A little bit too much of a perfect timing. Under 2 weeks afterall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPVu7O2Dh0

Depends on what they got and where they go with it. There's plenty of dirt on Hilary to get a normal person jail time, time will tell.

If she looses her ability to have clearances, she'd have to give up the seat. If she becomes a felon, she'd have to give it up.

We'll see. The earlier conclusion was ridiculous, so I'm not expecting much more than political maneuvering for the sake of the Clinton machine.

At 10/28/16 06:33 PM, anvilpoundcake wrote: If she looses her ability to have clearances, she'd have to give up the seat. If she becomes a felon, she'd have to give it up.

Did you know Donald Trump faces an even more real possibility of this? Did you know the Trump University lawsuit has a RICO criminal investigation tied to it?

It's insane that American politics have degenerated to these two bad choices. It's either "the bad choice that maybe did something criminal" or "the horrible choice that's clearly done criminal shit that doesn't care, and won't even do the job if elected"

At 10/28/16 06:58 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/28/16 06:33 PM, anvilpoundcake wrote: If she looses her ability to have clearances, she'd have to give up the seat. If she becomes a felon, she'd have to give it up.

Did you know Donald Trump faces an even more real possibility of this?

I think Hilary should have already lost them. If she was still a government employee at the end of the FBI investigation, you can be sure she would have lost all clearances.

It's insane that American politics have degenerated to these two bad choices. It's either "the bad choice that maybe did something criminal" or "the horrible choice that's clearly done criminal shit that doesn't care, and won't even do the job if elected"

I also think you give Hilary a bit too much positive labeling there.

I'm one who didn't agree with the previous FBI investigation. Just focusing on the result, there wasn't clear intent. Have you ever broken a law where intent mattered much?

I also find it very hard to understand that there are those who believe she's a bumbling grandma who doesn't know what she's doing sometimes, or that that's an acceptable trait in a president. And while that's going on, she also has the narrative of a savvy list making organized individual who loves to check things off said list. If Hilary has done anything in her life, you can be sure she put thought into it.

The woman is nothing but intent.

At 10/28/16 07:24 PM, anvilpoundcake wrote: I think Hilary should have already lost them. If she was still a government employee at the end of the FBI investigation, you can be sure she would have lost all clearances.

What does that have to do with the thing we were talking about? We were talking about criminal culpability. From what I see from the newly opened investigation, this may be more about Anthony Weiner then her. But Trump has a very real, and disqualifying RICO case against him. It is is possible we may now be in a situation where the election is actually about which VP candidate we'd rather elect then the Presidential.

I also think you give Hilary a bit too much positive labeling there.

I could see that....but again, and as politely as I can say such a thing....only if I assume the person I'm talking to has not been familiarized with Trump's history of criminal deeds (like hiring illegals) and basically screwing over every major area or contractor he's ever worked with. Hillary has the whiff (and it's a strong one no doubt) of impropriety, but Trump is swimming in provable cases of it. Or that hasn't outright been accused by former opponents (John Kasick) of having his surrogates (specifically his son) suss them out on the idea that they would be the first VP ever to basically run the administration and make all the policy decisions. The idea that it all equals out, is just a complete false equivalency. Both are not awesome choices, but one is clearly worse then the other. Clearly.

I'm one who didn't agree with the previous FBI investigation. Just focusing on the result, there wasn't clear intent. Have you ever broken a law where intent mattered much?

That assumes I've ever broken a law in the first place. I see what you did there :)

I also find it very hard to understand that there are those who believe she's a bumbling grandma who doesn't know what she's doing sometimes, or that that's an acceptable trait in a president.

Who here has said that? Has said any of that?

At 10/28/16 06:33 PM, anvilpoundcake wrote: If she looses her ability to have clearances, she'd have to give up the seat. If she becomes a felon, she'd have to give it up.

Serious question: what would happen if the investigation found something worth indicting her over? Would the nomination go to Kaine?

Also, it's baffling as to why they'd reopen the case NOW as opposed to after the election. The only thing I can think of is there had to be something major enough worth taking a second look at (that presumably they didn't have the first time around). It remains to be seen what that could be though.

At 10/28/16 08:38 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

At 10/28/16 06:33 PM, anvilpoundcake wrote: If she looses her ability to have clearances, she'd have to give up the seat. If she becomes a felon, she'd have to give it up.

Serious question: what would happen if the investigation found something worth indicting her over? Would the nomination go to Kaine?

I'm not sure. Recently there was question about Trump backing out and the media really wishing for it. If she gets elected and then has to step down or is removed, the VP moves up. If it happens before, which it wouldn't, I haven't a clue. When the discussion was about Trump backing out completely and his VP just stepping up, the answer was no because Trump was already on the ballot.

Also, it's baffling as to why they'd reopen the case NOW as opposed to after the election. The only thing I can think of is there had to be something major enough worth taking a second look at (that presumably they didn't have the first time around). It remains to be seen what that could be though.

Or it could just be that there's nothing and to remove doubt of impropriety, things will be brought forth and shown.

At 10/28/16 08:25 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/28/16 07:24 PM, anvilpoundcake wrote: I think Hilary should have already lost them. If she was still a government employee at the end of the FBI investigation, you can be sure she would have lost all clearances.

What does that have to do with the thing we were talking about? We were talking about criminal culpability. From what I see from the newly opened investigation, this may be more about Anthony Weiner then her. But Trump has a very real, and disqualifying RICO case against him. It is is possible we may now be in a situation where the election is actually about which VP candidate we'd rather elect then the Presidential.

I was going back to my mention of ability to hold clearances by either, not who is closer to being a criminal.

About this Hilary new or reopened investigation, we will all have to wait for more details. I'm curious what they have, especially through Weiner. A while back when Weiner was shoved onto the national public stage for his acts, I knew he was a vulnerability for Hilary.

I also think you give Hilary a bit too much positive labeling there.

I could see that....but again, and as politely as I can say such a thing....only if I assume the person I'm talking to has not been familiarized with Trump's history of criminal deeds (like hiring illegals) and basically screwing over every major area or contractor he's ever worked with. Hillary has the whiff (and it's a strong one no doubt) of impropriety, but Trump is swimming in proveable cases of it. The idea that it all equals out, is just a complete false equivalency. Both are not awesome choices, but one is clearly worse then the other. Clearly.

I don't hold anything Trump may have done to the same standard as someone who is accused of steering government policy into the favor of donors, among many other horrible accusations. Trump may have screwed many people, but Hilary has scaled up and done so to the nation and world.

I'm one who didn't agree with the previous FBI investigation. Just focusing on the result, there wasn't clear intent. Have you ever broken a law where intent mattered much?

That assumes I've ever broken a law in the first place. I see what you did there :)

Everyone has done something, even if it's just a speeding ticket. I'm no criminal, I've never been arrested.

I also find it very hard to understand that there are those who believe she's a bumbling grandma who doesn't know what she's doing sometimes, or that that's an acceptable trait in a president.

Who here has said that? Has said any of that?

As far as I know, no one here. That's not a denial of knowledge of that narrative... Hilary should have wiped those devices a bit harder with her cloth.

At 10/28/16 08:54 PM, anvilpoundcake wrote: I don't hold anything Trump may have done to the same standard as someone who is accused of steering government policy into the favor of donors, among many other horrible accusations. Trump may have screwed many people, but Hilary has scaled up and done so to the nation and world.

This is the thing I don't get. Because we have one candidate ACCUSED (Hillary) of wrong doing. No investigation has ever turned up anything, the current re-opening is still a matter of "we THINK there may be something pertinent....but we have to look" so there's still no smoking gun. In a justice system that says "innocent until proven guilty" I don't see how you can honestly say an accusation holds the weight of a conviction (which it seems pretty clear you're doing).

The OTHER candidate (Trump) HAS been fined for illegal activity or wrong doing. Has been similarly ACCUSED of wrong doing (so by your standard, since some of those accusations run counter to stated policy aims, why aren't you shitting on him as hard as Hillary?), when he hasn't been convicted, he's settled, or he's declared bankruptcy and run away before the hammer dropped (I live in Jersey, I remember all too well the bill of goods he ran on Atlantic City which I still suffer with as a resident).

In some ways, I'm not even arguing the false equivalencies anymore. I'm asking why the hell can't we even get to as easy a place of "both these candidates are pretty crap, without major policy achievement it'll be hard for them to be anything but one term" and then proceed from there. Because the game seems to be somehow, the qualified one is shit, the one that is actually convicted of criminal shit, or has bragged about criminal connection gets a pass....and I just don't see it. I just can't unless I start throwing around words like "sexism" and goddamn I really hate doing that, because even if I was totally comfortable in my rightness with it (and I'm not totally comfortable in that by the way because of Hillary), I know it'd just turn folks like you off period and any chance we had to understand each other or find common ground would be out the window. So let's just start with this:

Why is an accusation carrying the weight of a conviction for you?

At 10/28/16 04:45 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Probably a huge non-story, except that it's something that can and will be talked about because people are in love with the idea of it mattering, and so through an act of sheer belief, I guess it will matter in as much as it being a vapid shell of an issue and Kabuki being an effective driver of messages.

Just saying, it's too soon to tell what was discovered (and the FBI isn't going to talk about it yet) but for them to re-open this case they must have found something SERIOUSLY concerning...

Either that or Comey is doing it to protect his own ass because the majority of Americans are extremely unhappy with how unprofessional and politically-motivated the first investigation was handled.

Or maybe both.

At 10/28/16 10:18 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Why is an accusation carrying the weight of a conviction for you?

Again I apologize for the double post but I really want to bring up a point that may be missed with this.

The reason is because in our minds we know it was supposed to be a conviction. Not only that, but a serious conviction worse than what Trump has done. Why is it that you just believe whatever the verdict ended up being as the right one? Like, forget about the fact that there may have been a political motive behind it and the investigation itself was extremely shady, she was declared innocent so it must be true?

I don't blindly agree with the justice system like that, especially when it comes to doing honest investigations with political things like this.

At 10/29/16 02:11 AM, mothballs wrote: The reason is because in our minds we know it was supposed to be a conviction.

Why? Because this is another problem for me. I am NOT a fan of Hillary, I do plan to vote for her, but that's because I feel she's the only choice I have to continue policies and efforts I agree with and am behind. I also believe she's the only candidate if elected who will actually do the work I elected her to do. I know that sounds off topic but I'm circling back around to it in a second, just wanted to get any "you blindly love Hillary Clinton" accusation out of the way as much as possible. Are we good there? I hope so, let me move into my main point.

When people are saying what you just said, I have to ask how and why you can "KNOW" that. Are you a lawyer? Have you gone to law school? Are you a detective? Are you part of the FBI? Or, and this to me is the best question, did you PERSONALLY work on this case? Did you handle and review the evidence and the material yourself? Because If all of these are a "no" then I cannot understand how you can feel qualified to make a statement like "I know it should have been a conviction".

Not only that, but a serious conviction worse than what Trump has done.

I think that would depend on what exactly she did wrong and who and what it endangered. Because while I do think at least some of the things Trump has been accused of have a problem with the truth test (that suit about child rape looks fishy as hell to me. It looks almost exactly like the Left's version of Benghazi, or other things that the Right has tried to stick to Hillary: He's in the wrong place, with the wrong people, but those firing the accusation have a credibility problem). There's definitely things he actually HAS been "convicted" on, or held liable for that have resulted in penalties. So I continue to fail to understand how someone who has been penalized for actual wrong doing has an equal footing in that arena with someone who has merely been accused, and no evidence has turned up each time. Do I think that makes Hillary completely clean? No. I think if we looked deeply at any politician we're going to find evidence of some kind of wrong doing, even if only at a level of "that seems like a moral choice that runs counter to my moral choices". But something like that can be worlds away from actual criminal wrong doing.

Why is it that you just believe whatever the verdict ended up being as the right one?

Because in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that is the logical conclusion to be made. Otherwise we're into those fallacious type areas of "the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence". Let's also remember that just about all of these investigations (The Congressional ones like Benghazi anyway) are costing tax payer money. It's costing you and me to try and go after a person who continually winds up exonerated of wrong doing. That to me is an unacceptable use of funds. This case with the re-opening of the email investigation? Not so much, I'm willing to trust the FBI that they have some new evidence (unless evidence to the contrary of that were to crop up) and any time, expense, etc is worth it and it's in the public interest to follow it.

Like, forget about the fact that there may have been a political motive behind it and the investigation itself was extremely shady, she was declared innocent so it must be true?

She wasn't necessarily declared innocent. The term they used was what she did was bad judgement, but it was not a criminal action that required indictment at the time. This is where I think you, and some other folks have gotten confused. You don't seem able to see an instance of bad judgement, and doing something that was wrong, or not a good idea....not then as a matter of course leading to a situation where the conduct is judged criminal and resulting in a trial or similar sanction. That's ok, that's not a judgement on you or your intelligence. I can't truthfully tell you "well because a, that led to b, which led to c, which led to not indicting". Because like you (I'm assuming this obviously, apologies if I assumed wrong) I don't have training in the law, let alone this area of it. I know the basic stuff as an average citizen I'm not supposed to do, but for something like this? Yeah, my only recourse is to trust the experts unless or until somebody can present me with clear, and understandable evidence that the experts have it wrong for some reason. But to come back to fully answering the question: Yes, if she's been investigated, and the authorities decide no indictment or charges are warranted, and there is no clear evidence coming out to the contrary that would suggest misconduct on their part....then I have to assume they came to the correct conclusion and the matter is closed until such evidence presents that it isn't.

I don't blindly agree with the justice system like that, especially when it comes to doing honest investigations with political things like this.

Why? I mean, I get there have been situations in the past where we've clearly seen criminal action brushed off or pardoned thanks to back room skull duggery or what not (Nixon springs to mind) but there have also been cases where that action has been brought to light and punished (Tea Pot Dome). I get that we should always have a healthy skepticism, that we should always seek the truth, especially if the truth contradicts the official message. But there's a difference between doing that, and just saying "With no evidence, with no training, with nothing that backs up the assertion other then a certainty that these institutions always get this sort of thing wrong". The problem with that seems pretty obvious to me, but seems to be escaping folks who don't seem to see my point: It's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome. If you take it as gospel these investigations are always wrong if they don't result in action, then if you find one that actually DOES become a case of what you're alleging, either no one will believe you because of your previous history with the position, or you will create a situation where you're burden of proof will be impossibly high.

Questions are good, questions are great. But questions that you assume you already know the answer to, and that you will accept and tolerate no opposite answer, are just harmful.

Here's a great article summarizing what happened yesterday.

Including the misnomer that is this topic title that the FBI "reopened" the investigation....they actually didn't because they never closed it.

At 10/29/16 10:57 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Why? Because this is another problem for me. I am NOT a fan of Hillary, I do plan to vote for her, but that's because I feel she's the only choice I have to continue policies and efforts I agree with and am behind. I also believe she's the only candidate if elected who will actually do the work I elected her to do. I know that sounds off topic but I'm circling back around to it in a second, just wanted to get any "you blindly love Hillary Clinton" accusation out of the way as much as possible. Are we good there? I hope so, let me move into my main point.

I never said you blindly love Hillary, I know you even voted for Sanders in the primaries. I just can't understand, however, how you think she'll do the work you elected her to do when you know how many corporate donors and special interest groups she's in the pocket of with super PACs working for her. The "public and private positions" only confirms that. To answer your first "why" question, it's because me and well as many other Americans have good reason to believe that this investigation was very poorly run and politically motivated. We almost knew she would get away with it because we couldn't imagine someone with that position of power being sent to prison.

When people are saying what you just said, I have to ask how and why you can "KNOW" that. Are you a lawyer? Have you gone to law school? Are you a detective? Are you part of the FBI? Or, and this to me is the best question, did you PERSONALLY work on this case? Did you handle and review the evidence and the material yourself? Because If all of these are a "no" then I cannot understand how you can feel qualified to make a statement like "I know it should have been a conviction".

There is enough supporting evidence for me to believe that a conviction should have been put through. When you handle and delete 33,000 classified emails on a private server (a felony) and get caught openly lying about it, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that any other person not in that position of power would have been put away for a long time.

Not only that, but a serious conviction worse than what Trump has done.

I think that would depend on what exactly she did wrong and who and what it endangered. Because while I do think at least some of the things Trump has been accused of have a problem with the truth test (that suit about child rape looks fishy as hell to me. It looks almost exactly like the Left's version of Benghazi, or other things that the Right has tried to stick to Hillary: He's in the wrong place, with the wrong people, but those firing the accusation have a credibility problem). There's definitely things he actually HAS been "convicted" on, or held liable for that have resulted in penalties. So I continue to fail to understand how someone who has been penalized for actual wrong doing has an equal footing in that arena with someone who has merely been accused, and no evidence has turned up each time. Do I think that makes Hillary completely clean? No. I think if we looked deeply at any politician we're going to find evidence of some kind of wrong doing, even if only at a level of "that seems like a moral choice that runs counter to my moral choices". But something like that can be worlds away from actual criminal wrong doing.

And I understand Trump has been convicted of things that he deserved to be too but it still goes back to my original point that we shouldn't declare someone completely innocent just because their case was dismissed. There's too much fishiness within the system to believe that. I think it's more important for us to use our own judgement, everything we're told is just speculation.

Because in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that is the logical conclusion to be made. Otherwise we're into those fallacious type areas of "the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence". Let's also remember that just about all of these investigations (The Congressional ones like Benghazi anyway) are costing tax payer money. It's costing you and me to try and go after a person who continually winds up exonerated of wrong doing. That to me is an unacceptable use of funds. This case with the re-opening of the email investigation? Not so much, I'm willing to trust the FBI that they have some new evidence (unless evidence to the contrary of that were to crop up) and any time, expense, etc is worth it and it's in the public interest to follow it.

I simply don't believe that there was an absence of evidence. There was more than enough evidence for them to lay down a conviction. The only lack of evidence that I heard about was the lack of proof that there was intent, which is absolute bullshit. That's opening the door for people to commit crimes and then just say in their defense that they didn't intend to do it, then get away with it because there's not enough evidence of intent. I understand that it costs taxpayer money (believe me, I'm a fiscal conservative so I don't believe in spending really) but this is something that involves our next president and I believe the American people deserve to see justice done.

She wasn't necessarily declared innocent. The term they used was what she did was bad judgement, but it was not a criminal action that required indictment at the time. This is where I think you, and some other folks have gotten confused. You don't seem able to see an instance of bad judgement, and doing something that was wrong, or not a good idea....not then as a matter of course leading to a situation where the conduct is judged criminal and resulting in a trial or similar sanction. That's ok, that's not a judgement on you or your intelligence. I can't truthfully tell you "well because a, that led to b, which led to c, which led to not indicting". Because like you (I'm assuming this obviously, apologies if I assumed wrong) I don't have training in the law, let alone this area of it. I know the basic stuff as an average citizen I'm not supposed to do, but for something like this? Yeah, my only recourse is to trust the experts unless or until somebody can present me with clear, and understandable evidence that the experts have it wrong for some reason. But to come back to fully answering the question: Yes, if she's been investigated, and the authorities decide no indictment or charges are warranted, and there is no clear evidence coming out to the contrary that would suggest misconduct on their part....then I have to assume they came to the correct conclusion and the matter is closed until such evidence presents that it isn't.

Well yeah the last sentence here basically sums up this part. You're right, I don't have any experience practicing law but something I also do not have is trust that the government would run an honest investigation with something like this. That's really what it comes down to. Because no matter how qualified these people are to run a serious investigation, when it includes someone in the power of Hillary Clinton it just doesn't seem realistic that she would get convicted considering all of her insider support, no matter what she does. The whole "bad judgement" thing is bullshit, not because I think she seriously knew what she was doing (to be honest with you, she probably didn't) but because it's not a good enough defense for committing a felony.

At 10/29/16 02:26 PM, mothballs wrote: I never said you blindly love Hillary, I know you even voted for Sanders in the primaries. I just can't understand, however, how you think she'll do the work you elected her to do when you know how many corporate donors and special interest groups she's in the pocket of with super PACs working for her.

Because there's no hard evidence that those groups will influence her policy or positions in a way that will be counter productive to my aims in the main. To me it's more important that in addition to having a President that I think can do the work in a way that conforms to my ideas, a Congress that can help achieve that get elected also.

The "public and private positions" only confirms that.

No it really doesn't. Everybody has public and private positions, even average citizens. Sometimes you have good reasons not to make a big public pronouncement about a controversial or unpopular position or idea. This is much ado about nothing, it really is.

it's because me and well as many other Americans have good reason to believe that this investigation was very poorly run and politically motivated. We almost knew she would get away with it because we couldn't imagine someone with that position of power being sent to prison.

Why? I'm still waiting for some solid evidence from you that I could review to see if I might actually agree with you. I'm not trying to be a dick, it's just that it's going to take more then "what some guy on the internet is saying" to get me to ignore the conclusions of folks who are trained to make these decisions.

There is enough supporting evidence for me to believe that a conviction should have been put through.

What. Are. Your. Credentials for saying this?

When you handle and delete 33,000 classified emails on a private server (a felony) and get caught openly lying about it, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that any other person not in that position of power would have been put away for a long time.

But she DIDN'T do that though. Nobody with any credibility has said all those emails were classified. This is the problem, you don't even know what it is your talking about.

And I understand Trump has been convicted of things that he deserved to be too but it still goes back to my original point that we shouldn't declare someone completely innocent just because their case was dismissed.

Well, her case wasn't dismissed, nor even closed as I pointed out. So really, this isn't relevant because it proceeds from a false notion.

There's too much fishiness within the system to believe that. I think it's more important for us to use our own judgement, everything we're told is just speculation.

No the fuck it's not. Seriously. The FBI making a conclusion is not "speculation". Legitimate news sources doing investigative journalism is not "speculation". More and more you are proving you aren't equipped for this discussion.

I simply don't believe that there was an absence of evidence......

Again, what are your credentials? Because so far all you've shown is that you don't have even the most basic of grasps on what you're talking about. You just come off as someone on the Right who hates Hillary Clinton and wants to through sheer force of will make her a criminal. That then goes back to that credibility thing we discussed before.

Well yeah the last sentence here basically sums up this part. You're right, I don't have any experience practicing law but something I also do not have is trust that the government would run an honest investigation with something like this. That's really what it comes down to. Because no matter how qualified these people are to run a serious investigation, when it includes someone in the power of Hillary Clinton it just doesn't seem realistic that she would get convicted considering all of her insider support, no matter what she does. The whole "bad judgement" thing is bullshit, not because I think she seriously knew what she was doing (to be honest with you, she probably didn't) but because it's not a good enough defense for committing a felony.

Ah, so then you'd rather go with the Boy Who Cried Wolf theory. Ok. Until some evidence pops up to the contrary, you really have no leg to stand on here, sorry.

At 10/30/16 05:09 AM, hektikmusic wrote: Her missing emails being found while a seperate investigation of a pedophile's devices turn them up.

And this is EXACTLY why Comey should lose his job. The fucking stupid and the intellectually void who support Trump will see the worst where there has been nothing shown yet.

You know what they have? EMAILS THAT MAY BE RELATED TO HILLARY CLINTON IN SOME MAYBE POSSIBLY POSSIBLE PERHAPS LIKELY BUT LIKELY NOT WAY. That's it. Nothing incriminating found yet. Nothing even related found yet. Just emails possibly related to Hillary Clinton on... drum roll... HER TOP AIDE'S EMAIL!!!!! OH MY FUCKING LORD!!!! SHE DONE GOT GUNNA BE GOOD UN THERE THEM GILLLTEEEEESSSS!!!!

Comey is grossly injuring our Democratic system because the GOP shit on him for doing his job. Now he's trying to get in their good graces and the process (which has taken its biggest hit since 1860) is hurting because of it.

At 10/30/16 06:52 PM, hektikmusic wrote: He had an obligation to do his job and that's what he's doing.

I actually tend to agree, he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. Going to Congress to tell him the investigation has taken a new turn and they turned up more emails now, gets him in hot water because it looks like he's trying to tilt the election. Had he NOT done so, and if they actually DO find something that could bring an indictment, then it looks like he was trying to cover for her to help her get elected. He really couldn't win no matter what he did. We can argue about which outcome has better odds (my money is on it not really doing anything since this is really about what Weiner was doing vs. anything Hillary was doing), but it's not impossible that something unexpected might come up.

If they didn't find anything that may be incriminating than it probably wouldn't have brought up so close to the election.

That's an irresponsible leap. If you look at the article I posted (which kind of got buried behind the text walls me and mothballs were batting back and forth) it's pretty clear this was more procedural then anything: Comey was made aware of more emails, it is pertinent to the Weiner investigation, but since the Clinton investigation was never actually closed, it COULD also impact that, which is what he said. Then the irresponsible journalistic machine that is the mass media in this country (especially the Conservatives that Cam mentioned, since smearing Hillary this close to an election that looked like it would be a very bad blow for them in not just losing the Oval for another 4 years, but they'd lose a lot of Congressional seats as well) have jumped on it, blown it up as bigger then it is with misreporting and misinformation.

At 10/29/16 03:34 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: stuff

Sigh, this is why I try not to get into these kinds of things, we just end up going around in circles. You seem convinced that everything is being handled in an honest way and I don't, simple as that. You also swear that there's no evidence whatsoever on the case when there is at least one federal law that prohibits anyone from sending or receiving classified material on a personal device, which Hillary was found to have done with many of the 33,000 emails and then exposed by the FBI when Comey said she did after many clips showed her lying that she didn't.

You keep saying I don't have a clue about what I'm talking about but am I missing something here?

At 10/30/16 09:36 PM, mothballs wrote: Sigh, this is why I try not to get into these kinds of things, we just end up going around in circles. You seem convinced that everything is being handled in an honest way and I don't, simple as that.

Which I don't understand because there's no real evidence of any wrong doing. All you seem to have is the vague paranoia based on nothing a lot of people have that if it involves pols and the government, it must be wrong.

You also swear that there's no evidence whatsoever on the case when there is at least one federal law that prohibits anyone from sending or receiving classified material on a personal device,

Now you're mischaracterizing what I said. What I'm saying is there's no evidence of indictable wrong doing. That was the FBI's finding. It was poor decision making, it's distressing to me that Hillary seems to pride secrecy so much, it's upsetting that she allowed herself to get put into this mess to begin with. But none of that has risen to the level of being criminal.

which Hillary was found to have done with many of the 33,000 emails and then exposed by the FBI when Comey said she did after many clips showed her lying that she didn't.

I remember him saying she was "extremely careless" but not that there was enough for an indictment or that she'd really broken the rules. The reporting on this has been very murky and inconsistent because there's such an intense bias to frame this story a certain way for the benefit of one side or the other.

You keep saying I don't have a clue about what I'm talking about but am I missing something here?

Clearly all the bits where I clearly ennumerated your lack of understanding about this story, where I feel your conclusions are not based on real evidence....it's all there, I'm not laying it out again. I went point by point in the earlier posts.

At 10/30/16 10:14 PM, hektikmusic wrote: Comey is most definitely in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation. I just read the article you shared and it seems to offer multiple points of view. It really isn't Comey's fault, afterall it's Hillary Clinton that didn't adhere to policies regarding emails.

But what we're starting to see now is the DoJ and others are getting pissed at Comey and pointing out that actually he really shouldn't have been putting out anything in public about this without getting further guidance from his bosses at DoJ. Both parties are urging him to quickly disclose as much information as he has since we're close to the election and like it or not, Friday's disclosure is changing opinion. So while Hillary started this snowball with a bad choice, Comey is seeming to be sticking his foot in a whole new cow flop with his handling of the investigation.

I did hear from a different source that a telephone call would have sufficed, and that this letter was written knowing that it would be leaked.

Could you provide that source?

Since "intent" is something we can't really prove without admission from the guilty party we'll just have to assume that Comey was acting accordingly by supplementing his previous testimony.

Or it's entirely possible the accusation that is forming that Comey is more worried about how history will view him and his own personal reputation vs. following guidance and established protocols within DoJ on this matter. There really are a lot of possible angles here.

That article you cited made one small mistake I noticed: Huma Abedin isn't just one of Hillary's top aides, rather she IS Hillary's top aide and closest confidant.

I don't really think that's a mistake per se. I mean, does it honestly change anything about the facts as we understand them so far?

Also, that word "estranged" has carefully always been attached to Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner since news of this broke out.

They seperated recently with Weiners latest scandal. "Estranged" is an entirely appropriate way to describe that situation.

Just seems strange that most of the media outlets are sure to phrase it that way though they're not actually estranged.

I think you're looking to pick at nits here that really don't exist. It's the kind of thing that has been mistakenly done with Clinton for years here and has assisted in helping her to paint conservatives as simply out to get her over issues of fantasy. You help her when you focus on inconsequential details.

:Oh well, the #ImWithHer camp could watch a video of Hillary drowning a puppy and they'd still just say that Trump is a fascist.

Bias exists everywhere, I'm well past the point of giving either side any merit or credit points for being able to point out the obvious that some people will just never abandon their candidate no matter what horrors can be uncovered about them.

At 10/30/16 06:52 PM, hektikmusic wrote: LOL I bet you're in the camp that was praising Comey in July.

No. I thought he did the right thing before, but I didn't praise him. It's his job to follow the law and he did. He followed that up by saying she did some stupid shit and I didn't disagree.

He had an obligation to do his job and that's what he's doing. If they didn't find anything that may be incriminating than it probably wouldn't have brought up so close to the election.

No. He put it out there to allay the GOP who got mad that he didn't nail her. He openly admitted in the letter that he had no evidence that any of the emails were negative at all.

You can blame Comey if you want, or you can blame Hillary for not knowing how a classified email system works XD

I do blame Comey. He decided to go against all procedure and admit that he really had nothing, but intentionally did so in a manner that made people think, 11 days before a hotly contested election mind you, that he did. He had he ANY evidence of wrongdoing, then I wouldn't care. But he had none and yet annouced it as if he did. This is the crux of my anger at him.

To be honest I think most of the world would rather someone deceitful than a moron. Provided she's proven to have done anything wrong after the investigation.

Anyway, isn't this coming a bit late? Hasn't a heft population already pre-voted by now?

May or may not be of interest, but Newsweek is claiming the entire thing is about the use of Clinton's server by another person, and no new Clinton e-mails are even involved. It's not nothing - if Abedine was sending classified info on Clinton's server, there is some blame om Clinton for allowing it - but it literally has nothing to do with Clinton's e-mails.

If anyone has any other sources confirming this that would be nice, but I think Newsweek is a pretty reliable source, here.

The fact that Comey hasn't made this clear in his announcement does deserve scorn, as the way he presented it doesn't let the us know that clearly. If you're going to leak info about the case, at least be clear about it - don't lead people on like that. :\

At 10/30/16 10:09 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/30/16 09:36 PM, mothballs wrote:

You keep saying I don't have a clue about what I'm talking about but am I missing something here?

Clearly all the bits where I clearly ennumerated your lack of understanding about this story, where I feel your conclusions are not based on real evidence....it's all there, I'm not laying it out again. I went point by point in the earlier posts.

;;;
no what you did was pussy foot around what she did was , 1- illegal & wrong.

what isn't talked about is deleted or destroyed files that no one but her & her inner circle dealt in.
But let us pretend no one touched erased etc anything EVER .
What she did was ILLEGAL. No matter what else is said done pussyfooted around. Illegal yet no charge of any type has been issued. Even if they had charged her & found the minimum standard of the law violated...But there was no charges & no matter what e-mails there were ...& I don't give a shit if not one of them were security risks &and in the investigation many were.

What Is Important & you are skipping all over it is IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW & SHE DID IT & HAS GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT , SO FAR.
for me nothing beats that right there , no spin doctoring at all
1 -illegal use of e-mail server for private government business -Illegal
@-she had it set up & used it-illegal , broke the law.

#content of e-mails ....doesn't matter , she broke the law . Where are the charges ?
they charge & haul people in court for parking their car at a meter too fucking long.
Yet she gets nothing for breaking that law !?!?!?! please don't piss on me & say its perspiration .
I am getting tired of the excuses, she broke the law, yet no charges ...You or I did it , we would have landed in a jail cell so damn fast we wouldn't have know what the hell hit us.

At 10/30/16 11:13 PM, hektikmusic wrote: Ugh I can't find the video or remember who said it, but I think they were disgruntled and under the assumption that Comey's letter was "only sent to Republicans", which turned out to not be true.

Mmm hmmm. That's a lot of what my central point really is. I don't expect everyone to agree with me (though I surely wouldn't hate it lol). But what I DO want to see, and make sure of personally is that when and if people choose to go to the voting booth, they do so armed with as much information as possible to make an informed choice. I don't want stupid Liberal Democrats in there any more then I want stupid Conservative Republicans. Stupid people with the vote is something that hurts us all.

A lot of them, including possible corruption inside the DoJ

Sure, but I think we've got a decided lack of evidence right now so it seems to me the reasonable thing to do is wait, and don't jump to conclusions.

At 10/31/16 04:48 PM, morefngdbs wrote: stuff

Ok, what part was actually illegal? Where's the incriminating evidence? (e-mails do not count)

You can chide her all you want for carelessness on her part, but stop with the "guilty until proven innocent" spiel. I would like to think you know better than that, especially since aview and Camaro already made the point that there was no smoking gun, let alone anything about the e-mail fiasco being illegal.

Now, if the FBI does find something illegal (as in actual illegal behavior and not hearsay) in Hillary's e-mail servers, then go right ahead and press charges, but I highly doubt they are going to do so because so far, there is no smoking gun and the people who are pushing for this investigation are either very unreliable or have an agenda against her.

At 10/31/16 07:42 PM, hektikmusic wrote: Well you're in luck because there is no liberal Democrat nor a conservative Republican running. You have a neocon and you have a left-leaning Republican.

I meant the voting booth, not the ticket :)

I guess I fell victim to being a little too vague again. An informed, knowledgeable electorate was always The Founders intention.

At 10/31/16 10:56 AM, Gario wrote: If anyone has any other sources confirming this that would be nice, but I think Newsweek is a pretty reliable source, here.

Newsweek is pretty left-leaning.

At 10/31/16 09:15 PM, mothballs wrote:

At 10/31/16 10:56 AM, Gario wrote: If anyone has any other sources confirming this that would be nice, but I think Newsweek is a pretty reliable source, here.

Newsweek is pretty left-leaning.

Touche. I wil hold out for a better source, then - I don't read enough Newsweek normally to catch that.

My grandfather is very excited