FBI reopens investigation into Clinton email use

Page 37 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
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.



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).



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.

Under normal circumstances, "may be relevant to" isn't grounds for a warrant.

I've been supportive of Comey up 'til now, but the more I look at it the more I see it as a boneheaded play, at best. He just staked his job as head of the FBI on finding some actual wrongdoing from emails that nobody in his dept had (supposedly) read. Even if he does pull that rabbit out of the hat the notion that the rules of evidence were actually followed will be questionable at best.

It reeks of poor judgement.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
As this continues to play out, I am envisioning a number of Republican operates literally restraining Trump and preventing him from getting anywhere near Twitter.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
LOL WUT? Providing all the documents is an adversarial way to handle a subpoena? Trump think right here.

He's correct.

It's a standard legal tactic that I have personally experienced. The objective is to dramatically drive up legal fees etc.

Hillary did a version of this earlier this year when her side produced emails, but in hard copy form only instead of digitally. This necessitated the time consuming process of having an attorney read through each one instead of digitally searching them to more quickly focus on those that were relevant.

This tactic can be defeated by crafting a specific subpoena. E.g., the subpoena could say "Provide Mr. Fern's bank statements from ABC bank for the calendar year 2015." There is no opportunity for a doc dump. However, if the info sought is actually in Mr. Fern's XYZ bank account the subpoena fails and was an expensive waste of time for no gain. Consequently, lawyers will often craft the subpoena broadly to ensure what they are looking for is covered. E.g., the subpoena could say "Provide all of Mr. Fern's bank account statements and other financial information relevant to this issue". Now I can dump like a mofo claiming that I was trying to be thorough and comply. It's a quandary for attorneys.

Edit: I wish to add that another objective can to 'hide' the relevant bit of data amongst the huge pile of other data. This is done in legal disclosures for Private Placement Memorandum.

Fern
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Starbuck1975

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,212
17,892
126
Dumping data in hard copy is used widely as a tactic, and not limited to the legal world.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,243
86
I didn't read all the above tangent, but Moment is correct that a "dump" often refers to the legal tactic of inundating the opposition with overwhelming amount of paper. Though that's really only effective against small fry who can't effectively reliate. He's just wrong it's the same thing as erasing the data, obviously.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
these were not to or from Hillary
They were official government emails to her government employee, and as such should have been turned over when she left office. I don't think Hillary is in trouble - she's largely bulletproof - but I do think Huma is in trouble, since she told Comey she never deleted any emails. The FBI does not like being lied to. Although another possibility is that there are so many that Comey could not quickly go through them all; they may very well be emails he already recovered, but so many that it takes days or weeks to verify that.

Who here can believe that Huma didn't wipe her computer of all these emails?
As I understand it, prevailing wisdom is that these were inadvertently transferred to Weiner's laptop when she attempted to back up her contacts. (Although that might be outdated speculation now - thanks to this damned Obama economy, I don't have time to follow the news.)

I thought I would return to just let you guys know how awesome this is. I think Comey screwed us back in July and seeing this news today has been absolutely glorious. I am not saying it will destroy her campaign, since it should already have been destroyed and 90% of the elite in the country are going to protect her and the moneyed shenanigans they love. But it's glorious nonetheless, and it's a genuine treat going to huffington post and seeing articles titled simply "WTF FBI". Those partisan shits, I hope they enjoy what they have wrought, for hillary was a complete trash candidate and we all knew it. Should have stuck with bernie you dumb pricks.

I do hope trump wins because the only person in the country who could lose an election to trump was the very one the left nominated, because they are morally bankrupt and thoroughly corrupt. The FBI reopening a criminal investigation into a candidate 11 days pre-election is one of the most fantastic October surprises ever. Probably the best one ever.

Good job, dems. You could have nominated Bernie, but nope you sold out and this is what you get.
How did Comey screw us? How could he ethically indict Hillary for doing full time what the Bushies were caught doing part time?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
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.....
Well, one could make an argument that it would have been better for Comey to quietly do a very quick review before notifying Congress. I think this is Comey covering his ass; the number of agents required to even preliminarily vet the emails almost guarantees a leak and then Comey's in hot water with the Republicans. On the other hand, if this ends up costing Hillary the election and Comey doesn't find evidence of wrongdoing, then he's in hot water with the Democrats, who are already squealing about Hatch Act violations. He's kind of screwed either way.

Personally I'm drawing no conclusions either way from his actions. He knows perfectly well that this close to the election he's screwed one way or another, so I suspect he decided to do what he thinks is proper and let the chips fall where they may.

It's also worth pointing out that no matter what Comey might find, the ethical problems with prosecuting Hillary and not the Bushies still remain. Might be a problem for Huma if she really did testify that she had deleted no emails, but then, all G-d's chilluns got immunity up front, so maybe not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starbuck1975

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
The FBI doc tweet could be a shot across the bow for Clinton/Obama. Why else tweet out at one in the morn about their investigation into Bill pardoning a fugitive that donated heavily to him? Makes no sense otherwise.


There was a message in that, the questions though are to who/from who/and about what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starbuck1975

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
143
106
holy shit, Sp33dy is back from his radium-lined bunker. That explains why this non-issue continues to get airtime.
Still a "non-issue", champ? It actually looks like it's going to be "the main issue" before the election and judging by this thread's size. Curious, are you still going to write in Romney when you vote? Prescient prediction there, lmao
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
As this continues to play out, I am envisioning a number of Republican operates literally restraining Trump and preventing him from getting anywhere near Twitter.
HAHA, that should have happened from the start.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
The FBI doc tweet could be a shot across the bow for Clinton/Obama. Why else tweet out at one in the morn about their investigation into Bill pardoning a fugitive that donated heavily to him? Makes no sense otherwise.


There was a message in that, the questions though are to who/from who/and about what?
The most telling development for me is that neither the White House nor Lynch condemned Comey for his actions. Didn't advocate, but didn't condemn. Somebody has leverage and I similarly read the Marc Rich release as a shot across the bow, perhaps a thank you to President Clinton for forcing the FBI into this predicament with his little stunt.

Obama has a legacy to protect.
 

runzwithsizorz

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2002
3,497
14
76
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.


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.
The hell they can't! They just can't do anything with the info. They've had the laptop for nearly a month. That's like saying you have a warrant to search the cab of a car, but not it's trunk, yet you have the car, and it's keys in your impound warehouse for 3 weeks, oh no guys, you can't go there, LOL yeah right. I believe they HAVE found something, but are looking for more, but 650,000, emails is a lot to go though, and you're gonna need more than just a couple of nails for hillary's coffin. This is the prize that Comey has been after all along, and has taken many risks, and granted immunities in that quest. He even stated that he was, "trying to move up the chain". Well Gee, after almost everyone else has skated, who's left? This is also why he sent that letter to certain members of Congress. By doing so, it forced loretta lynch to grant the warrant, who I thought had recused herself from this investigation after that meeting with bill. Knowing the scale, and time of the task, hillary can easily say, go ahead, let's see it all NOW. It is a standard MO, lie, hide, destroy, and deny for as long as you can, until you can no longer do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc
 
Last edited:

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Crazy thing is that the dems should have this election in the bag, but instead they nominate Hillary Clinton lol. It's their election to lose, and they damned well might. Lesson learned for next time (there's going to be lots of the by the time this is over).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starbuck1975

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,347
4,973
136
Why is it my responsibility to prove that, and why do you automatically assume that he's in it? Is it OK if I assume that you hang out with child molesters until you prove otherwise?



So I exaggerated (slightly)... something you do in every single post...lol! I had the "beast" part right and I was just guessing, so thanks! :D



While he doesn't know the future he does have extensive experience from leading a historically famous election team that won a major election. Your credentials or may I just laugh?



I don't need to put words in your mouth, you have the best words. Seriously... just like your candidate! Later, enough for me for now and thanks for the cheap amusement, remember we will talk about this again on election day...lol!

1.) Just read about Mr. Plouffe and it is obvious unless you are retarded Dougie.

2.) Yes, at least you admitted to exaggeration and putting words in my mouth. Apology accepted.

3.) Right, that is what an educated guess is.

4.) Where did I say that I had a candidate? Hillary may win as I said earlier I don't know and neither do you or Mr. Plouffe.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,347
4,973
136
You're criticizing Obama's former campaign manager and chief strategist for being "known to be in Obama's back pocket"?

OK.

This is like that SNL sketch where Alec Trump announces that his super smart and terrific researchers are digging up some information regarding Hillary's husband (a guy named Bill Clinton, who was also president by the way--most of you didn't know that) about some affair he had some years ago. Her name was Monica something, and she was heavy. Stay tuned.

No Dumbass, read the fucking thread.

Mr Plouffe's opinion was posted as an indication of Hillaries "Rock Solid" win. I was just pointing out that his opinion is extremely biased.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,347
4,973
136
Eichenwald has a new article on the lying crook known as Trump up at Newsweek. It seems that when it comes to disappearing emails and other correspondence a court demands from him, Trump is an expert at it.

From the article:



Why am I not surprised? It's clear that Trump is a lying, deceiving crook who uses his wealth to screw over other people, that history is irrefutable. That he would also hide or destroy records to prevent justice from being served on his ass isn't a stretch. Hillary may have an email problem but Trump is nothing but a walking, talking, nonstop plethora of problems.

That's a quality candidate you got there, GOP.
..lol!

They are really more alike than you wish to admit.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
lmao!

+1 for absolute, over the top political stupidity.

To say that her emails contained classified documents is to say that such documents were improperly removed from a classified system. That's not what happened or the FBI would have said so. Even though the emails themselves are now classified documents they were not at the time although the subject matter was. For example, classified information leaked to Blumenthal & sent to Clinton was just information, not documents.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
They conveyed classified information over unsecure channels which is illegal. You're splitting hairs over semantics if my post since you have no way to spin this one.