied up."
Apparently there are a lot of Coolerites whose goats are tied to the Clintons. How's that workin out?
FBI reopens Clinton case
- Thread starter dbmhoosier
- Start date
Apparently there are a lot of Coolerites whose goats are tied to the Clintons. How's that workin out?
Seriously?
Do you really believe the "pressure of unreasonable opponents" is what led Comey to write the letter. The pressure, if any there be, was all on the other side of the equation. If he kept quiet, and the further investigation yielded nothing, then no harm no foul. The AG, technically his boss, (but not actually or ethically) told him to bury it. Clinton already suggested he could stay on as FBI director upon her election. He can kiss that good-bye now. The only risk Comey runs by keeping silent is if the new information leads to a prosecution, which would never happen in a practical sense anyway so long as Lynch is in charge.
So I think you are flat dead wrong about the pressure thing.
Is Comey looking out for his own reputation? Maybe. But if he is, he is on an ethical plane so high that Hillary can't even see it from where she is with her ethics.
This is a case of chickens coming home to roost. Hillary and her staff have lied about this email thing from day one. It is ironic that now she is bitching about there not being enough disclosure.
As a side note, given Hillary's temper and the way she treats people around her, I bet Huma got blistering like she has never seen. She and Hillary have been inseparable throughout this campaign, until today. We'll see if Huma falls on her sword for Hillary.
Maybe...could...possibly...might...potentially
Let me know when you have something other than speculation.
Who's your candidate again? Oh, right, Trump. I can't even say anything that would make that worse.
Oh contraire there are thousands of emails which include some which HRC deleted and no clue they existed elsewhere. Just be patient Comey thought it important to disclose now and if nothing there I am 100% sure he would not have sought the wrath of HRC.
Do you have an inside source of some kind, or are you just making that up?
I'd have far less problems with this if Comey had released the same letter to Congress (for the Pubs to leak) as what he sent to his own agents...
Read Comey’s letter to FBI employees below.
To all:
This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.
Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.
Jim Comey
Why do you persist in saying they "reopened" the investigation? Comey is merely looking at the emails to see if they warrant further investigation.He says himself that he agreed they should take steps to OBTAIN and REVIEW the emails,so why is stupid Trump saying that they found something?
What Comey should do is come forward and say they found emails that they haven't had a chance to examine and read on the laptop.They don't know if they are duplicates or new,but they do know that Huma told them in interviews that she frequently forwarded emails to Clinton's server that she could not get to print in the workplace.
Comey needs to say "Mr Trump please stop saying that we reopened the case (it was never closed) or that we found anything.The TRUTH is we don't know ANYTHING yet,because I was basically notifying Congress that we had decided to LOOK at the emails.So it's irresponsible (even considering the low standard you set daily Mr Trump) to keep claiming that we would not have reopened the case if we hadn't found something serious.Why are you such a stupid blowhard (that's my wording) that you claim something that isn't even known...
I further think he should exercise civic responsibility and tell people not to vote for a moronic dictatorial racist xenophobe,but it remains to be seen if Comey will go that far.But he definitely needs to set the record straight,and call out Trump for outright lying...
If he does have inside info,he KNOWS MORE than Comey himself,based on the leaked memo I included previously. WAPO posted the memo Comey sent to his own agents explaining why he decided to send the letter to Congress.People look pretty damn foolish claiming Comey wouldn't have taken this step if the consequences weren't dire,when Comey himself cautioned his agents that he KNEW NOTHING.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-email-investigation/?utm_term=.a007e96eb5f0
I think this is one of those unfortunate situations where the same word is use for two different things. There's a qualitative difference between "climbing the ladder" internal politics, and the sordid public electoral politics Comey has found himself involved in.
Just attempting to put pieces of the puzzle together from various news sources (those to which you would approve) and trying to make sense out of Comey's actions. I am wondering why Huma would save all these (even if just one) emails. Guess she thought her phones etc were safe from the FBI purview that is until they were seized from her husband for sexting.
Do you think there is any chance that his "conscience" caught up with him after the hearings?
Why do you post like this?
Dave was giving his summary and conclusions of all the news he has seen, heard and read. If you disagree, fine, write your disagreement. But calling him a liar is uncalled for. You simply have no ability to deal with disagreements in a civil manner.
You're right, lying was the incorrect label for that. But he was making it up. He wasn't summarizing anything, or drawing any conclusions. He was simply making a flatly incorrect assertion. And he presented it as though it were fact. That means he was making it up.
Or maybe someone else made it up, and he simply read it somewhere and believed it without doing any research.
When one reasons based on the facts available to him/her it is not lying. Using your argument your "opinion" is a lie. Accusing someone of lying just because their opinion is different than theirs is the reason the state of politics is so sad.
OK, a question for the lawyers. If the FBI is investigating case A and has a warrant for a search based on case A, but they discover evidence for case B, do they need a new warrant? Yahoo is reporting the emails on the laptop have not been looked at at all as the FBI does not have a warrant for the Clinton e-mail issue.
That's complicated, but it comes down to the scope of the warrant they have giving them authority to search the device in the first place. If the warrant authorizes them, for example, to read any emails sent from or to Weiner, then they can't open any of Huma's emails that were sent to or from someone other than him. If that's the explanation (or something similar), it simply further highlights how people are overreacting to this news, and may very well strengthen criticism of Comey for even sending that note to Congress in the first place.
Anyway, that would be the simplest explanation. There may be some other possibilities that lawyers who are better versed in this topic than I am might come up with.
You presented baseless speculation as though it were fact. I already agreed it was wrong of me to refer to that as "lying," but I stand by "making things up."
I defended Comey earlier in the thread, he has a job to do and I won't begrudge him doing his job. BUT if this Yahoo report is accurate and the emails are completely unviewed because they are waiting on a warrant, than he's a total moron for not mentioning that in his initial report or his followup.
Why do you say he's a moron for not mentioning the search warrant?
Search warrants are not issued for fishing expeditions. The FBI must show probable cause to obtain one. That is consistent with what Comey said and is also consistent with the threshold point I've made. Comey previously said he completed the investigation. Now he is getting a search warrant. This is significant. If I were Hillary fans I'd be more worried about an indictment than the election.
LOL.
The point is, it's very clear that no one has even opened the emails yet. That should have been made clear to prevent the kind of speculation that's rampant in this thread and everywhere else.
As for getting a warrant and probable cause, that shouldn't be a problem at all. They already showed probable cause for other devices. All they need to do is demonstrate that the emails found on this device are worth looking at, as well, which can be done with something as simple as, "They were in Huma's inbox." You're trying to draw entirely unwarranted conclusions from this.
I agree, but I'd actually go further. Even if he felt the need to notify Congress, he should have waited until the warrant was actually in hand. I don't think they'll have a problem getting one, but just for the sake of speculation, what if the judge says no? What's he do, then? Send a follow up to Congress next week that reads, "Dear Congress: Never mind. Yours, James Comey?"
I must have gotten too much sun at the game today. I thought we had a long back and forth where I suggested the FBI may not have read the emails at all and you suggested that you assume they are competent and have read them and know something is there.
Now you seem to agree that of course they haven't read the messages without a warrant. If they have not read them at all, how do they prove he has surpassed some threshold? If the emails are not read, is it not possible every one of them has already been turned over by her?
Edited out accidental saved reply.
Honestly? Probably not. No way to make a prediction without knowing anything about these emails, but if they are what we think they probably are - emails in an inbox or outbox belonging to Huma - then I imagine they'll get the warrant without too much trouble, since it's really just expanding a previously approved inquiry to a new device.
I never said the FBI read the all the messages. I never thought they did. As I've tried to explain, there is enough information about the emails to raise suspicions and reopen the investigation, or to continue it, whicheverver formulation you prefer. The search warrant matter convinces me that this is more than fishing.
Goat or some one above discussed the issue of warrant for server emails on the devices. I agree one might be needed but there is another rule of law that when executing a valid search warrant additional criminal information is discovered in plain view that that info is discoverable and will be admitted at trial. If while reading appropriate emails under the search warrant confidential information becomes apparent where it should not be one could argue a warrant is not necessary but in all concern for the law personally I would obtain one. Probable cause would be in the email itself and easily obtained.
Just for fun, here is some baseless speculation. Abedin was required to turn over all her email. In that, she was required to turn over a list of devices she used to access emails. She did not list this device (nefarious or accidental oversight does not matter). The FBI gets the device and sees emails. They have sudden interest.
Now these emails could be things she was trying to hide, I cannot possible know that. It also can be from something as simple as she uses Microsoft Outlook which, by default, turns on the second biggest mistake* in computing. A feature so evil everyone should know its name, cached mode. Cached mode brings down copies of your email from the email server and stores them locally. I instruct all my users to turn that off, why anyone in Redmond thinks having it on is good I will never know. Now, here's where this could be entirely innocent, if that is all true, the FBI already has each and every one of those emails from her other devices and from the server. In other words, we cannot at all rule out this is a tempest in a teapot just before an election. And if my speculation is right, Comey has made a horrible mistake. But again, there may be something more there. But based on what he has said, we have no clue whatsoever.
Entirely different rant ahead for those of you concerned with security.
*The most nefarious product out there is Dropbox. It sounds great, have all you files available to you where ever you go. The problem is anyone can install dropbox on a computer. I as an administrator cannot block the program from being installed. We have a small number of computers that are relatively public. Not completely public, but anyone who is associated with us can use this lab. This is so people who are here for meetings or anything else have access to computers. These people, with only standard user rights, are able to install Dropbox. Here's the thing, it appears virtually everyone stores copies of their tax returns on their Dropbox. We find these all the time in our security scans. We tell people of this problem, we send detailed instructions on how to put their tax returns in a folder and turn off sync for that folder. We still find them. It puts them at risk. It also puts me at risk as having tax returns on a computer here is violation of policy.
In July Comey announced that it was clear that HRC and/or her team had mishandled (was "extremely careless") with "highly classified" information, but he'd only consider recommending charges if he could show that HRC and/or her staffers had criminal intent or attempted to obstruct the investigation. With respect to criminal intent, the law doesn't require that, it only requires that the mishandling be "grossly negligent." Military folks have in fact been punished under the UCMJ and convicted for gross negligence in handling classified information. That's a fact that Comey didn't dispute in his last congressional hearing. However, the military world is often held to higher standards and Comey says that criminal intent is required so it is what it is. I'm not sure what they could find in Abedin's emails that would demonstrate criminal intent which they say they didn't find previously other than some clear statement of intent so I doubt that will be found. The attempt to obstruct justice part seems more likely to me. If the emails on this laptop show that she routinely used that computer to handle work-related email, but didn't inform the FBI of this than I'd guess that it could possibly be an attempt to obstruct the investigation. By the way, I think that one or more of the several staffers that got immunity was the one that intentionally introduced some of the classified information into her system (because some of it, like the TS/SAP and the ones with Confidential paragraph markings couldn't possibly have been introduced accidentally) and that's why no one was prosecuted for that, but obstruction could still be proven.
I'm just speculating. I actually wish this revelation hadn't been announced until after the election. Regardless of ultimate outcome of this, it's going to hurt her election chances a little and I still don't think Trump should be elected President. Despite all of HRC's negative traits and shadiness, I'd prefer that she win rather than Trump. He's that bad. I still think she will win, but this does hurt her and gives Trump a slightly better chance of sneaking into the office.
Once again, that's about as much of an endorsement of HRC that I can muster.
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.
In July Comey announced that it was clear that HRC and/or her team had mishandled (was "extremely careless") with "highly classified" information, but he'd only consider recommending charges if he could show that HRC and/or her staffers had criminal intent or attempted to obstruct the investigation. With respect to criminal intent, the law doesn't require that, it only requires that the mishandling be "grossly negligent." Military folks have in fact been punished under the UCMJ and convicted for gross negligence in handling classified information. That's a fact that Comey didn't dispute in his last congressional hearing. However, the military world is often held to higher standards and Comey says that criminal intent is required so it is what it is. I'm not sure what they could find in Abedin's emails that would demonstrate criminal intent which they say they didn't find previously other than some clear statement of intent so I doubt that will be found. The attempt to obstruct justice part seems more likely to me. If the emails on this laptop show that she routinely used that computer to handle work-related email, but didn't inform the FBI of this than I'd guess that it could possibly be an attempt to obstruct the investigation. By the way, I think that one or more of the several staffers that got immunity was the one that intentionally introduced some of the classified information into her system (because some of it, like the TS/SAP and the ones with Confidential paragraph markings couldn't possibly have been introduced accidentally) and that's why no one was prosecuted for that, but obstruction could still be proven.
I'm just speculating. I actually wish this revelation hadn't been announced until after the election. Regardless of ultimate outcome of this, it's going to hurt her election chances a little and I still don't think Trump should be elected President. Despite all of HRC's negative traits and shadiness, I'd prefer that she win rather than Trump. He's that bad. I still think she will win, but this does hurt her and gives Trump a slightly better chance of sneaking into the office.
Once again, that's about as much of an endorsement of HRC that I can muster.
There is a big problem here
Hillary will be our next president. Comey's letter is important, but not so important as to turn the election around. But . . . . . .the election isn't the issue
The issue is that we will elect a person to the office of president who is under active felony investigation. Her election will pressurize the investigation; meaning that it will never ever be over so long as she is POTUS. If she is cleared, many people will say the fix was in. And I don't think that kind of a fix is entirely inappropriate for the country--it would be kind of an under the table pardon. For a number of reasons, we just can't have a POTUS-elect facing a felony trial. If the fix isn't in, and she is indicted, well, we are all screwed.
Even if she is cleared on the up and up without any fixing, Clinton personally, and Clinton as POTUS will be indelibly tainted. She did lie about a number of things and that is clear in the record.
Domestically and internationally the US is not in a good place now. We need a strong, effective and most of all, a credible POTUS; we have zero chance of getting one.
He defied Lynch.
Lynch is not his supervisor. If Lynch wants to tell Comey what the FBI's PTO policy should be, fine. But she ethically can't tell him how to exercise professional judgment.
Here is the statement by a senior Democratic congressional aide ( not attributed, which does leave me skeptical) Democratic Ranking Members on the relevant committees didn't receive Comey's letter until after the Republican Chairmen. In fact, the Democratic Ranking Members didn't receive it until after the Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committe, Jason Chaffetz, tweeted it out and made it public.
If this is true, that's a problem.
If this is true, that's a problem.
Why would Hillary be indicted for these sets of emails....that she never sent or received.
These have to do with Huma and Weiner, no?
You are way down a rabbit hole here.
http://www.liberalamerica.org/2016/...ed-dojs-warning-releasing-info-hillary-email/ Should be an interesting day tomorrow. I'd bet we will get another statement from Comey.
The only loose end in the case is Hillary's state of mind as she handled secret emails with extreme carelessness.
There are reportedly thousands of emails to be reviewed. Huma is Clinton's closest aid, they were inseparable for years. Huma could have mentioned Hillary's mindset with the emails and private server. We already know that Huma said in an email that Hillary was "easily confused" and we also know that Hillary and Huma had at least one, and maybe more, conversations about Hillary's email and security practices.
Last edited:
