FBI reopens investigation into Clinton email use

[flexy]

"Democrats SHOULD ask ..." <-- from an opinion piece
and
"Democrats ASK ..."

Significant difference.... You basically just created reality, just saying.

 

[Jhhnn]

She couldn't turn them all over, there's far too much pay to play. FBI people are now saying the Clinton Foundation is also under FBI investigation. The Doug Band memo lays it all out. Wiener has flipped and now we know that the DoJ was trying to block the FBI from investigating, that's gone now that he has flipped. Saw that people were saying the emails were in a folder called "Life Insurance". This is only starting. Comey had no choice, sounds like the NYPD checkmated him, DoJ wouldn't let him do his job, so he went to Congress.

What caught up to her is simple criminality. She tried to cover that up and the coverup fell apart.

It is glorious

Drudge? Breitbart? World Nut Daily?

 

[IGBT]

Drudge? Breitbart? World Nut Daily?

I'm sure Anthony Weiner had top security clearance. Huma wouldn't allow just any pervert to read those emails

 

[Sunburn74]

She couldn't turn them all over, there's far too much pay to play.

Actually no and that's a ridiculous, baseless accusation. The facts are this: there were a lot of emails to begin with. The DOJ asked to see the work related emails to look for classified info. Hillary's lawyers looked through all of them. Anything possibly work related got sent to the DOJ. Everything strictly personal was deleted. Then the server was wiped. That's what happened. The question is, well whats in those personal emails? I don't know and you don't know. Nobody knows except HRC and her people. But you can sort of start to surmise what might be in there. Again, remember emails were not being reviewed by the DOJ for concerns for corruption. They just wanted to see if any classified info was mishandled.

So just apply occam's razor. If you had a collection of personal emails, why wouldn't you, a presumably normal person, want to turn them over to the public for review? There's a lot of stuff on my phone, in my email accounts and etc I wouldn't turn over unless absolutely forced. Non-criminal stuff but sensitive stuff nonetheless. Maybe there are ridiculous flirty and embarrassing emails between Hillary and Bill or maybe there's description of sex fetishes he or she has, or sensitive material about the health of her close family members, or non-politically correct language about various topics, and so on. None of that is illegal, but certainly you can understand why she wouldn't want the public to know about them? Those are highly credible reasons for deleting personal emails that have nothing to do with trying to hide corruption, and its simply a matter of asking at this time which is more likely. (To be honest, if you're really corrupt, email is actually a dangerous place to try and do that sort of business because they can be hacked and stolen. If you're going to commit a crime, you generally try and not have that crime printed in black and white someplace where experts in the FBI and other policing agencies can cyberattack and steal that proof)

I realize the notion that some emails were deleted looks bad, but at the same time you have to put yourself in the other persons shoes. I remember, back with the Tom Brady case, how he destroyed his phone. Again it looked bad, but it probably was done not to hide SMS texts (which his cell phone carrier already records and can and did give full access to the NFL ) but probably other sensitive data (all sorts of communication between Tom and Giselle, maybe implications of a pending divorce, maybe infidelity by one or the other, maybe sexual fetishes, etc etc). And I'm no brady fan either! I hate the guy, but I understand that there exists a number of perfectly reasonable and legal things you still may not want the general public to know about!

 

[emperus]

The absurd thing is that this is a hole Hillary dug herself. She and the campaign demanding they be released so we can all see what's in them? Had they been forthcoming in the first place, not self selected what emails to turn over, not destroyed the devices via hammers etc themselves, not used BleachBit to erase them, and not had a private server in the first damned place we wouldn't be having this conversation. Her own hubris and propensity to lie caught up with her.

If these were emails pertaining to Hilary's job as secretary of state, she wouldn't have been able to unilaterally release them. And your argument is that because she did something wrong years ago the FBI director playing politics is OK? Nice logic.

 

[LegendKiller]

Actually no and that's a ridiculous, baseless accusation. The facts are this: there were a lot of emails to begin with. The DOJ asked to see the work related emails to look for classified info. Hillary's lawyers looked through all of them. Anything possibly work related got sent to the DOJ. Everything strictly personal was deleted. Then the server was wiped. That's what happened. The question is, well whats in those personal emails? I don't know and you don't know. Nobody knows except HRC and her people. But you can sort of start to surmise what might be in there. Again, remember emails were not being reviewed by the DOJ for concerns for corruption. They just wanted to see if any classified info was mishandled.

So just apply occam's razor. If you had a collection of personal emails, why wouldn't you, a presumably normal person, want to turn them over to the public for review? There's a lot of stuff on my phone and in my email accounts I wouldn't turn over if asked. Non-criminal stuff but sensitive stuff nonetheless. Maybe there are ridiculous flirty and embarrassing emails between Hillary and Bill or maybe there's description of sex fetishes he or she has, or sensitive material about the health of her close family members, or non-politically correct language about various topics, and so on. None of that is illegal, certainly you can understand why she wouldn't want the public to know about them? Those are far more credible reasons for deleting personal emails that have nothing to do with trying to hide corruption. Furthermore, if you're really corrupt, email is actually a dangerous place to try and do that sort of business because they can be hacked and stolen. If you're going to commit a crime, you generally try and not have that crime printed in black and white someplace.

I realize the notion that some emails were deleted looks bad, but at the same time you have to put yourself in the other persons shoes. I remember, back with the Tom Brady case, how he destroyed his phone. Again it looked bad, but it probably was done not to hide SMS texts (which his cell phone carrier already records and can and did give full access to the NFL ) but probably other sensitive data (all sorts of communication between Tom and Giselle, maybe implications of a pending divorce, maybe infidelity by one or the other, maybe sexual fetishes, etc etc). And I'm no brady fan either! I hate the guy, but I understand that there exists a number of perfectly reasonable and legal things you still may not want the general public to know about!

And pretty much all of this has been refuted by wikileaks. Her lawyers didn't go through it. Nobody has found a single yoga email. She, in fact, directed them to delete the server in march, while it was under subpoena. She knew the entire time and now it is all coming out.

Do you work for ctr?

 

[Sunburn74]

And pretty much all of this has been refuted by wikileaks. Her lawyers didn't go through it. Nobody has found a single yoga email. She, in fact, directed them to delete the server in march, while it was under subpoena. She knew the entire time and now it is all coming out.

Do you work for ctr?

Lol. You can believe actual news sites, or documents submitted to congress for review, or the FBI themselves, or you can believe your own fallacies. Whatever you want.

 

[LegendKiller]

Lol. You can believe actual news sites, or documents submitted to congress for review, or you can believe your own fallacies. Whatever you want.

Actual news sites, as shown by wikileaks, are nothing more than clinton mouthpieces. Congress will protect their own. Nice try though.

When trump drops the hammer on this it'll be great. Your girl is going down.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm sure Anthony Weiner had top security clearance. Huma wouldn't allow just any pervert to read those emails

That doesn't answer the question. The worst that can be said is a re-hash of extremely careless, ya know?

 

[fskimospy]

Actual news sites, as shown by wikileaks, are nothing more than clinton mouthpieces. Congress will protect their own. Nice try though.

When trump drops the hammer on this it'll be great. Your girl is going down.

Lol. You have seriously gone off the deep end.

 

[Sunburn74]

Actual news sites, as shown by wikileaks, are nothing more than clinton mouthpieces.

Yes. I agree.
What's your position on 9/11 and the moon-landing? And will you also join me in fighting against the media's long standing big-foot cover up? They have been suppressing the Patterson footage for years and the truth needs to come out!

 

[boomerang]

Another good article. The fact that Comey shouldn't have released that letter doesn't even seem to be a close call.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rce=huffingtonpost.com&utm_term=.9707f6c5194f

That's an opinion piece that documents nothing to back up the notions of the author. Once I read that the author feels that Loretta Lynch is Comey's boss I knew that it wasn't worth the time it would take to finish it.

It's not a good article.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes. I agree.
What's your position on 9/11 and the moon-landing? And will you also join me in fighting against the media's long standing big-foot cover up? They have been suppressing the Patterson footage for years and the truth needs to come out!

A few months ago he was claiming that audio which indicated Trump's campaign manager had lied about grabbing a reporter was fabricated as part of a conspiracy to make Trump look bad.

He also said that the only people bothered by Trump's sexual assaults were pussies and social justice warriors.

This election has driven this guy fucking crazy.

 

[emperus]

That's an opinion piece that documents nothing to back up the notions of the author. Once I read that the author feels that Loretta Lynch is Comey's boss I knew that it wasn't worth the time it would take to finish it.

It's not a good article.

You may want to check the facts you know. The FBI director is in fact responsible to the AG.

From FBI.gov
Who monitors or oversees the FBI?

The FBI’s activities are closely and regularly scrutinized by a variety of entities. Congress—through several oversight committees in the Senate and House—reviews the FBI’s budget appropriations, programs, and selected investigations. The results of FBI investigations are often reviewed by the judicial system during court proceedings. Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI is responsible to the attorney general, and it reports its findings to U.S. Attorneys across the country. The FBI’s intelligence…

 

[fskimospy]

That's an opinion piece that documents nothing to back up the notions of the author. Once I read that the author feels that Loretta Lynch is Comey's boss I knew that it wasn't worth the time it would take to finish it.

It's not a good article.

By literal statute Lynch is Comey's boss.

I like how you don't think articles are worth reading because they say facts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

 

[brycejones]

boomerwang self owns again.

 

[boomerang]

Your girl is going down.

We best not be counting chickens at this point. The political class deserves the repercussions of the shockwave her going down would bring, that's for certain. But how much effect it would actually have would most likely be negligible. Remember, nothing is going to happen to her under Obama's watch. If she steps aside, all may be forgiven and that could be the case under a Trump presidency too.

 

[fskimospy]

boomerwang self owns again.

It's funny how confidently he denies facts that you learn in civics 101.

 

[boomerang]

You may want to check the facts you know. The FBI director is in fact responsible to the AG.

From FBI.gov
Who monitors or oversees the FBI?

The FBI’s activities are closely and regularly scrutinized by a variety of entities. Congress—through several oversight committees in the Senate and House—reviews the FBI’s budget appropriations, programs, and selected investigations. The results of FBI investigations are often reviewed by the judicial system during court proceedings. Within the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI is responsible to the attorney general, and it reports its findings to U.S. Attorneys across the country. The FBI’s intelligence…

Who appointed him and who can fire him? That's the person that is his boss. Congress can impeach him but only the president can fire him. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed but you don't have to keep reminding us of it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol. You can believe actual news sites, or documents submitted to congress for review, or the FBI themselves, or you can believe your own fallacies. Whatever you want.

You can't reason with LK. Despite bailing as fast as he can, his little fail boat has a lot of water coming in, a lot more than he can really handle. I figure it'll be lost in the depths come Nov 8. Trump losing the election will only deepen his belief in the vast libruhl conspiracy, anyway. It'll just shift to rigged, cheated, illegals voting & whatever it takes to maintain delusion.

Yeh, sure, he may end up in a state of catatonic shock & denial but there's nothing to be done about it.

 

[fskimospy]

Who appointed him and who can fire him? That's the person that is his boss. Congress can impeach him but only the president can fire him. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed but you don't have to keep reminding us of it.

Interesting, all those years I spent in the military I never knew that the captain of my ship was my only real boss and all those people below him were just making suggestions! Think of all the time I wasted following their orders.

The president delegates his authority for running the justice department to the attorney general, who acts with his authority. If you think the attorney general is not the FBI director's boss you are stupid or ignorant.

 

[emperus]

Who appointed him and who can fire him? That's the person that is his boss. Congress can impeach him but only the president can fire him. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed but you don't have to keep reminding us of it.

FYI, it is always good to read the bios of those writing the stories. So your argument is that we should listen to you (and you are?) and ignore the authors of this piece who both served as deputy attorney generals in both a Republican and Democratic administration? C'mon man, respect yourself.

Jamie Gorelick served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 and is a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Larry Thompson served as deputy attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and signed a letter from a group of former Justice Department officials in Republican administrations calling for Donald Trump’s defeat.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I disagree with liberals.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, I know it for a fact that all of this hype from the media about Comey this and Comey that is a big conspiracy by the media and the GOP to legitimize a lie because most all of the hype is favoring my man Trump, and Trump himself has repeatedly stated that the media and the GOP is going after him with a vengeance so they can't ever be trusted because they want him to look bad and the media wants to make Hillary look good.

So then to every Trump supporter who believes in him and believes in every word he says, this media hype against Hillary can't be true, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

After they get the warrant to read the email, will Hillary Clinton be arrested for violating the Espionage Act?

Why would she be? I mean, unless the emails reveal the plot between the lizard people, the Illuminati, the ayatollahs & the Vatican, of course. You just know it's gotta be something like that, right? It's the only thing that can explain why she had the ambassador killed in Benghazi, isn't it?