FBI reopens investigation into Clinton email use

[momeNt]

Document dump is an adversarial way of handling a subpoena, so regardless of whether dump meant to incapacitate an investigation with large amount of documents, or literally delete the emails, the intent is actually the same. To obscure or hide pertinent information or evidence from the prosecutor or plaintiff in a civil matter.

 

[theeedude]

Document dump is an adversarial way of handling a subpoena, so regardless of whether dump meant to incapacitate an investigation with large amount of documents, or literally delete the emails, the intent is actually the same. To obscure or hide pertinent information or evidence from the prosecutor or plaintiff in a civil matter.

LOL WUT? Providing all the documents is an adversarial way to handle a subpoena? Trump think right here.

 

[fskimospy]

Document dump is an adversarial way of handling a subpoena, so regardless of whether dump meant to incapacitate an investigation with large amount of documents, or literally delete the emails, the intent is actually the same. To obscure or hide pertinent information or evidence from the prosecutor or plaintiff in a civil matter.

Providing emails is not in any way the same deleting emails. Like it is literally the definitionally the opposite thing. What's even stranger is that it's not like they provided a whole ton of extraneous documents that weren't on the server to the best of my knowledge, so you're actually complaining that they DIDN'T refuse to send more emails over.

If you mean they weren't going to do any work to help the congressional subpoena into this...well...duh.

 

[momeNt]

Providing emails is not in any way the same deleting emails. Like it is literally the definitionally the opposite thing. What's even stranger is that it's not like they provided a whole ton of extraneous documents that weren't on the server to the best of my knowledge, so you're actually complaining that they DIDN'T refuse to send more emails over.

If you mean they weren't going to do any work to help the congressional subpoena into this...well...duh.

What did I say? The intent is the same. It's literally different. C'mon, don't be dense, you are better than this.

 

[momeNt]

LOL WUT? Providing all the documents is an adversarial way to handle a subpoena? Trump think right here.

Look it up.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have no idea what you are talking about, nor do you. The FBI obtained a warrant to seize and examine Anthony Weiner's laptop for the purpose of his sexting scandal. While looking through it they discovered a treasure trove of emails, roughly 650,000! The FBI has been looking at them for some time now, but cannot use them for it was not part of the original warrant. Well, now they can, for the DOJ has granted a new warrant to do so. This *COULD* be the holy grail where the unvarnished, non-redacted truth lies, and trust me the FBI ALREADY knows, hence, the bombshell. If the cops get a warrant to search your car for drugs, but instead find a body in your trunk, do you really think you're gonna skate?

Please. The original warrant allows them to find & examine emails from Weiner to the alleged victim & vice versa. Emails to & from Huma aren't included in that. If they were, than an additional warrant would not be required. The presence of Huma's email on that computer is not indicative of wrongdoing per se & the fact that they proceeded to a warrant w/o even asking for permission indicates that it's highly political.

So, where's the warrant? What does it say?

 

[theeedude]

Look it up.

Link it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Why is the FBI continuing to disregard its own rules about interfering in an election?

What rules exactly are they disregarding, and how so?

 

[momeNt]

Link it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_dump

A document dump is the act of responding to an adversary's request for information by presenting the adversary with a large quantity of data that is transferred in a manner that indicates unfriendliness, hostility, or a legal conflict between the transmitter and the receiver of the information. The shipment of dumped documents is unsorted, or contains a large quantity of information that is extraneous to the issue under inquiry, or is presented in an untimely manner, or some combination of these three characteristics. The phrase is often used by lawyers, but is in increasing use in the blogosphere. It is often seen as part of the characteristic behavior of an entity that is engaging in an ongoing pattern of activities intended to cover up unethical or criminal conduct.

 

[fskimospy]

What did I say? The intent is the same. It's literally different. C'mon, don't be dense, you are better than this.

This is like the third or fourth time you have questioned my intelligence or my motives when I disagree with you. You can stop doing that now. The intent is not remotely the same, and the effect is not remotely the same. Equating the two is dumb.

If you believe that's what occurred here and that's what Podesta was indicating should be done you should be able to show where they provided a 'large quantity of information that is extraneous to the issue under inquiry'. This would be impressive considering that the most common complaint is that they didn't give ENOUGH.

EDIT: For example just the other day I had to send the contents of an entire SQL table to someone. In my email I said I was just going to dump the table and give it to them. I imagine if someone read my email they would think I was up to something nefarious, but that's silly.

 

[PokerGuy]

Heh. Your reasoning is circular. You said "Given that there was the letter, I'd say they found something interesting", the implication being that they'd already opened emails not pertinent to the sexting allegations.

No, as eskimospy already pointed out, the full content of the emails was not known at the time the letter was sent (at least not officially). Once they determined that the emails could be relevant to the earlier investigation, they obtained the warrant and sent the letter to congress to make them aware of the development.

The presence of Huma's emails is not evidence of wrongdoing, is it?

That depends on the content, and it also depends on wrongdoing on who's part. For example, if huma said under oath that she never used the laptop for her emails and then it turns out they are on there, then their presence is possible evidence of wrongdoing (could be perjury).

Valid search warrants aren't just fishing licenses. They allege violation of specific statutes & I'd be very interested to see what, if any, such allegations have been made in obtaining this one.

There was no fishing involved. They looked at emails on his laptop as part of one investigation, and saw that there were emails that were relevant to the other investigation. They then obtained a warrant to look through those. No allegations are needed, it's simply a warrant to see the content of those emails as part of their earlier investigation (which is still open). In other words, by the book.

 

[PokerGuy]

Please. The original warrant allows them to find & examine emails from Weiner to the alleged victim & vice versa.

If as part of cursory examination of the emails they saw there were emails there relevant to the other investigation, they don't just pretend they saw nothing. At the same time, they can't just start looking through the content of those emails without obtaining a new warrant -- which they did. Completely standard procedure.

So, where's the warrant? What does it say?

We know for certain a warrant was obtained to look through those emails. What exactly the warrant says is not publicly known as it is still an active investigation.

 

[momeNt]

This is like the third or fourth time you have questioned my intelligence or my motives when I disagree with you. You can stop doing that now. The intent is not remotely the same, and the effect is not remotely the same. Equating the two is dumb.

If you believe that's what occurred here and that's what Podesta was indicating should be done you should be able to show where they provided a 'large quantity of information that is extraneous to the issue under inquiry'. This would be impressive considering that the most common complaint is that they didn't give ENOUGH.

Huh? No. I was explaining what document dump meant because you were trying to make off like it was proper compliance with the subpoena, when in actuality, it not proper, and is intended up bad behavior.

I don't need to provide any evidence that they did dump or didn't dump, or did or didn't delete. You were just being disingenuous about the terminology. I made an effort to clear that up and you instead moved the goalposts with a ridiculous request, and try to make it seem now that if I don't provide, I'm the one defeated.

You'll always win the game if you are constantly changing the rules, but you'll never have any fun doing it.

 

[theeedude]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_dump

Nowhere near same as deleting information under subpoena. Are you saying she should have withheld information to make it more convenient for the FBI?

 

[momeNt]

Of course people also frequently refer to a mass transmission of emails and other things as the result of a subpoena as a 'document dump', which would mean there was absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Including your edit.

EDIT: For example just the other day I had to send the contents of an entire SQL table to someone. In my email I said I was just going to dump the table and give it to them. I imagine if someone read my email they would think I was up to something nefarious, but that's silly.

Document dump, is specific lingo, you are actually referring to its use as specific lingo when responding to a subpoena. You now suggesting you used it in another fashion, such as a data dump, is again, moving the goalposts, or whatever you want to call it, but you are changing what you said in order to appear right.

 

[theeedude]

One has to provide what's in the subpoena. If subpoena is for all emails, then they have to dump all emails.

 

[momeNt]

Nowhere near same as deleting information under subpoena. Are you saying she should have withheld information to make it more convenient for the FBI?

If for a second, you were playing devil's advocate with your own argument, could you perhaps see how the intent is the same. Whose to say the needle is in the haystack? Or it was deleted from the haystack? Either way the object of finding the needle is much more difficult regardless of if its in the haystack, or deleted entirely.

 

[fskimospy]

Including your edit.

Document dump, is specific lingo, you are actually referring to its use as specific lingo when responding to a subpoena. You now suggesting you used it in another fashion, such as a data dump, is again, moving the goalposts, or whatever you want to call it, but you are changing what you said in order to appear right.

I'm suggesting that it is often used in other fashions and that Podesta using it in a similar fashion to me is entirely reasonable, especially since we know they didn't flood Congress with a bunch of extraneous information.

 

[fskimospy]

If for a second, you were playing devil's advocate with your own argument, could you perhaps see how the intent is the same. Whose to say the needle is in the haystack? Or it was deleted from the haystack? Either way the object of finding the needle is much more difficult regardless of if its in the haystack, or deleted entirely.

Considering the subpoena was for the contents of the server can you describe to us what that 'haystack' would be where they would be burying the needle? I'm genuinely at a loss trying to come up with something.

 

[momeNt]

One has to provide what's in the subpoena. If subpoena is for all emails, then they have to dump all emails.

Do you want to see the subpoena?

Can't link PDF, but follow the link on this page.

https://benghazi.house.gov/news/pre...mmittee-on-benghazi-releases-clinton-subpoena

The subpoena to Clinton can be found at the link.

Since you often can't be bothered to click links or do any sort of research, here are the email requests.

1. For the time period of January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012, any and all documents and communications in your possession, and/or sent from or received by the email address "hdr22@clintonemail.com," "hrod17@cintonemail.com," or any other email address or communications device used by you or another on your behalf, referring or related to:

A. Libya (including but not limited to Benghazi and Tripoli);

B weapons located or found in, imported or brought into, and/or exported or removed from Libya;

C. the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and September 12, 2012; or

D. statements pertaining to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and September 12, 2012.

 

[hal2kilo]

Another interesting side to the story is that Lynch apparently tried to stop Comey from releasing the letter but he called her bluff. The story I read said he asked her point blank if he was being ordered not to release the letter, which she did not do. Pretty scary when the head of the FBI has to battle to do his job when investigating activities of someone who many think should be above the law.....

Why would that be odd. She's his boss, but is bending over backwards to show no influence by asking

If for a second, you were playing devil's advocate with your own argument, could you perhaps see how the intent is the same. Whose to say the needle is in the haystack? Or it was deleted from the haystack? Either way the object of finding the needle is much more difficult regardless of if its in the haystack, or deleted entirely.

Dumping to me would be sending all the emails printed out on paper in non-digital form. If it's in digital form (electronically searchable) who cares. A few gigs of emails can be searched relatively quiclky if you know what terms you are looking for.

 

[momeNt]

Considering the subpoena was for the contents of the server can you describe to us what that 'haystack' would be where they would be burying the needle? I'm genuinely at a loss trying to come up with something.

Obviously there is going to be a lot of double backing in arguing about this, because that is how she handled it from the get-go, so this is pretty par for the course.

 

[OutHouse]

Please. The original warrant allows them to find & examine emails from Weiner to the alleged victim & vice versa. Emails to & from Huma aren't included in that. If they were, than an additional warrant would not be required. The presence of Huma's email on that computer is not indicative of wrongdoing per se & the fact that they proceeded to a warrant w/o even asking for permission indicates that it's highly political.

So, where's the warrant? What does it say?

wow sounds like you have a copy if it in your hand so why are you asking?

 

[momeNt]

Dumping to me would be sending all the emails printed out on paper in non-digital form. If it's in digital form (electronically searchable) who cares. A few gigs of emails can be searched relatively quiclky if you know what terms you are looking for.

Reports indicate that they were indeed printed out and delivered in 12 banker boxes. Riveting stuff for some FBI intern to try and pick out which ones were pertinent, and if there were any obvious gaps in sends and receives to indicate emails were deleted, or really being able to decipher anything when you are dealing with probably about 600 pounds of paper.

 

[agent00f]

Taking the low road is not just misogyny and bigotry. As I said before, it was the Right whom played the victim in politics. There was always an attack on them, and their beliefs. Equality was really just a code word for taking away Christian rights. Now, equality is just a way to dismiss racist outcomes. The Right used to be the side that believe in government conspiracies, and now its a conspiracy against Clinton and her emails. The religious wanted to separate themselves from the awful world and now its the Left.

Now, again look at the rallies. It was expected that the Right would be the crazies that were loud and angry and combative. Nobody was really shocked when that woman called Obama a Muslim at a McCain rally. Now its on both sides where you have an anger that is personally worrying.

Dismiss it all you want, but if we don't watch out, we are at risk of creating the same monster that the Right did.

The right has been warning about uppity leftists/minorities for most of our history.

Its coming from the youth of the party. Too many on here are 30+ and do not interact with younger people as much as they think. I just spent a weekend with a friend in Minnesota with my childhood friend. He is a young gay man and his boyfriend is almost done with his college. His boyfriend is 100% the cliche SJW. He will not clap because its too aggressive, so he snaps. He believes that stores selling dia de los muertos decorations is cultural appropriation. When some students put up a Trump poster on a bridge, he got super upset and started texting people to tear it down. We were watching a comedian do stand-up on Netflix and he had to stop because he felt the things he was laughing at were "problematic" and he did not like that he thought it was funny.

So when we went to a party later, they invited his friends from school. They were all the same way. It was a circle jerk about how horrible the Right was and how people needed to do something about them. My friend is not political and could not care less. Being a gay Mexican he is pretty much accepted as safe, but I was a white male and was accused of having a bias during our conversations.

That is all small shit for sure, but there is an anger and a desire to action about dumb shit that will be a problem for the Left in the future. When I tried to argue for debating people with shitty ideas (many Trump supporters) I was shut down. They wanted to go around destroying Trump signs and had no desire to engage Trump supporters. That is a bad way to do things.

I'm sure this is a in no way biased account of events. And really you haven't exactly demonstrated the ranting "back in my day" crowd is receptive to changing their mind through dialog.