FBI reviewing emails found on devices used by Weiner/Abedin
- Thread starter sazzy
- Start date
- Status
You Are Viewtiful
Member
You know, some people talk about how this would have "leaked anyway" and made the FBI look bad (ignoring that they'd have a good excuse in not breaking precedent and protocol), but the FBI themselves don't have access to any of the emails, so there is nothing to "leak"! This whole saga is completely confounding.
EatinOlives
Member
Top story on CNN had been Hillary and her campaign blasting Comey. So while it's still in the news cycle, it's certainly not without the wrinkle in pointing out how bafflingly partisan Comey has been.
Lord Frieza
Member
Just asking questions?
Is this a serious question? Can't tell, because otherwise, you've missed a lot.
excelsiorlef
Member
With actual ya know substance.
BlastProcessing
Member
My understanding is that the NY FBI office has access to the emails pursuant to the Wiener case. Kurt Eichenwald has reported that there is tension between the NY and DC offices stemming from the Eric Garner investigation. So the thinking is that the NY FBI could have leaked the existence of the emails in an attempt to harm Comey.
I believe that the Clinton Email investigators in DC would have to get a separate warrant to access the emails pursuant to the Clinton case. My understanding is that a separate warrant isn't 100% necessary but it is done out of an overabundance of caution.
So Comey could possibly know something about the nature of the emails, but can't move on them officially until he gets a separate warrant.
But it's really hard to say because the politics of this are so fucking opaque. It feels like different sources are leaking information to further different political ends and I am not even sure who the players are let alone what they want.
I'm confident my state is going to her (MN). It's PA and Ohio I worry about.
According to former FBI assist. Director the FBI has access to the emails from two active cases:
CNN: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m7URWLgOA-U
PA is overwhelmingly democratic, currently having a margin of Clinton +5.0 RCP average/ +6.0 Huffpo avg. Ohio is closer, and will probably be the closest state this cycle. It currently is a slight Trump lead with RCP (+1.2), and a dead heat on Huffpo. The thing is, Clinton doesn't need Ohio. Her greatest path to victory and second greatest path don't even include it. It should be interesting to see how Ohio turns out, just as in 2012 it was interesting to see how Florida ended up, but ultimately, Ohio will be of no major consequence, just as Florida was back then.
Again, if you should be worried about anything, it should be down ballot. If the democrats do not take control of the senate Clinton's ability to pass laws and more importantly, hold hearings for supreme court justices, will be in major jeopardy. McConnell can just continue being a asshat and refusing to hold hearings, and there won't be a thing the democrats can do. Hillary has this. Vote for her, absolutely, but focus on other things, especially the close senate and house seats. They are the measure of the amount of progressive measures we can get passed in the next two years.
Edit: Actually, looking at the averages, Iowa may be even closer, not that it matters either.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
This referential pun is seriously underappreciated.
Worry a little. Enough to go out and vote. Also if anyone is interested in going early talk them into doing it early. Unless they are Trump supporters. Then don't talk to them anymore.
StrikeNinja24
Banned
I'm more worried now considering this poll that came out today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-reaction-to-fbis-review-of-clinton-e-mails/
Are you serious? I'm going to give you credit enough to assume that you're baiting me on the point that she isn't technically a member of the "blue dog coalition" or whatever they called themselves. If you're trying to tell me that she hasn't been ripe to caucus with them for just about forever, then I think I want to know what fucking universe you're living in. Drive-by post bullshit.
Maybe you should look at her voting record in the senate instead of just throwing insults about something you clearly know nothing about. Clinton was *more* liberal than Obama in the senate, and one of the most liberal senators whilst she served. Her stance on healthcare, for example goes back decades and is absolutely not a blue dog policy! (Look at Hillarycare...).
Yes, she was a hawk over Iraq. No, she absolutely isn't a blue dog nor was she close to their voting patterns when she served. She's always been the more liberal of the clintons.
Lord Frieza
Member
It's weird to me that people seem to think PA is in play. Pretty sure it's not been this whole election, or most elections within the last 30 years lol
There's really no reason at all to freak out or worry about a single National poll. Let's see what the general outlook is early to mid next week.
There's really no reason at all to freak out or worry about a single National poll. Let's see what the general outlook is early to mid next week.
Yeah, I know about the healthcare shit. That was, like you said, decades ago. Don't condescend to me, ok? What does "*more liberal*" mean by the way? Let's just watch her grand progressive agenda play out. Like I said before, I'm voting for her - but she's full of shit. Her and Obama.
Maybe if you didnt fling insults people wouldn't talk down to you. HIllary was revealed to be in favour of a Canadian healthcare system in the speech transcripts that got leaked a few weeks ago. If she's telling Goldman Sachs employees that she wants to move towards a universal healthcare system, I think we can be fairly sure its not a cover.
In terms of most areas outside of the vote for Iraq HIllary has been on the left of the democratic caucus. Unless we are calling anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders a blue dog, she absolutely isn't one.
I don't recall throwing insults at you, just Hillary and Obama, so I'm still not sure why you threw them at me. As far as the Clinton stuff goes, let's watch it play out. I'm fairly skeptical we'll get shit done on the progressive front. We'll see though.
Except that in Comey's case you have plenty of reasons to question his motives:
- The FBI do not normally comment on ongoing investigations. He did comment when the review was closed because something major happened (literally absolving a "suspect" of any legal wrongdoings before a major political nomination). Here it is merely an update with nothing of substance in it. The case was not "re-opened", merely potentially updated.
- The FBI and law agencies have a longstanding tradition of not intruding/ commenting in political cases within 60 days of an election. IF something wrong has done, and the person gets elected, that's what impeachment is for.
- The letter was worded in such a vague way, and released to a Republican led group ahead, that Comey had to know what he was doing unless he is a major moron. He is not.
- He was warned against it, and chose to go ahead anyway, which shows he did not do it without thinking of consequences. He also was reportedly heard saying he knew there would be a backlash, though the content of the letter is so vague that you would think he would actually try to make it crystal clear about what they actually have/ have not, and the links existing/ not existing to the Clinton campaign.
He didn't.
So in the end, you have to decide for yourself between two extremes,
- a benign one (he just wanted transparency after having been raked over the coals by Republicans, and was just a bit clueless/ stupid about the how and when the release happened),
OR
- a malicious one where Comey colluded with the Trump campaign and / or the GOP in order to word a release in such vague terms, and with such a timing, where the political damage for the Clinton campaign would be maximized.
And of course anything in between...
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Bookmarked. I will come back to this after the election results.
StrangeRoboMemory
Member
Is there a realistic chance that this could actually tip the election? How scared should we be about this?
Lord Frieza
Member
Realistically, no. Not that scared. The most we could probably see is a few close states tipped, but knowing what we know about this now, it won't cost Hillary the election.
Not really sure. Facts don't matter to people. Perception does. The Coverage will have many people thinking she is a potential criminal leading into he election which Is not where she wants to be regardless of the facts. You can argue only Trump supporters will care but it's hard to know for sure. People focus on the current and this is what will be in their minds come Election Day unless something big comes out on Trump again.
Escape Goat
Member
id start getting used to drinking milk from bags
valkillmore
Member
Clinton claims that the whole email thing is 'baked in' to the electorate & polls already, however that was based on the investigation being 'wrapped up' back in the summer. This could certainly affect the polls, mostly due to the republican shits hyping it up & basically lying about what actually is going on. And for those Trump supporters & undecideds, depending on where they get their news, I could see it impacting their choices. Perhaps not enough to sway the election, though. I doubt it will have that much of an effect.
Clinton also did the right thing by coming out quickly (compared to how long it took Trump to respond to the Access Hollywood video.) So in my mind, the fact that she's put it right back on Comey (and rightfully so) is a good thing in her favour.
AuthenticM
Member
So is the FBI doing this because some of the higher ups are pushing hard for Trump to win or what?
SoundofSilence
Member
No. The only real outcome of this will be Comey losing his job.
TestOfTide
Banned
Let's go down the list why claiming Hillary is a conservative democrat is dumb:
- Her first priority for SCOTUS nominees is going to be appointing people who want to overturn Citizens United. We know she isn't lying because Citizens United was a court case involving anti-Clinton scumbag David Bosse.
- She has spent a lot of her career trying to get people access to healthcare, whether it be Hillary-care, or the CHP, or the 9/11 First Responders bill. She even is in favor of expanding Medicare and Medicaid and adding a public option to Obamacare, all three of which are a huge foot in the door towards universal healthcare and/or single-payer
- She has said she plans to raise the payroll tax cap to fix the funding gap in SS/Medicare instead of cutting benefits.
- Her first speech of her 2015/16 campaign was about how we need criminal justice reform.
- She spent a significant amount of time in the 3rd debate defending women's right to choose.
- She got flack for calling a spade a spade with regards to Trump's deplorable fanbase.
If Democrats take back the Senate, then Hillary is going to be responsible for making SCOTUS liberal for the first time since the 70s.
If Democrats somehow take back the House (very unlikely but hey I like to hope), then Hillary will want to push a New Deal for the 21st century to get passed that she can then sign into law. Even from a cynical perspective, you can be sure she wants to do this because it will be one of her best ways to guarantee she wins a second term.
Yikes...
Wait...can someone fill me in on what is potentially controversial about this? I'm missing the context behind the "Yikes" on this one.
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
Presidency, doubtful. This has the potential to fuck the senate which would make a difference for the first 2 years in nominations and to actually force the House to act or not. If the GOP holds both they can continue to try and pass shit and Clinton would continuously veto and the GOP would just say "we need the Presidency to get anything accomplished". Luckily for Democrats the electoral college is in our favor for the foreseeable future.
I'm not scared until we see polls consistently showing Hillary down in States adding up to 270.
Unclear? No.
The image you posted was fake.
Stop getting your news from people who are actively trying to lie to you and keep you misinformed.
Someone thinking politics == law
Lord Frieza
Member
Well, we can be relatively sure. Think back to July, when the e-mail was at the fever pitch and people legitimately thought Hillary could be indicted. Even then, she still didn't fall behind Trump, and this was before he was revealed as a sexual predator and gone through the gauntlet of scandal exposures, as well as handily lost three straight debates in front of record breaking audiences. What makes it really all that likely that now, after he's tanked for the second time, a less damming e-mail 'scandal' will matter, especially when the discussion is now being split between actual talk of the 'scandal' and Comey's questionable actions?
Nah. I doubt this will change people's minds. Everyone already has an opinion om this email thing. Also the fact it looks VERY suspect even to "moderate" Republicans and this will amount to nothing.
Also i believe there will be a landslide for clinton. Americans generally play it safe and i think in the ballot box people will go "hmm potential sexual predator, nuke happy businessman, or woman who may be shady but can govern at least..." and they will pick Hilary.
Because those really are your only choices. Trump, potential predator who has no qualms with spreading nukes and being Putins bro, or Hillary, kind of shady but wont kill us all, bankrupt us and can govern.
Ahh. Yeah, when I read it within a less thoughtful context the "Yikes" begins to make more sense.
Heh
Nothing.
It's taken out of context.
Obama was giving an advice about what to do in an extremely polarized environment when/if Hillary get elected president.
He advised her to listen to her heart first, and then deal with the politics.
Look, I'm not going to die on this hill, so don't call me a jerk for disagreeing with you. All I want for Clinton to do is to actually deliver on the shit Obama was going on about during the run up in '08. I have zero confidence that that will actually happen. You can bring the war to me all day. It doesn't change anything.
Too many what ifs and hopes in this post. New deal? I want receipts. It's not going to happen.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
diablos991 wants to bring information to the table that is clearly false and creates his own bubble of reality to try and make a narrative.
Just like all the other people who post stupid shit that is easily debunked with a google search.
They don't want to be informed, they want to just live in a separate reality.
She is the only politician that calls out institutional racism regularly
Yeah, I saw nothing wrong with the quote even within the context-less image. Reading the full quote is even more benign.
It's advice that you would want every politician to follow: politicians with a poor moral/ethical code would expose themselves more often and politicians with good moral/ethical codes would show themselves for how good they are more often.
It's win-win for voters (who have a clearer view of who their elected officials are or would be) and good natured politicians.
It's ... the opposite of controversial advice to me.
TestOfTide
Banned
I didn't call you a jerk. I simply called the idea, that Hillary isn't liberal, dumb.
And those two ifs aren't big. That Senate one is not a big assumption and with regards to the house one: The New Deal was a massive government investment in jobs. Hillary Clinton has said that one of her first priorities will be signing into law a massive investment in jobs.
RPGCrazied
Member
Even if she wins, she really won't be able to do much sadly. The GOP will probably keep the house. And GOP have already stated they aren't going to confirm a SC justice at all. I mean, jesus, the President should have some sort of power concerning this. 4 years? Really? You are going to stall that long?
Gordon Shumway
Banned
FunkyMunkey
Banned
if you don't want people to be condescending you should quit talking out of your ass about things you don't know anything about. blue dog democrat, right
Samurai G0SU
Member
So final verdict?
Do you know how the US government works, or are you looking for punching bags to blame?
The reason Obama was unable to get much of what he wished to do done was because of obstruction by Republicans in Congress.
In the last week, Utah Senator Jason Chaffetz (R) said he had already lined up two years of investigations on Hillary. Which means it is likely the Republican obstruction will continue.
The informed stance here would be to not pin the blame on Obama and Hillary, but to properly research and understand why they are unable to accomplish most of their progressive goals. It's not because they are blue dog Democrats, as you arbitrarily label them, because their voting records, stated policies, and actions in their lifetimes show otherwise. It is because the branch of government that passes legislation has no interest in actually doing its job.
You were apparently keen enough to pick up the "blue dog Democrat" term, but not keen enough to do some proper research into fairly recent history?
BoboBrazil
Member
This needs to be taken out of the news. Where's the Trump n word audio???
???
Seems like an odd comment to bookmark. Hillary is winning. She has the only electoral paths. You can bookmark this comment too if you like.
- Status