(10-29-2016 07:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 02:12 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 01:10 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  Interesting - The article is see at that link doesn't mention anything about anybody lying.

If they find e-mails that were not previously disclosed, which seems to be the expectation, then she did in fact lie.

Do I understand things correctly that they did not definitely find new emails, but that they found emails from Clinton that may or may not have been disclosed before?

My understanding was that they were not from Clinton. But we don't really know, which is why normally you wouldn't release info like this. Pete Williams has been reporting that they don't actually expect anything significant that would alter the conclusion from July...

My understanding is the emails were between Hillary and Huma. I guess we won't know for sure for a couple of days.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/c...li=BBnb7Kz

Perhaps folks are forgetting that Huma Abedin had an e-mail account on the clintonemail.com server. And that she admitted to using it for State Department communication on occasion.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secur...ree-people

Perhaps these are the e-mails in question that are showing up, with questionable content.

Too much supposition going on now (mine included). It'll be an interesting week to see what else leaks about this.

(10-30-2016 09:22 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 07:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 02:12 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If they find e-mails that were not previously disclosed, which seems to be the expectation, then she did in fact lie.

Do I understand things correctly that they did not definitely find new emails, but that they found emails from Clinton that may or may not have been disclosed before?

My understanding was that they were not from Clinton. But we don't really know, which is why normally you wouldn't release info like this. Pete Williams has been reporting that they don't actually expect anything significant that would alter the conclusion from July...

My understanding is the emails were between Hillary and Huma. I guess we won't know for sure for a couple of days.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/c...li=BBnb7Kz

Perhaps folks are forgetting that Huma Abedin had an e-mail account on the clintonemail.com server. And that she admitted to using it for State Department communication on occasion.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secur...ree-people

Perhaps these are the e-mails in question that are showing up, with questionable content.

Too much supposition going on now (mine included). It'll be an interesting week to see what else leaks about this.

You can say that again.

At the moment, there is no evidence of anything other than there being emails involving Hillary on the computer. Yet plenty of people are trying to draw some serious conclusions from this.

My understanding (mixed with supposition) is that they found emails on the computer Abedin shared with Weiner, and had to get a warrant to read them, which is why Comey felt the need to disclose. (That is, while he would have preferred to have just had them read immediately to figure out whether they contained anything potentially incriminating, he legally could not do so.) I think odds are that these are emails that Abedin had already turned over to the FBI (same emails showing up again here is simply the outcome of Abedin accessing the same email account from various different devices).

Again, that's all lightly informed supposition and speculation.

(10-30-2016 11:33 PM)JOwl Wrote:  My understanding (mixed with supposition) is that they found emails on the computer Abedin shared with Weiner, and had to get a warrant to read them, which is why Comey felt the need to disclose. (That is, while he would have preferred to have just had them read immediately to figure out whether they contained anything potentially incriminating, he legally could not do so.) I think odds are that these are emails that Abedin had already turned over to the FBI (same emails showing up again here is simply the outcome of Abedin accessing the same email account from various different devices).

Again, that's all lightly informed supposition and speculation.

I'm trying to give Comey the benefit of the doubt, but it's looking like a really bad decision to send that letter to Congress.

The fact that FBI agents waited weeks to tell Comey about the potential surrounding these emails is completely disturbing and seriously calls into question the FBI's credibility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...story.html

(10-31-2016 08:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2016 11:33 PM)JOwl Wrote:  My understanding (mixed with supposition) is that they found emails on the computer Abedin shared with Weiner, and had to get a warrant to read them, which is why Comey felt the need to disclose. (That is, while he would have preferred to have just had them read immediately to figure out whether they contained anything potentially incriminating, he legally could not do so.) I think odds are that these are emails that Abedin had already turned over to the FBI (same emails showing up again here is simply the outcome of Abedin accessing the same email account from various different devices).

Again, that's all lightly informed supposition and speculation.

I'm trying to give Comey the benefit of the doubt, but it's looking like a really bad decision to send that letter to Congress.

I think it was a damned if ya do, damned if ya don't situation.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/3...rgate.html

(10-31-2016 09:18 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The fact that FBI agents waited weeks to tell Comey about the potential surrounding these emails is completely disturbing and seriously calls into question the FBI's credibility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...story.html

How is it disturbing?

Per the WashPo:

Quote:Officials said the agents probing Clinton’s private email server did not tell the director immediately because they were trying to better assess what they had.

“It’s a step-by-step process,” said one senior law enforcement official. “There are many steps along the way that get you to a place where the director can be appropriately briefed in order to make a decision” about whether to move forward.

Investigators will now look at whether the newly uncovered emails contain classified information or other evidence that could help advance the Clinton email probe. It is possible, though, that the messages could be duplicative of others already recovered elsewhere or that they could be a collection of benign, personal notes.

So in short, the agents found these emails, and before they informed the top official at the FBI what they had, they wanted to do their due diligence and see if it was worthy of pushing it up the chain of command. At some point they did think so, and so they informed Comey. The reason Comey is getting reamed is because he did the exact opposite of that with the American people, and came out and discussed this "discovery" before there was any substantive information about what was in the discovery.

(10-31-2016 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 08:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2016 11:33 PM)JOwl Wrote:  My understanding (mixed with supposition) is that they found emails on the computer Abedin shared with Weiner, and had to get a warrant to read them, which is why Comey felt the need to disclose. (That is, while he would have preferred to have just had them read immediately to figure out whether they contained anything potentially incriminating, he legally could not do so.) I think odds are that these are emails that Abedin had already turned over to the FBI (same emails showing up again here is simply the outcome of Abedin accessing the same email account from various different devices).

Again, that's all lightly informed supposition and speculation.

I'm trying to give Comey the benefit of the doubt, but it's looking like a really bad decision to send that letter to Congress.

I think it was a damned if ya do, damned if ya don't situation.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/3...rgate.html

I agree. (But didn't read your link - it's not working for me.)

(10-31-2016 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 09:18 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The fact that FBI agents waited weeks to tell Comey about the potential surrounding these emails is completely disturbing and seriously calls into question the FBI's credibility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...story.html

How is it disturbing?

Per the WashPo:

Quote:Officials said the agents probing Clinton’s private email server did not tell the director immediately because they were trying to better assess what they had.

“It’s a step-by-step process,” said one senior law enforcement official. “There are many steps along the way that get you to a place where the director can be appropriately briefed in order to make a decision” about whether to move forward.

Investigators will now look at whether the newly uncovered emails contain classified information or other evidence that could help advance the Clinton email probe. It is possible, though, that the messages could be duplicative of others already recovered elsewhere or that they could be a collection of benign, personal notes.

So in short, the agents found these emails, and before they informed the top official at the FBI what they had, they wanted to do their due diligence and see if it was worthy of pushing it up the chain of command. At some point they did think so, and so they informed Comey. The reason Comey is getting reamed is because he did the exact opposite of that with the American people, and came out and discussed this "discovery" before there was any substantive information about what was in the discovery.

True. But, I think the proximity of the election made it more imperative that he come out with this than if he had been told, say, two months ago.

You daughter is getting married in three days. You have been told her fiancee is actually a con man, escaped from prison, who has pulled the marriage scam before. Your church does not believe in divorce. It will take three weeks to gather the evidence. Do you wait to finish the investigation?

(10-31-2016 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 09:18 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The fact that FBI agents waited weeks to tell Comey about the potential surrounding these emails is completely disturbing and seriously calls into question the FBI's credibility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...story.html

How is it disturbing?

Per the WashPo:

Quote:Officials said the agents probing Clinton’s private email server did not tell the director immediately because they were trying to better assess what they had.

“It’s a step-by-step process,” said one senior law enforcement official. “There are many steps along the way that get you to a place where the director can be appropriately briefed in order to make a decision” about whether to move forward.

Investigators will now look at whether the newly uncovered emails contain classified information or other evidence that could help advance the Clinton email probe. It is possible, though, that the messages could be duplicative of others already recovered elsewhere or that they could be a collection of benign, personal notes.

So in short, the agents found these emails, and before they informed the top official at the FBI what they had, they wanted to do their due diligence and see if it was worthy of pushing it up the chain of command. At some point they did think so, and so they informed Comey. The reason Comey is getting reamed is because he did the exact opposite of that with the American people, and came out and discussed this "discovery" before there was any substantive information about what was in the discovery.

True. But, I think the proximity of the election made it more imperative that he come out with this than if he had been told, say, two months ago.

You daughter is getting married in three days. You have been told her fiancee is actually a con man, escaped from prison, who has pulled the marriage scam before. Your church does not believe in divorce. It will take three weeks to gather the evidence. Do you wait to finish the investigation?

Yes, because in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Since the election cannot be moved, and there is no chance to have due process take its course, the only thing that coming out with this information, which may be nothing in the end, does is to appear to make one of the candidates look guilty.

Somehow, Jeanine Pirro (a Trump supporter) actually does a good job explaining this, probably because something similar happened to her: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/tr...nton-email

(10-31-2016 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The reason Comey is getting reamed is because he did the exact opposite of that with the American people, and came out and discussed this "discovery" before there was any substantive information about what was in the discovery.

My guess is that Comey sent out the letter because of the need for the warrant to read the emails. That is, that the FBI getting a warrant would have either been publicly available info or very likely to leak (I have no idea if either is true, just speculation by me) and he felt his hand was being forced -- he had to get out in front of it.

(10-31-2016 10:45 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The reason Comey is getting reamed is because he did the exact opposite of that with the American people, and came out and discussed this "discovery" before there was any substantive information about what was in the discovery.

My guess is that Comey sent out the letter because of the need for the warrant to read the emails. That is, that the FBI getting a warrant would have either been publicly available info or very likely to leak (I have no idea if either is true, just speculation by me) and he felt his hand was being forced -- he had to get out in front of it.

I think there are likely a lot of reasons and could speculate all day. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the unwarranted criticism he has taken from some of the talking heads, suggesting that he wasn't aggressive enough or that it was absurd that they didn't press charges, played a role. By sending the letter out, he very publicly was stating that he was following up every reasonable lead and investigating every piece of evidence at his disposal.

(10-31-2016 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 09:18 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The fact that FBI agents waited weeks to tell Comey about the potential surrounding these emails is completely disturbing and seriously calls into question the FBI's credibility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...story.html

How is it disturbing?

Per the WashPo:

Quote:Officials said the agents probing Clinton’s private email server did not tell the director immediately because they were trying to better assess what they had.

“It’s a step-by-step process,” said one senior law enforcement official. “There are many steps along the way that get you to a place where the director can be appropriately briefed in order to make a decision” about whether to move forward.

Investigators will now look at whether the newly uncovered emails contain classified information or other evidence that could help advance the Clinton email probe. It is possible, though, that the messages could be duplicative of others already recovered elsewhere or that they could be a collection of benign, personal notes.

So in short, the agents found these emails, and before they informed the top official at the FBI what they had, they wanted to do their due diligence and see if it was worthy of pushing it up the chain of command. At some point they did think so, and so they informed Comey. The reason Comey is getting reamed is because he did the exact opposite of that with the American people, and came out and discussed this "discovery" before there was any substantive information about what was in the discovery.

True. But, I think the proximity of the election made it more imperative that he come out with this than if he had been told, say, two months ago.

You daughter is getting married in three days. You have been told her fiancee is actually a con man, escaped from prison, who has pulled the marriage scam before. Your church does not believe in divorce. It will take three weeks to gather the evidence. Do you wait to finish the investigation?

Yes, because in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Since the election cannot be moved, and there is no chance to have due process take its course, the only thing that coming out with this information, which may be nothing in the end, does is to appear to make one of the candidates look guilty.

Somehow, Jeanine Pirro (a Trump supporter) actually does a good job explaining this, probably because something similar happened to her: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/tr...nton-email

funny, in the country you can be arrested, indicted, jailed, perp walked, tried in the press, and so forth long before you are proven guilty in a court of law. Where is the protection of absolute knowledge for those people?

he had a choice: the choice was, do I tell now that I might have incriminating emails on a candidate, or wait and maybe later announce I am advocating criminal prosecution of the President-elect, having found the proof on intent that I said was lacking in July?

Quick, what was the outcome for Tom Delay?

Not an easy choice, not is it IMO a black and white one.

(10-31-2016 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 09:18 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The fact that FBI agents waited weeks to tell Comey about the potential surrounding these emails is completely disturbing and seriously calls into question the FBI's credibility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...story.html

How is it disturbing?

Per the WashPo:

Quote:Officials said the agents probing Clinton’s private email server did not tell the director immediately because they were trying to better assess what they had.

“It’s a step-by-step process,” said one senior law enforcement official. “There are many steps along the way that get you to a place where the director can be appropriately briefed in order to make a decision” about whether to move forward.

Investigators will now look at whether the newly uncovered emails contain classified information or other evidence that could help advance the Clinton email probe. It is possible, though, that the messages could be duplicative of others already recovered elsewhere or that they could be a collection of benign, personal notes.

So in short, the agents found these emails, and before they informed the top official at the FBI what they had, they wanted to do their due diligence and see if it was worthy of pushing it up the chain of command. At some point they did think so, and so they informed Comey. The reason Comey is getting reamed is because he did the exact opposite of that with the American people, and came out and discussed this "discovery" before there was any substantive information about what was in the discovery.

True. But, I think the proximity of the election made it more imperative that he come out with this than if he had been told, say, two months ago.

You daughter is getting married in three days. You have been told her fiancee is actually a con man, escaped from prison, who has pulled the marriage scam before. Your church does not believe in divorce. It will take three weeks to gather the evidence. Do you wait to finish the investigation?

Yes, because in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Since the election cannot be moved, and there is no chance to have due process take its course, the only thing that coming out with this information, which may be nothing in the end, does is to appear to make one of the candidates look guilty.

Somehow, Jeanine Pirro (a Trump supporter) actually does a good job explaining this, probably because something similar happened to her: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/tr...nton-email

funny, in the country you can be arrested, indicted, jailed, perp walked, tried in the press, and so forth long before you are proven guilty in a court of law. Where is the protection of absolute knowledge for those people?

he had a choice: the choice was, do I tell now that I might have incriminating emails on a candidate, or wait and maybe later announce I am advocating criminal prosecution of the President-elect, having found the proof on intent that I said was lacking in July?

Quick, what was the outcome for Tom Delay?

Not an easy choice, not is it IMO a black and white one.

Two things about the statement in bold.

One, none of those things have happened with Clinton in regards to this email scandal, except tried in the press, so not a great example, especially since she hasn't been jailed, and even better yet, formally indicted even after a lengthy investigation. So that's not a very good example.

Second, even if it was a good example, just because some people have to deal with the unfair and unjust consequences of being accused (especially if they are found innocent), that the logic extends that EVERYONE should? I'm not buying that either.

If this was an indictment I think I could maybe start to understand your logic, because at that point there is at least enough evidence available that suggests that there was a crime committed. But so far, by the words of the man who wrote this letter, there has not been enough evidence to bring charges against Clinton. So I do think the more appropriate response to digging into some more of these emails without any official charges, was to keep it underwraps until more details were known. And based on what I've seen in the news, the majority of people who know this system better than me, on the left and right, share that sentiment.

And that's because, let's say that this was the nail in the coffin that pushes Trump over the edge. And then results of the investigation come back and prove that again, there is not enough evidence to prosecute. Was it a good thing that the head of the FBI came out and said something that influenced the election?

I agree that it isn't a black and white issue, but I think one decision is more correct than the other.

(10-31-2016 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But so far, by the words of the man who wrote this letter, there has not been enough evidence to bring charges against Clinton.

No, that's not a correct recital of what he said.

He did in fact recite sufficient evidence not only to bring charges, but in fact to convict her of several crimes. He did not say that there was not enough evidence, he said that as a matter of prosecutorial discretion he would not bring charges.

(10-31-2016 01:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But so far, by the words of the man who wrote this letter, there has not been enough evidence to bring charges against Clinton.

No, that's not a correct recital of what he said.

He did in fact recite sufficient evidence not only to bring charges, but in fact to convict her of several crimes. He did not say that there was not enough evidence, he said that as a matter of prosecutorial discretion he would not bring charges.

Not that it will resolve this, but here's the transcript of his July statement, along with the two most quoted paragraphs:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-...ail-system

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information..." In other words, the evidence is there. What I said. And the details he recited at length, fulfill the elements of several different crimes.

"Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges." In other words, prosecutorial discretion. What I said.

(10-31-2016 01:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information..." In other words, the evidence is there. What I said. And the details he recited at length, fulfill the elements of several different crimes.

"Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges." In other words, prosecutorial discretion. What I said.

No, the evidence was not there to bring charges, as he stated in the second paragraph:

"we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

You're right that they saw evidence of mishandling classified info, but just mishandling classified information is not enough to break a law. They needed to find evidence of intent, which they couldn't.

I guess both of us see what we want to see.

(10-31-2016 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right that they saw evidence of mishandling classified info, but just mishandling classified information is not enough to break a law.

Yes, it is.

There are a number of different violations of the applicable laws (18 USC Sections 793, 794, 798, 2071, inter alia) for which no showing of intent is required. There are others for which the intent required would be merely the intent to place the information on a non-secure server or communicate it over an uncovered net, and not the intent to deliver it to an enemy agent. Many of those crimes do not require as an element of proof any actual delivery to anyone who might intend to harm the US.

(10-31-2016 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How is it disturbing?

Per the WashPo:


So in short, the agents found these emails, and before they informed the top official at the FBI what they had, they wanted to do their due diligence and see if it was worthy of pushing it up the chain of command. At some point they did think so, and so they informed Comey. The reason Comey is getting reamed is because he did the exact opposite of that with the American people, and came out and discussed this "discovery" before there was any substantive information about what was in the discovery.

True. But, I think the proximity of the election made it more imperative that he come out with this than if he had been told, say, two months ago.

You daughter is getting married in three days. You have been told her fiancee is actually a con man, escaped from prison, who has pulled the marriage scam before. Your church does not believe in divorce. It will take three weeks to gather the evidence. Do you wait to finish the investigation?

Yes, because in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Since the election cannot be moved, and there is no chance to have due process take its course, the only thing that coming out with this information, which may be nothing in the end, does is to appear to make one of the candidates look guilty.

Somehow, Jeanine Pirro (a Trump supporter) actually does a good job explaining this, probably because something similar happened to her: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/tr...nton-email

funny, in the country you can be arrested, indicted, jailed, perp walked, tried in the press, and so forth long before you are proven guilty in a court of law. Where is the protection of absolute knowledge for those people?

he had a choice: the choice was, do I tell now that I might have incriminating emails on a candidate, or wait and maybe later announce I am advocating criminal prosecution of the President-elect, having found the proof on intent that I said was lacking in July?

Quick, what was the outcome for Tom Delay?

Not an easy choice, not is it IMO a black and white one.

Two things about the statement in bold.

One, none of those things have happened with Clinton in regards to this email scandal, except tried in the press, so not a great example, especially since she hasn't been jailed, and even better yet, formally indicted even after a lengthy investigation. So that's not a very good example.

Second, even if it was a good example, just because some people have to deal with the unfair and unjust consequences of being accused (especially if they are found innocent), that the logic extends that EVERYONE should? I'm not buying that either.

If this was an indictment I think I could maybe start to understand your logic, because at that point there is at least enough evidence available that suggests that there was a crime committed. But so far, by the words of the man who wrote this letter, there has not been enough evidence to bring charges against Clinton. So I do think the more appropriate response to digging into some more of these emails without any official charges, was to keep it underwraps until more details were known. And based on what I've seen in the news, the majority of people who know this system better than me, on the left and right, share that sentiment.

And that's because, let's say that this was the nail in the coffin that pushes Trump over the edge. And then results of the investigation come back and prove that again, there is not enough evidence to prosecute. Was it a good thing that the head of the FBI came out and said something that influenced the election?

I agree that it isn't a black and white issue, but I think one decision is more correct than the other.

Just responding to the inference that Comey should have waited until he had all the evidence needed for a conviction, which is how I interpret your innocent until proven guilty mantra. As you can see from my list, law enforcement doesn't wait for a slam dunk ghuilty verdict to move.

I wonder how people would feel after voting for her, to learn that she had in fact lied to them and hoodwinked them. Probably wouldn't change a lot.