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."
I wonder if the FBI, in their 'unrelated investigation' found evidence of 'intent'?
I am not a Trump supporter, but I do not want the FBI and the AG to drop this investigation. It's clear that Hillary is guilty of breaking multiple laws, but because her party has power in the executive branch, she's not being held accountable to the degree that anyone else in the country would be.
My solution for the whole thing is to not put up Trump signs, but to put up "Hillary for Prison 2016" signs. She'll make a terrible president. Trump will make a terrible president. What I'm secretly hoping for is that McMullin figures out how to sneak in, people take Kotlikoff seriously as a write-in candidate, or that something terrible happens to Trump/Clinton when they win and the VP has to take over.
I hope that this time round they made damn sure that Comey or anyone else that has shared business interests with the Clintons can't have anything to do with the new investigation.
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. Nobody would have to be written in. Similarly, had Trump dropped out or anything happened to him, Pence would become the president in the event of a GOP win
This is a point also made in 1998 during the impeachment hearings on Bill Clinton. Dems were at the time fighting tooth and nail to save him, but had they gone along w/ the GOP and impeached Clinton, Algore would have become president, and he would have had the liberty to hire someone more to his liking than Joe Lieberman.
More reasonable, IMO, is the intelligence agencies feel threatened politically post-snowden.
As such, they want dirt/leverage over who they consider will be the next president.
An open and ongoing investigation is powerful leverage to avoid cutting intelligence budgets, or revoking mandates.
That would be pretty much par for the course with the Clintons. Bill pardoned like 5 (IIRC) members of the Whitewater scandal that were convicted of various crimes. That was just a witch hunt though that resulted in 40 convictions including multiple charges of conspiracy. Just a partisan witch hunt though.
1. They did not say that they are reopening the investigation. The memo itself makes that clear.
I'm not sure how you can make such a claim, since the memo you linked states "...and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation."
Furthermore, nothing else in that memo makes the point you pretend it does.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Ok, I'll bite... which laws has she broken?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Really?
Wow..I mean..just...wow...
Hard to believe some people drink kool-aid THAT strong.
Personally, in the republican debates, I like Carly Fiorina the best. I would have LOVED seeing her tear Hillary apart during a debate.
I have no problem with a female president....I just don't like Hillary, and it isn't because she is somewhat female...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
Well that's the problem, isn't it? Most enthusiastic Trump supporters obviously have their heads in the clouds but, with statements like that, obviously so do people like you.
misogyny
Every fence-sitter, Trump supporter and even many Hillary supporters I know realize that his campaign is not "built around" misogyny. That's fucking ridiculous and you know it. Don't mix up character criticism with policy criticism. In regards to policy, he's make some token anti-abortion remarks, very clumsily, because people were telling him that he had to work on his appeal to the base. That's it. In practice, everyone realizes he's most likely the least anti-abortion Republican we've seen in recent years.
racism
Blacks: He's supporting the cops 100% as a ploy more or less. Any right-thinking individual would prefer he take a more nuanced approach (but the mainstream BLM party line on this isn't any more nuanced; it's just biased in the other direction.) I don't think you can plausibly expand this to call it a racist platform. He's pro-police. He's never made it about race. And frankly, to combat police brutality (which is still a problem, obviously) you really should leave the race arguments at home. Whether it's true or not true, they bring very little to the table... they have nothing to do with effective solutions.
Latinos: I've very little patience for most of these arguments. First off, his criticism of the "Mexican" judge was dumb, not racist, but even his own party couldn't properly parse that one (he was arguing that the man was biased due to his own ethnic group. This is not a racist thing to allege unless you are saying that all Mexicans are biased against him, which given his other comments he very clearly was not saying.)
As far as the "rapes and murderers" thing, there is indeed a shitton of terrifying violence along the border of Mexico and some of it does spill over. Any reasonable person living in those states should be concerned about the deterioration over the past few years, even if the amount that's been spilling over has been fairly limited until now. Trump was of course sensationalist and dumb as usual in this area (and in particular, a physical wall would of course be irredeemably stupid), but if millions of people have managed to make it across the border then I would say that's a decent argument for better border control just about any way you look at it. (With the path to citizenship thing being a separate issue that we can all probably strongly disagree on.)
Very, very few countries have or tolerate massive illegal immigration on the scale we've seen. It's not a ugly, racist American thing to want that situation to change, and if you're not concerned about violence in Northern Mexico you're either ignorant or apathetic. (Of course, where I differ from Trump on this issue is I would immediately scale back the war on drugs as much as possible, which will ultimately dry up the revenue streams that support the gangs.)
xenophobic isolationism
Muslims! Ok now, look motherfucker, you have two easy choices here:
Easy option #1: We stay out of peoples' business, keep to ourselves and don't go looking for trouble. That last bit means we certainly don't import any significant number of immigrants from places like Syria (I said "immigrants" because it is wrong to blanketly call them all "refugees", because we've seen a mountain of evidence that many of them are obviously economic migrants. Many of them aren't even from Syria.) Why? Because terrorist attacks are disruptive in every way imaginable (includ
Not that Comey isn't trying to fix that. Interesting tweetstorm from former DOJ spokesman Matthew Miller:
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Its funny that the trumpkins have been claiming Comey is in the bag for Clinton. I've thought it was the exact opposite, his announcement of not-prosecuting clinton was deliberately vague and misleading - giving tons of room for people to think she actively lied about sending classified material that was marked when in fact the material with markings was not classified and simply had not been completely stripped of markings when it was declassified.
His senate testimony filled in the details to the point of almost contradicting his press-release announcement. But the lie-of-omission had already made headlines when the actual truth was revealed, so no one cared.
The most charitable explanation for Comey's behavior is that he's trying to be transparent and he's just too inside the DoJ bubble to realize how his statements look from the outside. A more cynical explanation is that he's got some sort of grudge against Clinton and is deliberately trying to make life difficult for her. Its getting harder and harder to believe the former.
I think the Republican leadership might regard Trump as a manipulatable puppet. It is better to have an inept poser in the white house who will advance the positions the party advocates than a competent person who will actively fight against those positions. With any luck he'll just strut around, occasionally say something offensive, but mostly just carry out what is one of the main responsibilities of any modern president: Put on a big show and serve as a focal point for the public while congress and the network of commitees, subcommitees and appointees gets on with the task of actually running the country.
Afraid not, we have copies of a lot of damning stuff thanks to Podesta. And just for comedy, it's coming out that this new FBI investigation came about because they were investigating Democratic Rep. Anthony Wiener (the infamous sexter) who recently divorced Huma Abedin, one of Hillary's closest aids.
Source
Source
Source (n.b. this is from FBI, not Wikileaks).
The DKIM signatures also say the emails are unmodified and signed by hillaryclinton.com. Feel free to validate them yourselves.
Just for bonus points, here's Hillary talking about how they should've rigged the Palestinian elections.
Listen to Hillary talking about rigging those elections here.
This is a tiny sample from a huge list of damaging emails, too.
There's never been a better time to vote 3rd party.
On other facets you're flat our wrong. Here's a transcript of the exchange between Comey and Congressman Trey Gowdy during the Congressional hearing after the investigation was initially closed:
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent, three seperate times in this exchange alone.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
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. Faults 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 tha
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Bush Jr? Cheney? Warren G Harding? She mishandled some emails to keep her political strategies out of the hands of her enemies (who were very actively against her). Something even Colin Powel did, and suggested she do too. Bush Jr deleted 22 million emails related to his administration and not a peep. Face it, this is how the sausage is made. Cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No one is talking about new emails in the context of emails newly created. We're talking about the emails that were subject to the Congressional subpoena that Hillary and the State Dept claim were handed over, but were not. They were emails created during the timeframe Hillary was Secretary of State and using her own personal email server. (A server that no longer exists because it was destroyed, along with all the mobile devices that Hillary was using ...) They are emails that thru hacks, leaks and whistleblowing are now coming to light, and which Hillary and Co either deleted or chose not to hand over. We know that there was a technician directed to remove header information from emails. We know taht there are hundreds if not thousands of emails that originated from or were sent to Podesta who is Hillary's campaign manager from the time in question, for the email account of HIllary's in question, that we only know about because Podesta got hacked and they became public. We STILL wouldnt have them from Hillary or State if not for Podesta's personal email being hacked.
If people continue to find new, relevent emails from that period, then there's a pattern of ongoing deception to hide emails from a legal Congressional investigation. That's called obstruction.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi