FBI to conduct new investigation of emails from Clinton’s private server

paulsurovell said:

This seems to be a pretty good summary of what led up to Comey's letter. Apparently there has been a dispute between the FBI and Justice Department on how aggressively to pursue matters involving the Clintons:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may-include-thousands-of-emails-linked-to-hillary-clintons-private-server-1477854957

FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe

Laptop may contain thousands of messages sent to or from private server

By Devlin Barrett

Updated Oct. 30, 2016 3:34 p.m. ET

Reading the whole article, there may or may not be a dispute, and if so, exactly who is involved isn't clear.

One thing the article is helpful about is its summary of exactly what was known at the time FBI Director Comey got this particular ball rolling. It's not much, at least of the date of the article, which is earlier today -

Federal agents are preparing to scour roughly 650,000 emails contained on the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner to see how many relate to a prior probe of Hillary Clinton’s email use, as metadata on the device suggests there may be thousands sent to or from the private server that the Democratic nominee used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter. The review will take weeks at a minimum to determine whether those messages are work-related emails between Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide and the estranged wife of Mr. Weiner, and State Department officials; how many are duplicates of emails already reviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and whether they include either classified information or important new evidence in the Clinton email probe, which FBI officials call “Midyear.”

So the emails on AW's device can't be examined unless the FBI can get a warrant. All eyes on the judge now, right?

Remember when The New York Times could do articles like that?

breal said:

So the emails on AW's device can't be examined unless the FBI can get a warrant. All eyes on the judge now, right?

Oh, that pesky constitution.

Maybe, someday, we will really have a strong leader and we won't be to bothering with that judge stuff.

650,000 emails?

I doubt it.

I'm just trying to follow along, BG9. I'm glad a judge will gate keep. Better a judge than the Justice Department.

Maybe that was the point of Comey's going public.

BG9 said:

breal said:

So the emails on AW's device can't be examined unless the FBI can get a warrant. All eyes on the judge now, right?

Oh, that pesky constitution.

Maybe, someday, we will really have a strong leader and we won't be to bothering with that judge stuff.

Breaking news: warrant obtained. Constitution saved.

Harry Reid is getting serious. Says Comey may have violated the Hatch act, as he went public with Hillary's crap, but is withholding information regarding Trump's ties to Russia, therefore he's acting in a partisan manner. Reid sent Comey a letter on official Senate letterhead and everything.

Seems like a stretch, but this could get interesting.

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/30/13473444/harry-reid-letter-comey

drummerboy said:

Harry Reid is getting serious. Says Comey may have violated the Hatch act, as he went public with Hillary's crap, but is withholding information regarding Trump's ties to Russia, therefore he's acting in a partisan manner. Reid sent Comey a letter on official Senate letterhead and everything.

Seems like a stretch, but this could get interesting.
http://www.vox.com/2016/10/30/13473444/harry-reid-letter-comey

Here's the text of Reid's letter. The Clinton campaign has declared all-out war on Comey: they are trying to destroy him and there is no turning back. If he decides to stand his ground, at a time of his choosing, I expect Comey will call Reid a liar:

http://www.reid.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Letter-to-Director-Comey-10_30_2016.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,792,711

The Honorable James Corney
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20535-0001

Dear Director Corney:

Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another. I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act,

which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election. Through your partisan

actions, you may have broken the law.

The double standard established by your actions is clear.

In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity. The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to

American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this

critical information.

By contrast, as soon as you came into possession of the slightest innuendo related to Secretary

Clinton, you rushed to publicize it in the inost negative light possible.

Moreover, in tarring Secretary Clinton with thin innuendo, you overruled longstanding tradition and the explicit guidance of your own Department. You rushed to take this step eleven days before a presidential election, despite the fact that for all you know, the information you possess could be entirely duplicative· ofthe information you already examined which exonerated Secretary Clinton.

As you know, a memo authored by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates on March 10,2016, makes clear that all Justice Department employees, including you, are subject to the Hatch Act. The memo defines the political activity prohibited under the Hatch Act as "activity directed towards the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group."

The clear double-standard established by your actions strongly suggests that your highly selective approach to publicizing information, along with your timing, was intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group.

Please keep in mind that I have been a supporter of yours in the past. When Republicans filibustered your nomination and delayed your confirmation longer than any previous nominee to your position, I led the fight to get you confirmed because I believed you to be a principled public servant.

With the deepest regret, I now see that I was wrong.

Harry Reid
US Senator

Paul, do you think Comey was in the right here? He clearly, clearly wasn't.

Anyway, someone else gets into the Hatch Act theme:

The author used to be the chief ethics clerk for Dubya,

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?_r=0

Tim Kaine on Comey, a couple of weeks ago:

a-a-a-a-a-n-d?

paulsurovell said:

Tim Kaine on Comey, a couple of weeks ago:

drummerboy said:

Paul, do you think Comey was in the right here? He clearly, clearly wasn't.

Anyway, someone else gets into the Hatch Act theme:

The author used to be the chief ethics clerk for Dubya,

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?_r=0

I don't have a strong opinion either way on Comey's letter. It depends in part on what Huma said in sworn testimony about the existence of her emails and devices. Her relationship with Weiner was an accident waiting to happen.

Yes, on balance, the letter hurts the Clinton campaign, but the campaign's reaction is making the issue much bigger and much worse (they doth protest too much) than if the response was "there is nothing to be concerned about here . . ."

As far as Reid's allegation of "explosive information" about Trump's ties to Russia -- I am concerned by the Democrats' attempts to demonize Putin and recreate the Russian enemy and the neo-McCarthyism that comes with it.

The Soviet Union is gone and neither Putin nor Russia is our enemy. Unfortunately, it's going to take a lot of work to undo the campaign's anti-Russian hysteria after the election.

drummerboy said:

a-a-a-a-a-n-d?

paulsurovell said:

Tim Kaine on Comey, a couple of weeks ago:

Watch the video and read Reid's letter. If you still don't understand, let me know.

for what it's worth, the damage done to democracy by Comey's actions are so, so much worse than any harm done by Hillary's email thing, it's not even funny.

yeah, I don't understand. Unless you somehow think that Kaine saying Comey was Mr. Wonderful and Reid saying "meh, not so much?"

You do see Reid's qualification of this, right? That Reid changed his mind due to Comey's recent assitudiness? A week ago Reid may have said the exact same thing that Kaine said. However, what Comey did on Friday was extraordinary (do you realize how abnormal it was?) so it requires an extraordinary response.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

a-a-a-a-a-n-d?

paulsurovell said:

Tim Kaine on Comey, a couple of weeks ago:

Watch the video and read Reid's letter. If you still don't understand, let me know.

drummerboy said:

for what it's worth, the damage done to democracy by Comey's actions are so, so much worse than any harm done by Hillary's email thing, it's not even funny.

I don't think democracy has been damaged by either set of actions.

From Reid's letter:

I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this
critical information.

drummerboy said:

yeah, I don't understand. Unless you somehow think that Kaine saying Comey was Mr. Wonderful and Reid saying "meh, not so much?"

You do see Reid's qualification of this, right? That Reid changed his mind due to Comey's recent assitudiness? A week ago Reid may have said the exact same thing that Kaine said. However, what Comey did on Friday was extraordinary (do you realize how abnormal it was?) so it requires an extraordinary response.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

a-a-a-a-a-n-d?

paulsurovell said:

Tim Kaine on Comey, a couple of weeks ago:

Watch the video and read Reid's letter. If you still don't understand, let me know.

politico.com: The Case Against James Comey

Not since Hoover has an FBI director shown such a lack of accountability.

"Comey has yet to resort to resignation threats. But over the past three years, current and former Justice Department officials have watched with growing discomfort as his “streak of self-righteousness,” now essentially unchecked, has made him the most isolated, outspoken and openly defiant FBI director since Hoover."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/james-comey-fbi-accountability-214234#ixzz4OdjlpUK8

Pretty funny that the Hatch act was put in place specifically to prevent Democrats from using government resources to campaign for office.

Anyhow- spoiler alert! Announcing the recovery of evidence long ago requested heretofore concealed during a criminal investigation of a Presidential candidate, recovered, it should be noted, during a legitimate investigation of sex crimes against minors, is not a violation of any law except the law of "but but he can't do that!" Comey isn't campaigning. Comey stated fact. Fact: Hillary is under criminal investigation.

Does anyone think it's better for voters to know that 2 weeks from now instead of today? Tell me why.

If Huma had complied with the law and turned over the 650,000 emails she "forgot" this may have all been tied up and done back in the summer. She didn't.

Should the FBI say, "well, she did a great job up until now hiding information being sought in a criminal investigation. And now it's too close to the election, so I guess we can't talk about it! Hate to reward bad behavior but...."

C'mon now.

Best part is- Nobody is defending Huma. Bobby Mook was asked yesterday if Hillary had asked Huma what was on the computer. He said she hasn't. So much for demanding the FBI release what they found. Theater.

As for Huma.... And the..... Wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.

Double hit whoops!

Jackson_Fusion said:

If Huma had complied with the law and turned over the 650,000 emails she "forgot" this may have all been tied up and done back in the summer. She didn't.

I can easily believe that she didn't know the files were on her computer. I work with reasonably technical people and they simply don't cleanup after themselves. I guess they think files just go away by themselves.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Does anyone think it's better for voters to know that 2 weeks from now instead of today? Tell me why.

Hmmm. Tough one there. Perhaps because Comey's announcement is short on facts and it is not customary for the FBI to announce investigations.

I think the Clinton campaign is making a strategy error in their reaction to Comey. The dynamics of this race have pretty consistently been that the candidate not headlining the news benefits. In their escalating response, they've been shifting attention from Clinton to Comey, but Comey isn't a candidate, so it's still really Clinton who's headlining. Better to have just kept to something like "we're disappointed by Comey's unprofessional handling of this," and kept moving on.

As for Comey, his handling of this has been pretty unprofessional imho. Let's assume the best case scenario and that he really is just trying to do his job. He sure jumped the gun on informing Congress, didn't he? When he did so, he had no warrant and very little information as to the contents of the emails, or (depending on the reporting) even if the emails are even from Clinton. What purpose was served by going public with so little info? Better to have quietly gotten the warrant, examined the emails, and then, if they were truly pertinent, give public notice. If, after having made a big deal of this, it turns out there's nothing significant in these emails, he's got egg on his face and made suspicions that he acted from partisan motives much more credible. He's also really increased pressure on the investigation to claim they've found something, potentially distorting the investigation.

I don't know what Comey's actual motivations are. Maybe he really does want a Trump presidency. Maybe he wants a Clinton presidency but a GOP congress. Maybe he really isn't acting from partisan motivations, but is just bad at handling high profile cases. In any case, it doesn't look great, but again, I think it's been a mistake for Clinton's camp to make the last few days of the election about Comey.

alex4855 said:

How Hillary was nominated to begin with is incredible.

You mean the part where she won the primaries?

Comey and/or his family is probably being threatened.

you win the prize for obtuseness.

But you kind of always win that prize.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Pretty funny that the Hatch act was put in place specifically to prevent Democrats from using government resources to campaign for office.

Anyhow- spoiler alert! Announcing the recovery of evidence long ago requested heretofore concealed during a criminal investigation of a Presidential candidate, recovered, it should be noted, during a legitimate investigation of sex crimes against minors, is not a violation of any law except the law of "but but he can't do that!" Comey isn't campaigning. Comey stated fact. Fact: Hillary is under criminal investigation.

Does anyone think it's better for voters to know that 2 weeks from now instead of today? Tell me why.

If Huma had complied with the law and turned over the 650,000 emails she "forgot" this may have all been tied up and done back in the summer. She didn't.

Should the FBI say, "well, she did a great job up until now hiding information being sought in a criminal investigation. And now it's too close to the election, so I guess we can't talk about it! Hate to reward bad behavior but...."




C'mon now.

Best part is- Nobody is defending Huma. Bobby Mook was asked yesterday if Hillary had asked Huma what was on the computer. He said she hasn't. So much for demanding the FBI release what they found. Theater.

As for Huma.... And the..... Wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.

this is still a seriously unscandal scandal.

email? ridiculous. especially considering that ALL our systems are vulnerable to hacking especially our supposedly secure .gov data.

as for whether or not Russia is still a threat, I would suggest that Russia is just as big a threat today as they were when the big boogeyman was communism.

Every Attorney General, for decades, has reinforced the rule that announcements like this need to be delayed past the election.

And Comey is coming under almost universal condemnation (except from the most partisan of Repoublicans) that he was wrong in doing this.

Exactly what part of this do you have a problem accepting?

Jackson_Fusion said:


Does anyone think it's better for voters to know that 2 weeks from now instead of today? Tell me why.

Has anyone other than CNN reported this (my bold)?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/30/politics/clinton-emails-fbi-abedin/index.html

Investigators believe it's likely the newly recovered trove will include emails that were deleted from the
Clinton server before the FBI took possession of it as part of that earlier investigation.

FBI officials expect they have to interview Abedin again after they have gone through the emails.

Interesting question I saw on Twitter this morning:

What are the odds that Weiner was surreptitiously monitoring/copying
Huma's communications w/ HRC, thus the huge batch of recovered emails?