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."

8 of 822 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Oh drop it already by 31415926535897 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  2. If a candidate drops out... by unixisc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Alt title: FBI attempts to appease masses by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:Obama will pardon her by SmokeyRobot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:Oh drop it already by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, I'll bite... which laws has she broken?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. Re:Oh drop it already by Shane_Optima · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  7. Re:That's not what they said in emails by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not that Comey isn't trying to fix that. Interesting tweetstorm from former DOJ spokesman Matthew Miller:

    This is such an inappropriate public disclosure by Comey. And sadly the latest in a long string of them.

    Comey refused to even tell Congress if FBI was investigating Trump camp for Russia hack, but regular updates on Clinton are apparently A-ok.

    I wrote a piece in July on why Comey's public comments about Clinton were such an inappropriate abuse of power. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    He flagrantly violated DOJ rules with his press conference. Then went on to break new ground discussing details of the case to Congress...2/

    Followed by quickly releasing FBI 302's, something they rarely do, and which I doubt they will do for future high-profile cases. 3/

    Each time, he either violated or seriously stretched DOJ rule & precedent. Press conference was the original sin, & it begat the rest. 4/

    But today's disclosure might be worst abuse yet. DOJ goes out of its way to avoid publicly discussing investigations close to election. 5/

    Not just public discussion either. Often won't send subpoenas or take other steps that might leak until after an election is over...6/

    Why? Because voters have no way to interpret FBI/DOJ activity in a neutral way. Who is the target of an investigation? What conduct? 7/

    This might be totally benign & not even involve Clinton. But no way for press or voters to know that. Easy for opponent to make hay over. 8/

    Which takes us back to the original rule: you don't comment on ongoing investigations. Then multiply that times ten close to an election. 9/

    For whatever reason (& there are many theories), Comey continues to ignore that. But only for Clinton. 10/

    FBI is undoubtedly investigating links between the Russian hack, Manafort, & the Trump campaign. But aren't commenting on it. Good! 11/

    They shouldn't be commenting on investigations! But that should apply to all. Instead Clinton consistently treated differently/worse. 12/12

    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  8. Copies still exist. by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    But if the objective is to connect emails-Benghazi and conflate the two in votersâ(TM) minds (which consultants feel is an imperative here), Iâ(TM)m not sure we know whether we can credibly do that

    Source

    Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails
    we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov

    Source

    [Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by [Kennedy], Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the e-mail's classification in exchange for a 'quid pro quo,'

    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.