FBI probing new Clinton emails

[InTheLight]

Common sense should tell objective observers that the FBI would have NEVER reopened this case if the evidence wasn't significant and Comey knew he would have been under attack for withholding this new evidence until after the election was most assuredly the motivation to release it now.

More likely he found something tangentially related to his initial investigation (ex. emails that went through Clinton's private server) and was duty bound to report it to the House committee.

In the end, probably nothing of significance. Why would Hillary be discussing national security issues with her personal aide?

Also, what kind of an idiot uses their wife's laptop to sext people?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe the FBI was originally going on that they would prove criminal intent and they didn't have that evidence - albeit short of a plainly clear confession from Hillary she could probably lie her way out of it. BUT, I suspect that now they have something showing criminal intent involving that private server and most likely perjury and withholding evidence as well concerning Hillary's claims of not having (intentionally) sent classified material. I believe the FBI must be confident they now have the evidence they need or they wouldn't have taken the measures they did.



.

Trey Gowdy and Guiliani both said as former prosecutors they had the ability to prove criminal intent.

 

[Benjamin]

In the end, probably nothing of significance.

Defies logic...

Why would Hillary be discussing national security issues with her personal aide?

Hillary would merely have to disclose that she had knowledge of national security issues going through her server. Perhaps it was girl talk with her "personal aide" about getting busted through electronic trails and covering things up!

Also, what kind of an idiot uses their wife's laptop to sext people?

What kind of idiot would lie after having left DNA on a blue dress? ...and how does either of these statements relate to the premises in this discussion?

 

[HankD]

Maybe Bill needs to have a secret meeting on a plane with Comer - you know "Let's Make a Deal".

HankD

 

[Benjamin]

Trey Gowdy and Guiliani both said as former prosecutors they had the ability to prove criminal intent.

Well, they weren't in charge. But now the man who is in charge must feel he has overwhelming proof of intent - so overwhelming, in fact, that he was confident enough/or scared enough to not reveal it to backpedal on his previous decision.

 

[Jedi Knight]

 

[InTheLight]

Well, they weren't in charge. But now the man who is in charge must feel he has overwhelming proof of intent - so overwhelming, in fact, that he was confident enough/or scared enough to not reveal it to backpedal on his previous decision.

I know you and other Trumpies are desperately wishing this were so, but, again, all it would take for Comey to be required by law to notify Congress of something new would be if more emails were found that were routed through Hillary's server, regardless of the content.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[Benjamin]

I know you and other Trumpies are desperately wishing this were so, but, again, all it would take for Comey to be required by law to notify Congress of something new would be if more emails were found that were routed through Hillary's server, regardless of the content.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

More like closet Hillary supporters desperately trying to downplay why this action took place. More like I know it it is your happy wish that it is nothing, but not likely.

 

[InTheLight]

More like closet Hillary supporters desperately trying to downplay why this action took place. More like I know it it is your happy wish that it is nothing, but not likely.

I don't support either candidate, therefore, I have a neutral view of the whole email thing. Sorry, if it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't support either candidate, therefore, I have a neutral view of the whole email thing. Sorry, if it doesn't fit your narrative.

Why would not supporting either candidate give you a neutral view on the email scandal? From what I have seen you are far from neutral on Trump.

 

[InTheLight]

Why would not supporting either candidate give you a neutral view on the email scandal? From what I have seen you are far from neutral on Trump.

Not supporting either candidate means I'm neutral on the email issue. The email issue has nothing to do with Trump. Therefore, I can accept the possibility, and it's a strong possibility, that there's nothing damaging to Hillary in this latest discovery. Apparently, Trump supporters cannot see it objectively, and neither can Hillary supporters.

Not being neutral on Trump does not mean that I'm biased for Hillary. I can't stand her. I don't know why this needs to be explained.

 

[777]

The FBI was investigating Weiner on a unrelated case, and then came across some of his emails that were pertinent to the closed investigation of Hillary, so they reopened it.

Just because they were found on Weiner's phone doesn't necessarily make him the owner - Huma swore under oath that she gave up all the devices to the FBI but she didn't.

It could be just that, that they want to look through this information, or it could be much worse, that Huma forwarded classified info to a foreign government, for example. What I still don't get is why Hillary keeps demanding the FBI shares the info with the public - she ought to know the info.

 

[InTheLight]

What I still don't get is why Hillary keeps demanding the FBI shares the info with the public - she ought to know the info.

The idea that Hillary is demanding transparency is delightfully ironic. Ha ha!


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[carpro]

What is this? Less than two weeks before the election? Got to be either Comey thinks Trump will win and decided to try to save his career or it's so bad that he thinks Hillary will lose because of it. And what does that nut Julian Assange have on her that so bad, she'll go to jail?

It' a game. Comey will clear her of all wrongdoing just before election day.

 

[777]

For show? I still don't see why Comey would re-open this and then try to exonerate her again right before the election - that is picking at a healing wound.

It's also bad from their point of view because it keeps Hillary in the news, and her numbers tank whenever that happens. I think it's more likely that he's helping Hillary throw Huma and her perv husband (really, who does that? And over and over again...) under the bus. They can both point to Huma and complain she lied under oath.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not supporting either candidate means I'm neutral on the email issue. The email issue has nothing to do with Trump. Therefore, I can accept the possibility, and it's a strong possibility, that there's nothing damaging to Hillary in this latest discovery. Apparently, Trump supporters cannot see it objectively, and neither can Hillary supporters.

Not being neutral on Trump does not mean that I'm biased for Hillary. I can't stand her. I don't know why this needs to be explained.

No one asked you to explain it. In fact not sure why you did. Your original claim, however, is a non sequitur.

 

[InTheLight]

No one asked you to explain it. In fact not sure why you did. Your original claim, however, is a non sequitur.

OK, I'll let you explain how favoring a candidate makes one neutral on the email issue.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[HankD]

Supporting a candidate has nothing to do with truth.

The truth is the truth no matter who we support.

In my view of the present situation, I will "support" Trump by voting for him though his own words incriminate him of wrongdoing of which he has privately and publicly apologized.

Also I do not have to make any judgments of Hillary, she has publicly given her view as one who supports the legalization of baby murder. Trump does not.

Therefore Trump is my choice not only on a "lesser of two evils" basis but my small effort to not give Hillary my vote by staying home.

HankD

 

[Zaac]

Not supporting either candidate means I'm neutral on the email issue. The email issue has nothing to do with Trump. Therefore, I can accept the possibility, and it's a strong possibility, that there's nothing damaging to Hillary in this latest discovery. Apparently, Trump supporters cannot see it objectively, and neither can Hillary supporters.

Not being neutral on Trump does not mean that I'm biased for Hillary. I can't stand her. I don't know why this needs to be explained.

It doesn't need to be explained except to folks who think you've got to pin her with stuff, even if there's nothing there, in order to convince them that you don't really support her. Because as far as they're concerned, if you're not bashing Hillary and supporting Trump, then you're secretly supporting Hillary.

Come on ITL. Shame the devil and admit you're a Hillary supporter. It'll make your naysayers feel so much better lol.[emoji38] Even if they sound crazy!

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Benjamin]

If it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and gets its feathers ruffled and goes on the defense of ducks while denying simple and obvious truths every time the goose is being cooked…it’s a Hillary supporter.