Slashdot Mirror
FBI Probes Newly Discovered Hillary Clinton Emails and Reopens Investigation (telegraph.co.uk)
The FBI said Friday it is reviewing newly discovered emails related to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server to determine whether she properly handled classified emails. The reopening of the investigation comes after the FBI recently "learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the Clinton investigation," FBI director James Comey said. Comey added, however, that "FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant." It is also unclear "how long it will take us to complete this additional work." FBI's announcement today is "certain" to become an issue in the final two weeks of the presidential campaign, however. Donald Trump is naturally pleased hearing the news, at New Hampshire, Trump said the new probe offered the FBI the chance to correct a "grave miscarriage of justice." He added, "We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office." Supporters responded with chants of "Lock her up!" Trump added that the email investigation is "bigger than Watergate."
1. They did not say that they are reopening the investigation. The memo itself makes that clear.
2. The emails are related to the server, but not from Clinton
Pete Williams is reporting that the emails have A) nothing to do with Wikileaks, and B) were not withheld by Clinton.
Beyond that, we know very, very little right now. Actually it's rather bizarre that Comey would throw a bombshell like this 11 days before the election. But let's see where it goes.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Correction: the FBI is not reopening the case, they're assessing some emails that they found in a different investigation to see if they are relevant. If they are relevant to Clinton, and if they contain classified information, then it's possible in the future that they might reopen the case. But that's not what the FBI said - that's all speculation by politicians looking for a "hook" to keep attacking Clinton.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
"how ling it will take us to complete this additional work." Who is this Ling and why is there a Chinese agent working on this?!
I'm assuming it's short for Ling-Ling, the giant panda. She was born in China, but moved to the US when she was very young. In fact, she spent her entire adult life in Washington DC, so she's probably as qualified as anyone inside the beltway to head up this important task. Unfortunately, she's been dead for over two decades, so she certainly won't finish this investigation before election day.
In the leaked emails other Democrats were freaking out about Hillay's email. It is a huge problem and ignoring it is insane.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As someone posting to a nerd site, you should also point out Stein thinks Wifi may cause some sort of brain damage.
She's awful, though in fairness, who isn't in this election? The main thing going for Clinton that the others don't have is that 99% of the allegations constantly made against her are complete fiction, but frankly, that other 1% is pretty shitty.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
IF Clinton were successfully prosecuted and unable to serve then Kaine would be sworn in. More likely Obama will pardon her to prevent such chaos and enable her to serve.
Doesn't one need to be convicted before a pardon could be granted? Think the DOJ could get its conviction of HRC before Obama left office?
No. Nixon was neither convicted nor impeached when he was pardoned by Ford. Ford wanted to preempt any prosecution.
While it's true that the GOP establishment wanted a different outcome, the difference was that Reince Priebus did not interfere in the process when it was a contest, except for a couple of occasions, like making all candidates sign the pledge, or asking them not to make the debate R-rated.
While Trump was right to an extent about the rigging in that there were some states where he got more votes than Cruz but ended up w/ less delegates, the process was still fair (even if the mechanism was weird). But the RNC did not interfere, even though the Congressional GOP tried to, by getting Nikki Haley to endorse Rubio and set up SC as a firewall against Trump, which didn't happen. Also, the support for Trump in the party was so overwhelming and crossed every faction of the party that even though the number of real candidates were down to 3 (and 2 after Rubio dropped out following his debacle in FL), it's not obvious that it would have worked either.
Not in any RED state he wouldn't.
At least here in Texas, arguably the only important red state, one cannot even vote for Sanders because he has registered as a candidate and chosen a running mate. Simply writing his name on a ballot will cause your vote to not count at all.
So those wanting to protest vote are forced to dig a bit deeper. But yes, he's the only candidate I would have voted for this year. Instead I was voting against two assholes.
The 'unrelated investigation' is apparently the investigation into Huma Abadeen's (sp) estranged husband Anthony Weiner's Sexting Scandal...
Even the other Democratic candidate considers it a non-issue, and has said so since the very beginning of the primaries campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is nothing more than a stupid-ass canard that Trump and his alt-right goonsquad are clinging to in order to distract from the real issues and the fact that they have no answers and their entire campaign is built around racism, misogyny, and xenophobic isolationism.
Real issue, such as Clinton supporters being bullies?
There's not a one among you who can rub two words together without insulting someone.
Delete the insults from any pro-Clinton position and you have nothing left!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Note, intent is not required for a violation of section (f), merely "extreme carelessness" aka "gross negligence".
Uh, no. If she were to drop out now, the ballots couldn't be undone, but Tim Kaine, as the surviving member of the ticket, would become president if the Dems win.
That's not how it works.
If the candidate cannot finish the race for some reason (death or infirmity is the supposed scenario), the party chooses a new candidate. That's Democratic party rules.
In this particular situation, and so close to the election they would *probably* select Tim Kaine, but the party is not obliged to choose him.
They are not her emails and nothing has been "re-opened". Sorry Trumpettes.
No, they did find intent - they just refused to say that they found intent.
I've posted this before, but I guess that I'll have to keep reposting it every time someone claims there was no proof of intent.
Transcript of Gowdy questioning Comey. Lots of context, but note the bolded section:
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve. You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of
How you can argue that it's been "completely investigated" when new batches of emails are magically discovered on nearly a weekly basis?
Not to mention the fact that Commey and the FBI laid out every facet to convict, but stated that they didnt prosecute because they didnt think they could make a case that she intended to commit a crime. Intent is not a factor for conviction. An act (or lack of action) is a crime, or its not. Intent is a potential factor in sentencing, not in gaining a conviction. The FBI already laid out that she is unequivocally guilty. That ship has sailed.
It's strongly believed now that Commey (and Lynch and Obama) are being heavily pressured by whistleblowers within the FBI that there every criteria was already met to prosecute, and were going to come forward with the damning details if the FBI didnt reopen the case and treat it with equal justice under the law.
And dont forget that the case was dropped the first time after Clinton's husband, a former US President, met in private with the sitting Secratary of Justice, Loretta Lynch. If there's evidence now that the conversation was not in fact specific to yoga, and their kid, then the scope of the investigation could (and should) increase to whether or not there was prosecutorial misconduct, obstruction of justice, and corruption within the Dept of Justice, ALL under Obama.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Plenty of people WILL vote for Gary Johnson. He's on track to set records for libertarian votes, both by number and by percentage. The historical record I think is 1% of the vote. Johnson has polled way higher than that: even if those votes don't turn out, it seems VERY likely that he'll storm past the old 1% barrier.
But that's not what you are asking. You aren't asking, "why won't 3rd parties get at least 3% of the vote". You are asking "why don't the 3rd party votes actually add up to enough to elect one of them".
This is because of several reasons!
1st- We have a "plurality" voting system in almost every state. That means that whichever candidate gets the MOST votes, gets ALL the electoral votes for that state. That means that if you have two similar candidates and one liberal candidate, that the liberal candidate can win, even if the sum of the two conservative candidates greatly eclipsed that liberal candidate. Knowing this, people will normally vote for the major party candidate. With something like Instant Runoff Voting, or Condorcet, you might not see this.
2nd- Lesser known, the electoral college ONLY succeeds in electing a candidate if a MAJORITY of electoral votes are delivered for that candidate. So if, out of 538 possible electoral votes, candidate A gets 268, candidate B gets 255, and candidate C gets 15 votes, the winner is... up to the House of Representatives. Who can vote in any of the top three candidates in terms of electoral college votes.
3- Because of this, a vote for a Green candidate is perceived as "stealing" a vote from the Democrat, and a vote for a Libertarian or Constitution party member is perceived as "stealing" a vote from a Republican. I disagree with this sentiment strongly, but that's the general idea behind it, and I don't see it changing until we have a voting system that is something beyond plurality voting at the state level.
So if you assume that your vote might matter, and you disagree strongly with a major party candidate, agree strongly with a third party candidate, and agree somewhat with a major party candidate, you are VERY likely to vote for the major party candidate that you agree somewhat with.
Here's the laws regarding classified material: U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 37 Section 798 and Section 793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 and U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 101 Section 2071 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
Each of those laws require the actions to be "with intent", "knowingly", "willfully", or by "gross negligence". And "gross negligence" is legally different than plain negligence in that it also requires intent. The reason the FBI closed the investigation and said "no reasonable prosecutor would take the case" is because they found no evidence of intent by Clinton.
Actually, for most crimes and for most of our history, intent, or mens rea has been a vital component of criminal convictions. Only regulatory infractions don't require mens rea, or at least that was the case until recently. Congress has been creating "strict liability" crimes for some time now. This has been a big issue with civil libertarian types. I think it started with things like statutory rape and kiddie porn... but it has spread pretty far afield.
The irony is that in this particular case... in the case of the law that Comey was citing, mens rea is not a factor. It specifically excludes intent in the statute. A fact that has been pointed out repeatedly by partisans and legal pedants.