Hillary's Emails on Weiner's Laptop

[Airbrush]

His letter to congress only said that the FBI learned or existence of "emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation". They must have read some sampling to decide they "appear to be pertinent".

 

Comey's letter to congress regarding the email discovery:

 

"In previous congressional testimony, l referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.

 

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, 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.

 

Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.

 

Sincerely yours,

James B. Comey
Director

 

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/tag/james-comeys-letter-to-congress/

Edited November 1, 2016 by Airbrush

[waitforufo]

His letter to congress only said that the FBI learned or existence of "emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation". They must have read some sampling to decide they "appear to be pertinent".

The FBI likely read none of them. All they had to do was look at the email metadata to find out if any of these emails were to or from Hillary's private email server. That by itself would make them "appear to be pertinent." The FBI doesn't need a warrant to look at the metadata on each email. The FBI then went and got a warrant so they could read the emails to determine if a felony crime had been committed.. They are doing that now. They may all be personal and irrelevant. Time will tell.

[Willie71]

Therefore she must be guilty?

 

The content of the emails is unknown. The only thing we know at this point, the FBI believes there are emails which may or may have not been reviewed in previous investigations. That's it.

 

I have a hard time believing that while looking at the data on the computer no one read anything they didn't have a warrant to. What is on there is a different discussion.

[waitforufo]

I have a hard time believing that while looking at the data on the computer no one read anything they didn't have a warrant to.

So you believe the FBI read the emails without a warrant?

[imatfaal]

I have a hard time believing that while looking at the data on the computer no one read anything they didn't have a warrant to. What is on there is a different discussion.

 

The FBI haven't exactly shown their technical nous recently - but maybe they thought pragmatically "if we look at them and if in the future anyone can tell we looked then our case will be screwed; all evidence from the emails and gathered later because of the contents of the emails would be rendered inadmissible". Basically, the decision is between do the wrong thing legally and get fired if it comes out during the subsequent trial or do the right thing legally and keep your arse covered in what might be the most politically tense trial for decades.

 

Agree with WaitforUFO - they probably got info from other sources and once they had laptop in possession just had to make fact public and apply for warrant. Comey was sailing between Scylla and Charibdis on this case. I think the delay / compromise position taken was incorrect - either announce the instant you have laptop in possession or keep schtum till after you have warrant post-election.

[waitforufo]

Agree with WaitforUFO - they probably got info from other sources and once they had laptop in possession just had to make fact public and apply for warrant. Comey was sailing between Scylla and Charibdis on this case. I think the delay / compromise position taken was incorrect - either announce the instant you have laptop in possession or keep schtum till after you have warrant post-election.

Thank you for the agreement. It's funny that no one on this topic has ever heard of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement can look at email meta data with out a warrant all they want. Its the same as them looking at the outside of an envelope sent through the mail. There was no need for "other sources." With regard to the delay, Comey had agents looking a the laptop for the Weiner investigation. During that Weiner investigation they found emails related to the Clinton server investigation. That took time. Once those agents thought they had adequate evidence to seek a further warrant they took it to Comey, who sent a letter to leading members of both parties in congress. While Hillary denied that Democrats were informed at the same time, all she had to do was turn the page. There was no delay.

 

The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.

Edited November 1, 2016 by waitforufo

[Airbrush]

"if we look at [the emails] and if in the future anyone can tell we looked then our case will be screwed; all evidence from the emails and gathered later because of the contents of the emails would be rendered inadmissible". Basically, the decision is between do the wrong thing legally and get fired if it comes out during the subsequent trial or do the right thing legally and keep your arse covered in what might be the most politically tense trial for decades.

 

Agree with WaitforUFO - they probably got info from other sources and once they had laptop in possession just had to make fact public and apply for warrant. Comey was sailing between Scylla and Charibdis on this case. I think the delay / compromise position taken was incorrect - either announce the instant you have laptop in possession or keep schtum till after you have warrant post-election.

 

Good point. But don't you think the FBI has the ability to take a "quick look" at a few emails without anyone knowing they were ever peeked at? Or is there some kind of permanent record left by just taking a look, and even the experts at the FBI cannot delete their own trail?

Edited November 2, 2016 by Airbrush

[Carrock]

Good point. But don't you think the FBI has the ability to take a "quick look" at a few emails without anyone knowing they were ever peeked at? Or is there some kind of permanent record left by just taking a look, and even the experts at the FBI cannot delete their own trail?

Senior F.B.I:

"Now remember, you must lie under oath if necessary."

Juniors:

"Of course. Our word is our bond."

[waitforufo]

Do either of you have evidence of law breaking by the FBI regarding Hillary Clinton or her presidential campaign? Your posts are just conjecture.

 

Good point. But don't you think the FBI has the ability to take a "quick look" at a few emails without anyone knowing they were ever peeked at? Or is there some kind of permanent record left by just taking a look, and even the experts at the FBI cannot delete their own trail?

 

 

Senior F.B.I:
"Now remember, you must lie under oath if necessary."
Juniors:
"Of course. Our word is our bond."

[Carrock]

Do either of you have evidence of law breaking by the FBI regarding Hillary Clinton or her presidential campaign? Your posts are just conjecture.

If you read my quoted post, you will note that my (implicit) conjecture was that the FBI did not illegally read emails.

I may well be wrong.

[MigL]

There is no illegality in the FBI reading the e-mails.

It would be stupid, though, as it would render any findings obtained through those readings, inadmissible to any case they may have.

[Willie71]

So you believe the FBI read the emails without a warrant?

 

I'm not sure after thinking about it, I know local police do things without a warrant all the time, but this will have a high level of scrutiny. I sit on the fence.

[Endy0816]

Trump threatened to reveal what his Uncle really found in Tesla's papers.

[geordief]

Someone was saying on the TV that it would beggar belief that the CIA would not know what was on Hilary Clinton's server (or the White House servers in general. )

 

What would follow from this ,I wonder ?

 

Is that what a country should expect from its secret service; that it should "keep tabs" on the elected leaders?

[imatfaal]

Someone was saying on the TV that it would beggar belief that the CIA would not know what was on Hilary Clinton's server (or the White House servers in general. )

 

What would follow from this ,I wonder ?

 

Is that what a country should expect from its secret service; that it should "keep tabs" on the elected leaders?

 

1. The CIA has no remit to collect that sort of information domestically (regardless of the source) - they are primarilly a foreign intelligence agency.

2. People on televisions, especially experts, even more especially security experts talk a load of baloney.

3. The Director and the DNI would be toast if it were found that they were infiltrating the White House as a matter of course

4. In real terms only the electorate get to keep tabs on the elected leaders - to an extent the courts and legislature do so too; but the legislature have only seemed to do it recently to settle partisan grudges and the courts are loath to investigate (as opposed to react against) elected officials. There are methods available when serious concerns are raised - but these are long winded. I do not believe any relatively free democracy has pre-existing and governmentally accepted covert scrutiny of the workings of the higher administration.

[Airbrush]

Newsflash, FBI director says nothing new found on Weiner's laptop.

 

The FBI reviewed all the relevant emails to and from Hillary and found nothing new.

 

Just watch it on the news.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Airbrush

[John Cuthber]

So there was nothing to the story.

http://newcenturytimes.com/2016/11/06/breaking-fbi-director-drops-new-stunning-statement-in-regards-to-clinton-emails-details/

 

I still wonder why they announced it so loudly.

[geordief]

This is such a sick campaign that I almost feel that this "good news" could actually depress Clinton's vote.

 

I know it is too late now for the "story" to die down but this latest episode almost gives it extra life.

 

Imagine if they had come and said they had found something requiring further investigation . That would presumably sunk her ,whereas this "exoneration" ,arguably does not even help her.

[John Cuthber]

Indeed, That's why they should have kept quiet until they actually knew what they were talking about.

I wonder why they didn't?

Was it an attempt to rig the election?

[geordief]

Indeed, That's why they should have kept quiet until they actually knew what they were talking about.

I wonder why they didn't?

Was it an attempt to rig the election?

Maybe there was some hacking campaign in the background. Perhaps the FBI's hands were not completely free. They may have been told that some information was about to come out (true or not).

 

First the democratic process has been cheapened and now ,apparently the justice system's spine has been softened .

 

Perhaps interesting that the most likely overall outcome will be a Clinton victory but a "hold" by the Republicans in the Senate/Congress races. (not a rout anyway)

Edited November 7, 2016 by geordief

[Carrock]

Indeed, That's why they should have kept quiet until they actually knew what they were talking about.

I wonder why they didn't?

Was it an attempt to rig the election?

From http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...bi-investigation-security-clearance/86709410/

FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday he would not recommend criminal prosecution of former secretary of State Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information. But he did suggest another remedy: the loss of her security clearance.

 

If she were anyone else, Comey said in a televised press statement, the facts uncovered in the FBI's investigation might cost Clinton her security clearance if not her job.

Comey is simply stating that political expedience ultimately decides how he deals with possible crimes or security risks.

 

As a Republican, it was expedient for him to raise the prospect of possible charges against Hilary a week ago and declare her cleared yesterday even though there is exactly as much evidence now (ie none) as there was a week ago.

 

Similarly he is likely to ignore evidence concerning Russia helping the possible future Republican POTUS by hacking American computers.

 

(Is he really saying that an FBI investigation is sufficient to cost any POTUS but Hilary her job?)

[DrP]

Newspaper today said she was completely clean... I'm gonna give her the benefit of the doubt, seeing as there was an investigation and all and she was found to be clean.

[iNow]

[DrP]

http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20161107/

 

 

Sorry - I should know how to post a picture by now...

Edited November 7, 2016 by DrP

[Airbrush]

Funny thing is I met with my older brother on Saturday. We chatted a little about the elections. He listens to Rush Limbaugh, does not have cable TV, and is voting for Trump. He knows I cannot stand Trump. Listening to Trump speak on TV at a rally is very annoying to me. Such obnoxious mannerisms!

 

My brother said Obama was a terrible dictator, and Hillary is just terrible. He told me he just heard in the "news" (some far right-wing media like Rush) that Hillary Clinton was soon going to be prosecuted. Why would Rush tell his fans the opposite of what really happens the next day? Coincidence of course.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Airbrush