FBI reopens investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mails

anatta said:
FBI Director James Comey’s decision to revisit the Hillary Clinton email-private server case was purportedly trigged by New York agents working on the unrelated case of former New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner allegedly “sexting” an underage female.

A law enforcement source told Fox News on Sunday that the New York team told agents involved in the investigation into Clinton using a private server system while secretary of state:

Weiner is married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and a laptop connected to the sexting case was purportedly shared by the couple.

Comey was further compelled to review the documents based on two factors: the volume of documents and his commitment under oath to Congress to review “any new and substantial information,” the source also said.
Click to expand...
Going from info I read here, that was offered as fact:

FBI has yet to open any emails because they need a warrant.

NY office told Comey 'we found some stuff that might be pertinent to your investigation'

So Comey goes public, without knowing what any of those emails contained?

For all we know, it was about advice on how you legally get a perv out of your life.
 
J Craft said:
Interesting analysis today. Comey did not pass the investigation over to the DOJ is because he knew Lynch would dismiss with prejudice and there'd be no way to reopen. Now he has a better chance to get justice.
Click to expand...
'Analysis'? By whom? Breitbart?

Dismiss with prejudice? We're talking about new evidence, not a court case. Original case was never closed.
 
christiefan915 said:
If you aren't going to acknowledge how nitpicking the law can get, I can't help you.
Click to expand...
????....the law isn't nit picking, it is specific.....there ARE multiple ways that someone can violate the law.....for some reason, though the law does not say so, liberals like to pretend that having intent is the only way to violate the law......that is not the case.....
 
" liberals like to pretend that having intent is the only way to violate the law... " #466
Click to expand...
I accept, and will not challenge your standing as a spokesperson for liberals.

But in this specific legal case, the official government explanation for why Secretary Clinton would not be prosecuted included lack of evident criminal intent. I'm not sure what liberalism has to do with that.
 
sear said:
I accept, and will not challenge your standing as a spokesperson for liberals.

But in this specific legal case, the official government explanation for why Secretary Clinton would not be prosecuted included lack of evident criminal intent. I'm not sure what liberalism has to do with that.
Click to expand...

it also involved a discussion of "extreme carelessness" as opposed to "gross negligence" and failed to address at all the fact that knowing the information had been improperly handled, she failed to make it known to federal investigators under questioning and instead testified that she had released all emails that had not been destroyed.

See subparagrah f)(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
 
Althea said:
I said we'd see him clarifying on Sunday. He'll be demonized this week if he doesn't come out and clarify why he chose to make this announcement.
Click to expand...

Where did you say that?? :dunno:

Because here's your post(s) and maybe you could point it out, for me!! :D

Althea said:
Not really. It creates a weekend not unlike the one when Trump was caught bragging about being a sexual predator.

The only difference is the way the campaign deals with it. Trump fumbled. Hillary will come out stronger. We'll see a statement by Comey by tomorrow morning on the Sunday shows.
Click to expand...

Althea said:
You're an avid Trump supporter? You aren't exactly a 'normal thinking' person.

Just because you need this to be criminal, doesn't mean that it is.

Wait until Monday, and you guys can divide up all of the sperm coated cookies and devour them. Wash them down with your tears.

The issue is the glaring difference between how Clinton handles this and the way Trump did.

Comey will be the villain by mid week...if not sooner. Funny how both sides hate him now. One for doing what was within the parameters of his task, and the other for him being pressured into breaking protocol w/respect to ongoing investigations, and becoming part of the Russian election tampering machine.
Click to expand...
 
Althea said:
Going from info I read here, that was offered as fact:

FBI has yet to open any emails because they need a warrant.

NY office told Comey 'we found some stuff that might be pertinent to your investigation'

So Comey goes public, without knowing what any of those emails contained?

For all we know, it was about advice on how you legally get a perv out of your life.
Click to expand...

Yep, they told her 650,000 times to get rid of that perv.

It's a lot like Hillary....33,000 emails all about yoga and Chelsea's wedding.

Even Bill...had a 40 minute improper meeting with Lynch on the plane...they only talked grandkids and golf.
 
Althea said:
'Analysis'? By whom? Breitbart?

Dismiss with prejudice? We're talking about new evidence, not a court case. Original case was never closed.
Click to expand...

Comey knew that Lynch would have dismissed charges 'with prejudice' if she had the chance the first time around with this mess back in July...I agree.
 
#470

I think you're underplaying it.

The Clinton's just seem to drag 40' of sleaze behind them wherever they go, much like zombies drag slime.

But it seems there are a lot of Hillary voters that are so voting, because they want to block Trump; not because Hillary is so pretty.
 
Althea said:
'Analysis'? By whom? Breitbart?

Dismiss with prejudice? We're talking about new evidence, not a court case. Original case was never closed.
Click to expand...

Exactly! If he'd have passed the case to the DOJ, and they had the case dismissed WITH prejudice, there'd be no way to go after her for her crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top