FBI reviewing emails found on devices used by Weiner/Abedin

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really impeccable timing from Comey. Barely any time to get a few details suggesting it might not even be related to Clinton at all, before the Week End hit, letting people speculate for two days before more can come out.

No wonder Conway was calling it a great day for their campaign...

I suspect that Monday will be a lot less great though.
 
We're in the middle of story impact, we won't really know the meaningful conclusion for a week or more and by that time the election is going to be over anyway. Before than you'll hear internals being leaked if a drop blame game is going to happen, but polling may be wonky as people react even if they've already voted or have decided who their voting for anyway. It's usually rare for voters to change their mind when your 10 days out. You either vote or don't.

I know it's hard to avoid, but as always these stories are knee jerk reactions and they largely fizzle out. On the upside for hillary, while obviously held to a higher standard than trump... the electorate is already controversied out. Even the sex allegations have become a played out story for many.

Trumps survival (and clintons) through out these stories is the fact that people have long accepted the negativity of the entire election. You can only fling so much mud before people stop taking the mud serious. The only true breakaway moment in this race was the first debate, everything else had a build up effects with one voting block or another but never enough to actually change the idea of the race which is either you hate trump or hate Clinton.

Debating this having an effect on down ballot is also a bit like splitting hairs at this point. The only real move we've seen for many of the races we can follow has been trumps base moving away from non trump friendly candidates. The rest has been local, will email 2.0 with wiener save Kelly ayotte? Eh. If she survives it won't be because of this story...
 
Yamauchi said:
Yikes...

Cv8SES8UIAAw9mf.jpg
Click to expand...
I could see this being taken multiple ways.

Could be him implying she fight back if she feels she's in the right.
 
Man we could really use a horrible Trump thing right now to remind us what kind of monster is our other choice. We've become so numb to it though at this point.
 
starmud said:
We're in the middle of story impact, we won't really know the meaningful conclusion for a week or more and by that time the election is going to be over anyway. Before than you'll hear internals being leaked if a drop blame game is going to happen, but polling may be wonky as people react even if they've already voted or have decided who their voting for anyway. It's usually rare for voters to change their mind when your 10 days out. You either vote or don't.

I know it's hard to avoid, but as always these stories are knee jerk reactions and they largely fizzle out. On the upside for hillary, while obviously held to a higher standard than trump... the electorate is already controversied out. Even the sex allegations have become a played out story for many.

Trumps survival (and clintons) through out these stories is the fact that people have long accepted the negativity of the entire election. You can only fling so much mud before people stop taking the mud serious. The only true breakaway moment in this race was the first debate, everything else had a build up effects with one voting block or another but never enough to actually change the idea of the race which is either you hate trump or hate Clinton.

Debating this having an effect on down ballot is also a bit like splitting hairs at this point. The only real move we've seen for many of the races we can follow has been trumps base moving away from non trump friendly candidates. The rest has been local, will email 2.0 with wiener save Kelly ayotte? Eh. If she survives it won't be because of this story...
Click to expand...

Trump hasn't survived anything. There is zero chance of him winning and his party is on the brinks of collapse given the fact they are going to lose bigly in races that should be strong Republican.

His controversies are destroying the Republican Party.
 
StrikeNinja24 said:
Right, but we are talking about voters here. They would of jumped on his straight edge conservative train, and there would be a lot less dirt on him than Trump. This has obviously become less about policies and more about a popularity contest than ever before.
Click to expand...
A Republican nominee still has to have some appeal outside of the conservative base in order to win a general election. Cruz is repulsive and has no ability to do that. It's also not exactly that hard to make him look bad (because everyone who knows him hates him).
 
SillyEskimo said:
Democrats seem to be on a winning streak when it comes to picking Presidential nominees. They should probably continue exactly what they've been doing the last 12 years.
Click to expand...

You can't even admit that Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate? She has historically low likeability ratings, surpassed only by the serial abuser she's running against.

Also, 12 years? You think Kerry was a good choice?
 
Llyrwenne said:
So I don't really understand what happened here? I feel like I'm massively misinformed on this one but this is basically what I got out of this;

During an investigation into Weiner ( completely unrelated to Clinton's private server ) they found 'emails' ( of which they have no idea yet on the contents ) and then made a connection to Clinton ( "Well, we don't know what's in these mails, so they could contain anything, so they could theoretically contain super secret information on Clinton's server." ) and then sent this letter about them reviewing new things regarding Clinton to Republican people only?

Is that interpretation correct or am I missing things here?

If I got that correct, how is that not blatantly partisan behavior on the part of the FBI dir.?
Click to expand...

They found emails related to the Clinton case on one of Carlos Danger's devices. I guess they found enough evidence to reopen the Clinton case. The evidence is probably of a significant enough nature that it could possibly change the initial findings of the case, otherwise they wouldn't have reopened the case. The FBI notified both Republican and Democrat Congressional leaders that they were reopening the case.
 
kame-sennin said:
You can't even admit that Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate? She has historically low likeability ratings, surpassed only by the serial abuser she's running against.

Also, 12 years? You think Kerry was a good choice?
Click to expand...
Do you know what bill clinton's favorables looked like before 1992? Hint, it was worse than Hillary's current favourability.
 
excelsiorlef said:
Who else was ready and able?
Click to expand...

Elizabeth Warren. She would have had the enthusiasm of Bernie supporters and the barrier breaking of Hillary Clinton. And there's absolutely no way Trump could have defeated her (although he's going to lose anyway).

Oh, and she might have also been good for the country, but that's not really important.
 
kame-sennin said:
You can't even admit that Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate? She has historically low likeability ratings, surpassed only by the serial abuser she's running against.
Click to expand...
Clinton isn't a weak candidate. Sure she may have high negatives, but she's been able to thrive despite a 20+ year smear campaign. It shows her resilience against adversity and it sets her up to perform well in a general election. Clinton was a strong candidate in 08 and she's even stronger now.

kame-sennin said:
Elizabeth Warren. She would have had the enthusiasm of Bernie supporters and the barrier breaking of Hillary Clinton. And there's absolutely no way Trump could have defeated her (although he's going to lose anyway).

Oh, and she might have also been good for the country, but that's not really important.
Click to expand...
I like Warren more than Clinton, but she doesn't have the same breadth of experience, and she probably wouldn't have handled the pressure from a full general election as well. The thing is, untested candidates might look good on paper, but they're untested so we don't really know how well they can take scandals and attacks. This was never a concern for Clinton, and it's one reason why she's a strong candidate.
 
Havoc2049 said:
They found emails related to the Clinton case on one of Carlos Danger's devices. I guess they found enough evidence to reopen the Clinton case. The evidence is probably of a significant enough nature that it could possibly change the initial findings of the case, otherwise they wouldn't have reopened the case. The FBI notified both Republican and Democrat Congressional leaders that they were reopening the case.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. They actually hadn't even reviewed the evidence when the letter was sent out.
 
kame-sennin said:
You can't even admit that Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate? She has historically low likeability ratings, surpassed only by the serial abuser she's running against.

Also, 12 years? You think Kerry was a good choice?
Click to expand...

has there ever been another candidate in the history of our country that had to endure a 30 year smear campaign leading up to running for prez?
 
So what are the last plot points we need to hit before the end of this story?
- Clinton's deleted emails leak
- Trump releases tax returns
- Chaos emeralds???
 
DragonSworne said:
Trump hasn't survived anything. There is zero chance of him winning and his party is on the brinks of collapse given the fact they are going to lose bigly in races that should be strong Republican.

His controversies are destroying the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is probably one of the strangest sentiments I see around here. Trump is, at best, on life support with the vaguest chances of actually winning, barring polling errors so massive it would be so unprecedented nothing could really reverse that fate at this point.

It's amazing to me that for a candidate that has never really been winning the election through the electorate, tanked worst than any modern candidate twice in one election, has more or less been labeled a sexual predator, been at war with literally everyone including his own party, has had a large portion of his own party's leader distance themselves from him in fear of him dragging them down in their own elections, been involved in more scandals than I could probably even name, and now survives almost purely off party loyalists and by shouting fringe conspiracy theories of a rigged election, and there are still people who seem to think he's a man who is so powerful he can still muscle through and piggyback a close race, or even a win, on an e-mail scandal, despite the fact that the climax of the e-mail scandal didn't even put him in the lead to begin with.

It's utterly fascinating. I think it partially goes back to the primaries, where his win shook so many that he became the 'anything is possible' candidate, and how it turned this in to an 'unpredictable' election. But I wonder sometimes if there's not an osmosis effect to all the consumption of Trump through the media where even those who hate it and don't really believe he'll win, but still buying into this image he protrudes of himself as invincible and unstoppable, and only being able to lose by cheating or by unprecedented blow out. I'm sure the media's constant attempt to horse race the election has fed into it, too. One thing I have to hand to Trump, he is a masterfully con man considering what he tries to sell; he even has people who don't want anything to do with his product wondering if it's really all that.
 
Havoc2049 said:
They found emails related to the Clinton case on one of Carlos Danger's devices. I guess they found enough evidence to reopen the Clinton case. The evidence is probably of a significant enough nature that it could possibly change the initial findings of the case, otherwise they wouldn't have reopened the case. The FBI notified both Republican and Democrat Congressional leaders that they were reopening the case.
Click to expand...


And the shitshow that was yesterday just goes to show how bad Journalism is in America.

The FBI wanted to access to emails on a device that is from another investigation. They didn't even search the device yet. Any claims that Clinton investigation is being reopened is pure bullshit and solely caused by Comey trying to link the unrelated investigation back to Clinton.
 
Preplanned as fuck to have this come out on a Friday. This is a concerted effort by the head of the FBI to have an affect on the result of the race for President.
 
Havoc2049 said:
They found emails related to the Clinton case on one of Carlos Danger's devices. I guess they found enough evidence to reopen the Clinton case. The evidence is probably of a significant enough nature that it could possibly change the initial findings of the case, otherwise they wouldn't have reopened the case. The FBI notified both Republican and Democrat Congressional leaders that they were reopening the case.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. Comey's letter doesn't say anything about re-opening the case. That was completely added by the Chaffetz's tweet and people are too lazy to actually read what he wrote.
 
Ozigizo said:
Incorrect. They actually hadn't even reviewed the evidence when the letter was sent out.
Click to expand...

If they FBI hasn't even looked at the evidence yet, then why would the FBI reopen the Clinton case, if they were not related to the Clinton case????? Common sense would tell you that the evidence is related to the Clinton case.
 
Havoc2049 said:
They found emails related to the Clinton case on one of Carlos Danger's devices. I guess they found enough evidence to reopen the Clinton case. The evidence is probably of a significant enough nature that it could possibly change the initial findings of the case, otherwise they wouldn't have reopened the case. The FBI notified both Republican and Democrat Congressional leaders that they were reopening the case.
Click to expand...
The FBI didn't "reopen the case".
The truth is much less explosive. There is no indication the emails in question were withheld by Clinton during the investigation, the law enforcement official told Newsweek, nor does the discovery suggest she did anything illegal. Also, none of the emails were to or from Clinton, the official said. Moreover, despite the widespread claims in the media that this development had prompted the FBI to “reopen” of the case, it did not; such investigations are never actually closed, and it is common for law enforcement to discover new information that needs to be examined.
Click to expand...
 
Havoc2049 said:
If they FBI hasn't even looked at the evidence yet, then why would the FBI reopen the Clinton case, if they were not related to the Clinton case????? Common sense would tell you that the evidence is related to the Clinton case.
Click to expand...
This is the question everyone is asking.

Check the letter Comey sent out to the rest of the FBI.
 
Havoc2049 said:
If they FBI hasn't even looked at the evidence yet, then why would the FBI reopen the Clinton case, if they were not related to the Clinton case????? Common sense would tell you that the evidence is related to the Clinton case.
Click to expand...

That's not common sense, that's called bias.
 
Havoc2049 said:
If they FBI hasn't even looked at the evidence yet, then why would the FBI reopen the Clinton case, if they were not related to the Clinton case????? Common sense would tell you that the evidence is related to the Clinton case.
Click to expand...

lol are you serious? Sorry but it seems like you bought Comeys bullshit hook line and sinker.
 
Havoc2049 said:
If they FBI hasn't even looked at the evidence yet, then why would the FBI reopen the Clinton case, if they were not related to the Clinton case????? Common sense would tell you that the evidence is related to the Clinton case.
Click to expand...
That's exactly the point. This is a scandal purely manufactured by Comey - he literally stated that they don't actually have anything yet. He just opened up looking into Weiner's emails to see if there's anything pertinent in them to the other investigation. He ain't got squat yet.
 
RustyNails said:
Do you know what bill clinton's favorables looked like before 1992? Hint, it was worse than Hillary's current favourability.
Click to expand...

Trump and Clinton are currently among the worst-rated presidential candidates of the last seven decades according to Gallup's long-term "scalometer" trend. In the race to the bottom, however, Trump's 42% highly unfavorable score easily outpaces Clinton's 33%. Prior to now, 1964 Republican nominee Barry Goldwater had the highest negative score, with 26% rating him highly unfavorably in October 1964.
Click to expand...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/193376/trump-leads-clinton-historically-bad-image-ratings.aspx

4Tran said:
Clinton isn't a weak candidate. Sure she may have high negatives,
Click to expand...

That's what makes her a weak candidate. I'm not talking about her character. I'm not talking about her personal toughness. She has high negatives and is viewed as untrustworthy. It doesn't matter if she's been smeared or if voters are wrong. If people view her in a negative light, that makes it harder for her to win an election than a more favored candidate. That is what electoral weakness means.

FrenchMovieTheme said:
has there ever been another candidate in the history of our country that had to endure a 30 year smear campaign leading up to running for prez?
Click to expand...

So what? What does it matter if she is a weak candidate because of her own incompetence or because she was weakened by the opposition? If public perception of a candidate is negative, that is one more hurdle they have to jump in order to win.

I mean, this isn't really debatable. Someone's strength as a candidate (not as an executive) is determined in large part by how well liked they are. The polls are clear on this issue regarding Clinton. I don't understand how this is something people feel the need to jump on.
 
USC-fan said:
Obamacare massive price increases and the leak email about the Clinton foundation were they made $50+ million "part of a complicated mingling of lucrative business deals and charity work of the Clinton Foundation mapped out in a memo released by WikiLeaks on Wednesday."

Not a good look....
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you've never owned a business, run a company or ever employed a single person in your life. If you had, you would know that ALL health insurance policies, whether under the ACA or not, have seen huge increases in the past year. The largest insurers in the country have even redefined what they consider a small business and increased rates by over 100% to companies who no longer meet their definition. This is very far from simply an ACA issue but hey, if it makes you feel better to single out Obama, have at it. At least he did everything in his power to resolve a massive problem that has left the US as one of the very few developed nations on earth not to offer universal healthcare despite the best attempts of the GOP to block and derail his every effort (because you know, universal healthcare is a pestilence and a scourge).
 
PrimaNocta said:
So its the democrats fault that the GOP is on a witchhunt about Clintons email?
Click to expand...

You have to admit that their staff is incredibly under prepared for this mess. Hell, turns out the leaks happened because Podesta and the staff fell for a simple phishing email.

Meanwhile, Trump emails are running off of an unencrypted server and has been mostly untouched.

She still has a chance of losing this election, and that should speak volumes in itself. Could you imagine what it would be like if Obama ran against Trump? It would be a slaughter.
 
kame-sennin said:
You can't even admit that Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate? She has historically low likeability ratings, surpassed only by the serial abuser she's running against.

Also, 12 years? You think Kerry was a good choice?
Click to expand...

I am going to push back against this. First have you looked at where her favorables are lately? She is trending up which is actually quite the feat during such a nasty election.

Clinton has won every campaign she has run in save one. Winning a Senate seat in a state you never lived in is a pretty good achievement. The one race she list was against someone who could go down as the most skilled politician of our lifetimes. And she fought him hard. I have a hard time thinking if a Democrat who would have done better in those circumstances.

It wasn't Trump's bus tape that did him in. It was Clinton's debate performances. Go look at when the polls moved. Clinton is not perfect and she doesn't fit the classical definition of what we look for in a good candidate. But maybe that was always going to be true of the first woman to break through.

She is doing what no one on the GOP side was able to do. You don't have to agree with her policies to acknowledge that.
 
kame-sennin said:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/193376/trump-leads-clinton-historically-bad-image-ratings.aspx



That's what makes her a weak candidate. I'm not talking about her character. I'm not talking about her personal toughness. She has high negatives and is viewed as untrustworthy. It doesn't matter if she's been smeared or if voters are wrong. If people view her in a negative light, that makes it harder for her to win an election than a more favored candidate. That is what electoral weakness means.



So what? What does it matter if she is a weak candidate because of her own incompetence or because she was weakened by the opposition? If public perception of a candidate is negative, that is one more hurdle they have to jump in order to win.

I mean, this isn't really debatable. Someone's strength as a candidate (not as an executive) is determined in large part by how well liked they are. The polls are clear on this issue regarding Clinton. I don't understand how this is something people feel the need to jump on.
Click to expand...
How about polling from 1992?
In April, for example, Mr. Clinton was viewed favorably by 26 percent and unfavorably by 40 percent. The latest poll showed Mr. Clinton viewed favorably by 16 percent, with 40 percent holding unfavorable views.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/23/u...s-negative-rating-doubles.html?pagewanted=all
 
StrikeNinja24 said:
You have to admit that their staff is incredibly under prepared for this mess. Hell, turns out the leaks happened because Podesta and the staff fell for a simple phishing email.

Meanwhile, Trump emails are running off of an unencrypted server and has been mostly untouched.

She still has a chance of losing this election, and that should speak volumes in itself. Could you imagine what it would be like if Obama ran against Trump? It would be a slaughter.
Click to expand...

Since the polls right now are essentially showing a similar trajectory from 2012 with Clinton roughly where Obama was against Romney, and Trump being a far share below were Romney was against Obama, we don't have to imagine. We're more or less seeing it.
 
BlastProcessing said:
I am going to push back against this. First have you looked at where her favorables are lately? She is trending up which is actually quite the feat during such a nasty election.

Clinton has won every campaign she has run in save one. Winning a Senate seat in a state you never lived in is a pretty good achievement. The one race she list was against someone who could go down as the most skilled politician of our lifetimes. And she fought him hard. I have a hard time thinking if a Democrat who would have done better in those circumstances.

It wasn't Trump's bus tape that did him in. It was Clinton's debate performances. Go look at when the polls moved. Clinton is not perfect and she doesn't fit the classical definition of what we look for in a good candidate. But maybe that was always going to be true of the first woman to break through.

She is doing what no one on the GOP side was able to do. You don't have to agree with her policies to acknowledge that.
Click to expand...

That just speaks to how weak the GOP side was. Those primary debates were a complete joke.
 
Old?

Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy

Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey’s decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

Comey told Justice officials that he intended to inform lawmakers of newly discovered emails. These officials told him the department’s position “that we don’t comment on an ongoing investigation. And we don’t take steps that will be viewed as influencing an election,” said one Justice official who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the high-level conversations.

“Director Comey understood our position. He heard it from Justice leadership,” said the official. “It was conveyed to the FBI, and Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill. He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it.”
Click to expand...
 
So, with this move and the press conference earlier in the year, is it safe to assume Comey is basically done? Not sure how that works with FBI with term limits or what have you, but with him showing his ass so much this election, I can't imagine he's still wanted
 
kame-sennin said:
That's what makes her a weak candidate. I'm not talking about her character. I'm not talking about her personal toughness. She has high negatives and is viewed as untrustworthy. It doesn't matter if she's been smeared or if voters are wrong. If people view her in a negative light, that makes it harder for her to win an election than a more favored candidate. That is what electoral weakness means.
Click to expand...
That's a mistaken view of what electoral weakness is. People like Kerry and Rubio didn't have very high negatives, but they still made for weak candidates. Why? Because negatives are only a small part of the equation. There are a great many things beyond that, and that's where Clinton shines.
 
Lord Frieza said:
So, with this move and the press conference earlier in the year, is it safe to assume Comey is basically done? Not sure how that works with FBI with term limits or what have you, but with him showing his ass so much this election, I can't imagine he's still wanted
Click to expand...

The FBI Director can be appointed to multiple terms each of which has a maximum of 10 years. However, the Director serves at the "pleasure of the President" and can be fired or "forced to resign" at any time.
 
The news networks need to stop referring to this as a bombshell. We literally don't know anything for sure. It could be a bombshell and it could be a nothingburger (and from the info we do have, it seems like it's the latter), so let's hold off on making any decisive statements. But of course they won't do that because they need to create a narrative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LG G3 turning on devices?
8
1K
Hookshot replied
Possible signs of life found on k2-18b
News Science  2 3
108
5K
GeekyDad replied
Random: anyone know why I suddenly can't access my Apple tv subscription on my devices?
7
493
jorgejjvr replied
OpenAI Whistleblower found dead
15
2K
IntentionalPun replied
Gene Hackman and wife found dead, in their home
2 3 4 5
214
16K
Rentahamster replied
Top Bottom