FBI Investigating New Information Regarding Hillary Clinton... Because Of The Anthony Weiner Sexting Investigation

from the never-email dept

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server (at times kept in her own basement...) has obviously been a big story during this campaign -- and for a variety of obvious, yet stupid, reasons, the discussion has become ridiculously partisan. What people should be able to admit on all sides of the debate is that Clinton's use of a private email server was incredibly stupid and, at the very least, calls into serious question the judgment of whoever told her this was okay. It also, almost certainly, put serious information at risk of being exposed through hacks. But, earlier this year, the FBI came out and said that it didn't actually break the law. There was a bit of the old "high court, low court" to this whole setup, because you could see how someone with much less fame or status would be nailed to the wall by the DOJ if they wanted to put that person away.

Either way, the surprise of today is the new announcement by James Comey that the FBI is investigating some new emails that were apparently discovered in an "unrelated case" on "a device." There were a couple of hours of speculation on this, with gradual denials -- not the Wikileaks investigation, not the Clinton Foundation investigation -- until it was revealed that it was from the investigation into Anthony Weiner's sexting. Law enforcement seized devices belonging to both Weiner and his then wife (they've since filed for divorce), Huma Abedin, who is a close Clinton aide (and who also had an email account on the private Clinton server). Other reports have noted that the emails aren't ones that were withheld from the original investigation, so it's not an issue of withholding info, but could potentially reveal issues about the motivations and setup of the private server.

In political circles this is raising eyebrows, coming just 11 days before the election, in a campaign where Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump, has repeatedly pointed to her use of an email server as a reason that she should be in jail, and even promising to appoint a special prosecutor to go after her for this (which, uh, actually isn't how the President is supposed to use that power, but...). Comey's letter doesn't go into much detail, though reporters have been getting more and more details. The letter was sent to a variety of people in Congress, on key committees, including the heads of the Intelligence, Judiciary, Oversight and Homeland Security committees.
Dear Messrs Chairmen:

In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.

Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.
In a perfect world, this kind of story should lead to open discussions on better email technologies, email etiquette, encryption, over-classification and such. Instead, everyone's going to play political hacky sack with this one, with Clinton supporters arguing it's no big deal (though it is) and Trump supporters either feeling vindicated for earlier claims or arguing that the FBI failed to do its job properly before. This campaign has been nothing if not full of surprises.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 1:20pm

    This seems like a side affect of digital records. When you can seize vast amounts of data which is claimed to be relevant to an investigation (which it may well be), it's easier to find something in there to use in new or existing cases.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      madasahatter (profile), 29 Oct 2016 @ 6:55am

      Re:

      True this never ending saga is impacted by the fact digital records can stay around much longer than paper records. But it also shows that running private email servers to avoid scrutiny has a high probability of keeping one in the investigators' cross hairs for a long time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    David Morgan (profile), 28 Oct 2016 @ 1:31pm

    One concern that Comey isn't directly addressing in this memo to Congress is that the conclusion was already made as to what data was in the emails on her private server, and that the FBI would not recommend prosecution to the DOJ. If the FBI is really intending to revisit that conclusion (which isn't obvious), then this could have interesting side effects on undecided voters.

    I must disagree with the statement about breaking the law - Comey didn't say Clinton didn't break the law, he said "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." This was followed up with a statement for recommendation, "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." So, to conclude she didn't break the law is a significant conclusion that wasn't part of the FBI report.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Norahc (profile), 28 Oct 2016 @ 1:55pm

      Response to: David Morgan on Oct 28th, 2016 @ 1:31pm

      Another way to look at this is that Clinton is a lawyer
      ...who by definition should be able to understand the law. Then she was FLOTUS, and I'm guessing she was briefed on how to deal with any classified info she was exposed to during that time. Then she went on to become a Senator and helped write laws, and was given classified briefings during that time. And as Secretary of State, she was also briefed on how to properly handle classified information.

      And yet with all this, her convenience was more important to her than following the rules to safeguard classified information.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 28 Oct 2016 @ 2:39pm

        Re: Response to: David Morgan on Oct 28th, 2016 @ 1:31pm

        What I've seen so far is that she shared information that wasn't classified until *after* she'd shared it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2016 @ 4:56am

        Re: Response to: David Morgan on Oct 28th, 2016 @ 1:31pm

        But But Jeb did it too!!!... and what about *digs around in closet for another Republican* How about Chaney!!! ... and.. and... here, "Whats that?,, yeah I know neither of them are running for President, don't worry about that" here, play with this paddle ball toy.

        /s

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        wayout, 29 Oct 2016 @ 6:32am

        Re: Response to: David Morgan on Oct 28th, 2016 @ 1:31pm

        "Then she was FLOTUS, and I'm guessing she was briefed on how to deal with any classified info she was exposed to during that time."

        More than once....so what does it say about her "intelligence" when she still doesnt know what the symbols are that appear in classified documents.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        ANON, 31 Oct 2016 @ 10:31am

        Re: Response to: David Morgan on Oct 28th, 2016 @ 1:31pm

        >Another way to look at this is that Clinton is a lawyer
        ...who by definition should be able to understand the law. Then she was FLOTUS, and I'm guessing she was briefed on how to deal with any classified info she was exposed to during that time. Then she went on to become a Senator and helped write laws, and was given classified briefings during that time. And as Secretary of State, she was also briefed on how to properly handle classified information.

        >And yet with all this, her convenience was more important to her than following the rules to safeguard classified information.

        But of all the hacking and downloading and revelations, it seems nobody hacked a private server kept off premises from the Government offices. So either hacking a server or its accounts is actually a lot more difficult that we at led to believe, or her tech people were doing something right, or more likely... both. Maybe the DNC should hire her tech staff.

        She was told by numerous other people this was the way to go, she implemented it, and we have not heard any problems with it. Do we really think that Weinnie's computer would be different if the same emails had come from an official server?

        The issue the FBI is investigating - not made clear initially - seems to be that Hillary's aide swore she had turned over or wiped all devices with emails from the server; she missed this one - why? Forgetfulness should not be a criminal charge, and short of forbidding any email of classified information, how do you prevent it from leaking out?

        As a technical person, I am trying to think how much a nightmare it would be if the government email were a closed system; all emails scanned for "Classified" before going out the gateway (But then, what stops someone from cut-and-paste segments that they need into an outbound email forgetting tis classified.

        Maybe the government needs to b far less anal about classified. I recall a Popular Photography article where someone took a giant telephoto into the press gallery of a Helsinki summit and was snapping and reading "classified" documents over Kissinger's shoulder. The item he captured as "classified" was a wire news daily summary that anyone could have gotten. Anyone think that "classified" obsessiveness has miraculously become more rational since then?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      art guerrilla (profile), 28 Oct 2016 @ 3:59pm

      Re:

      excepting the 'no intention' bee ess which has FUCK ALL to do with deciding to prosecute such crimes (YOU and I try to do ANYTHING within one one thousandth of the seriousness of her National Security Crimes, and see how far 'oh, i didn't *intend* to break that law...' will get you...), hills should be sharing a cell with chelsea manning...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        art guerrilla (profile), 28 Oct 2016 @ 4:00pm

        Re: Re:

        to be clear: hills should be in jail for any number of reasons; but chelsea manning should not be in jail, period...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Roger Strong (profile), 28 Oct 2016 @ 4:41pm

        Re: Re:

        She'd share her cell with Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Bush II, Cheney, Rove, Mitt Romney, Jeb!, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal and everyone else who did the same, plus all those who claim that they "don't use email" while having their aides use their private accounts to avoid FOIA requests.

        It might be easier to build a wall around Washington. Frankly I'm surprised that Trump hasn't thought of it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2016 @ 5:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Every time this comes up Roger, you stroll out all these people and point at them, it's getting old. No one disputes that if those people did the same, then they belong in jail. Why can't we just acknowledge that she's a crook and a liar? Maybe those other guys belong in jail too, who knows. You can bet your ass that if any of them were running for President, every other word in print would contain the term "email scandal". But those guys aren't currently running for the highest office in the land are they? The amount of damage they can continue to do is fairly limited right?

          Can we just admit she's a liar and crook? Can we just admit that even though she is indeed all those things, she's the best the left has to offer? Hell, look at the right. Talk about a mess....

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Roger Strong (profile), 29 Oct 2016 @ 4:26pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Every time this comes up...

            ....why would the response change?

            Why can't we just acknowledge that she's a crook and a liar?

            Well sure, but no more than any qualified Republican candidate in the last few election cycles, and a lot less than many of them. If she's so corrupt, then why can't the Republican party find a better alternative?

            You can bet your ass that if any of them were running for President, every other word in print would contain the term "email scandal".

            Jeb!, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal all ran for President in this election cycle. Mitt Romney was briefly considered and did some campaigning too. All have their own email scandals. Funny how "every other word in print" didn't contain the term "email scandal".

            Not to mention that Bush II, Cheney, Rove and the rest were IN the White House when they used an off-site private server.

            Can we just admit she's a liar and crook?

            If you just admit no more she's a liar and crook than any of the Republican alternatives in recent election cycles. And that her private email use was standard practice for Republicans.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2016 @ 7:24pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "If you just admit no more she's a liar and crook than any of the Republican alternatives in recent election cycles. And that her private email use was standard practice for Republicans."

              Ok! Agreed! She's no more a liar or crook than any Republican out there. You win Roger. Your 100% correct! Republicans are just as good at lying and being crooked as the Democrats. But they are BOTH crooked. You can't claim one is better than the other ... neither can the Republicans. If she wins, she wins because she's a better crook and better criminal than her republican counterparts. Good for her? Victory?

              The whole thing is really pathetic if you ask me.. and sad. I ... no WE... deserve better.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Roger Strong (profile), 29 Oct 2016 @ 9:03pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Oh, spare us.

                Anyone who insists that the one person they don't like be punished - while ignoring everyone in their own party doing the same thing - is not interested in fixing the problem.

                If your fellow Anonymous Cowards would demand non-partisan prosecution of EVERYONE doing it, they'd have some credibility. They don't.

                Yeah, we deserve better. So again, if Hillary is so bad, why can't Republicans serve up something better? Sixteen Republican candidates in the 2016 primaries and NOT ONE compares better... and the final selection is far worse. In 2012 Romney would merely be in the same ballpark as Hillary and the rest earned the term "clown car."

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2016 @ 4:57am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "Anyone who insists that the one person they don't like be punished - while ignoring everyone in their own party doing the same thing - is not interested in fixing the problem."

                  I'm not a Republican idiot. Your presumptions make your partisan stand out, you may want to cover that back up, it's disgusting.

                  "why can't Republicans serve up something better"

                  Again, Not my fucking problem. I'm not Republican. I focus on what I can do, not what someone else did.

                  This story wasn't about the Republicans. Ever single post Mike or anyone at Techdirt has made regarding the Clintons, you chime in with "look at the Republicans, they are just as bad". That mentality is pathetic, and exactly the reason we as a country are in this partisan mess.

                  I'm absolutely sick of people trying to justify what Hillary did by pointing out what others have done. It reminds me of a child saying they shouldn't get in trouble for stealing cookies because all these other kids got away with it too.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Roger Strong (profile), 30 Oct 2016 @ 11:39am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    I'm not a Republican idiot.

                    A hyper-partisan Republican-siding "not a Republican" idiot then. That's not a presumption.

                    For what it's worth, I'm not a Democrat.

                    it's disgusting.

                    You're spending too much time channelling Trump.

                    Ever single post Mike or anyone at Techdirt has made regarding the Clintons, you chime in with "look at the Republicans, they are just as bad".

                    ONE issue and one issue only: Mail servers. When Republicans (and I'm hyper-partisan "but I'm not Republicans") pillory Hillary for what is standard practice by Republicans, then pointing that it's standard practice for Republicans is not only fair, it's obligatory.

                    I focus on what I can do, not what someone else did.

                    Same here. That's what I'm doing.

                    If you focus ONLY on the one person you don't like - while not only ignoring that EVERYONE is doing it, but having a partisan hissy fit when others point it out - then you're not interested in having the problem solved. When everyone is doing it, you need to admit that everyone is doing it. That's the first step to a solution.

                    Look at the sheer Anonymous Coward denial above:

                    You can bet your ass that if any of them were running for President, every other word in print would contain the term "email scandal". But those guys aren't currently running for the highest office in the land are they?

                    If it were up to YOU we'd never know that this was an outright lie. We'd never hear that Jeb!, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney - all "running for the highest office in the land" - did the same. We'd never hear that it was standard practice in the previous Republican administration.

                    We don't hear from you at all about that. You want it suppressed, because it ruins your favorite anti-Hillary talking point. You're not interested in fixing the problem.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2016 @ 6:14pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      You are so pathetic. You can keep on throwing mud at everyone else like a child but you can't change the fact that she's a liar and a crook. You can keep dragging in all those republicans, jump up and down screaming while pointing at them all you want, but she's still going to be a liar and a crook. At the end of the day It doesn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter what those other Republicans did, she's still going to be a liar and a crook. Does she have plenty of company in the crook and liar club? Sure she does, on both sides of the isle. But at the end of the day, when the smoke clears and only one candidate is standing, regardless of the outcome, she's still going to be a liar and a crook.

                      You can debate this until your blue in the face, you can call me anti-Hillary all you want. You can jump up and down screaming that I'm partisan and pro republican... after all that, and when you calm down and regain your composure, Hillary will still be a liar and a crook.

                      Shit man, her husband is an adulterer, an impeached liar, AND quite possibly a rapist... you could argue that they were BOTH liar's and crooks. I could do this all day, maybe I'll put a little musical score to it eh?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Roger Strong (profile), 30 Oct 2016 @ 9:29pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        One more time: If Hillary is such a liar and a crook, then WHERE ARE THE BETTER ALTERNATIVES?

                        Heck, for all of Hillary's dishonestly, she STILL comes across as more honest than anyone in the 2016 or 2012 clown cars. And that's a lot of competition to choose from. Not to mention a WHOLE LOT more honest than the Republican's 2016 best choice to lead the United States. Far more qualified too.

                        Yeah, it's not a proud campaign slogan, but If Not Hillary, Then Who?

                        Shit man, her husband is an adulterer, an impeached liar, AND quite possibly a rapist...

                        So, "Don't vote for someone married to an adulterer, liar and possible rapist, whom we knew 23 years ago that the marriage was essentially over and still on paper for political convenience only; vote for someone who IS the adulterer, liar and possible rapist."

                        You know full well that Hillary had divorced Bill, you and everyone else smearing her not doing so would instead be smearing her for being an anti-family-values divorcee.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 5:15am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "One more time: If Hillary is such a liar and a crook, then WHERE ARE THE BETTER ALTERNATIVES?"

                          I don't disagree that we need better alternatives, but she's still a LIAR AND A CROOK.

                          "Yeah, it's not a proud campaign slogan, but If Not Hillary, Then Who?"

                          Not sure. I have to believe the left or the right one can find a real honest politician to field. I don't know why they don't, but I have to believe they could if they wanted too.

                          "So, "Don't vote for someone married to an adulterer, liar and possible rapist, whom we knew 23 years ago that the marriage was essentially over and still on paper for political convenience only; vote for someone who IS the adulterer, liar and possible rapist.""

                          I'm not sure I'm going to vote for either one of them, as you stated before, there are others on the ballet, maybe not the strongest choices, but certainly more ethical.

                          "You know full well that Hillary had divorced Bill, you and everyone else smearing her not doing so would instead be smearing her for being an anti-family-values divorcee."

                          I think the right would "smear" her in a divorce situation sure. I don't like you lumping me in that category, but I can agree with the statement as a whole. I don't know if that would have hurt or helped her, I'm not a strategist. I have to believe him being under investigation', and woman coming out of the woodwork left and right accusing him of rape isn't helping her at all right now, but would that still have been better than divorce? Hard to say I guess.

                          Look, there are quite a few liar's and crooks out there. It looks like no matter what happens, one of them is going to be the next President. It's sad really...

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          wayout, 29 Oct 2016 @ 6:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "She'd share her cell with Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Bush II, Cheney, Rove, Mitt Romney, Jeb!, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal "

          Understand, that Clinton did this AFTER Obama issued rules that clarified the use of email accounts for official business...and, for a number of those you mentioned there were no "federal" official govt guidelines in place at the time...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 28 Oct 2016 @ 1:31pm

    We should have expected this. Weiner (the 2016 film) got a 96% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and already its getting a sequel.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 1:40pm

    Trump #2016

    I don't think the FBI would've announced something like this, so close to the day of the election, if they didn't honestly believe they had something.

    If he shows incompetence again - I want his resignation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 28 Oct 2016 @ 2:41pm

      Re:

      I don't think the FBI would've announced something like this, so close to the day of the election, if they didn't honestly believe they had something.

      You don't?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Oct 2016 @ 3:06pm

      Re:

      This, actually. While I would never come ten miles from voting for Trump, this had better be a real thing to start this shitstorm, or else Comey will have some explaining to do...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 1:41pm

    wonder how many dick pics the FBI has now...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 1:51pm

      Re:

      Enough to train their penis recognition system.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 8:10pm

        Re: Re:

        Yes, but if all the training pictures are of Anthony Weiner's penis, then isn't the system only good for picking out a specific dick in the giant liineup that is the internet (or NSA feed).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 2:06pm

    This isn't all even remarkable

    The FBI still has its 9/11 investigation open.

    They just recently closed the DB Cooper investigation -- after 45 years.

    This is how they roll.

    And I'm getting tired of hearing about it. No, Clinton shouldn't have done this. Neither should Bush -- whose team deleted 22 million messages. Neither should X, who is either the last one to do it or the next one, take your pick. It's bad for security, bad for accountability, bad for history. But we all know at this point that it's extremely unlikely that anyone involved with any of these did anything that meets the standards for criminality and even if they did, there's probably not even a fraction of the evidence required to charge them, let alone prosecute, let alone convict. So everybody is probably walking away from this and the next one and the next one.

    So despite the breathless hot takes on this during the past few hours, it's just procedural. It doesn't tell us anything new or interesting (we already all new Weiner was a bonehead) (yeah, I picked that word) and it doesn't even appear to involve Clinton. I'm not even really sure why Comey bothered saying anything EXCEPT that he is required to inform Congress in circumstances like this. (Maybe that's why the letter is so short and so lacking in detail.)

    Maybe it's just perspective. I've lived through presidents starting wars and getting tens of thousands of Americans killed. I've lived through presidents making enemies lists and trying to destroy people. I've lived through presidents making deals with people that today we'd call terrorists. I've lived through presidents trying to destroy the press. I've lived through presidents trying to turn the US into a surveillance state exceeding the wildest dreams of Stazi. So when I see that one of them (or one who aspires to be one of them) did something dubious with an email server, my response is mostly "meh". Meh to Clinton, meh to Bush, meh to X for all values of X.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 2:13pm

      Re: This isn't all even remarkable

      meh to grabbing pussy?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        jupiterkansas (profile), 28 Oct 2016 @ 2:28pm

        Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable

        Of all Trumps many faults, this is one I care least about.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Thad, 28 Oct 2016 @ 2:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable

          Really? I'd say serial sexual assault is kind of a big deal.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Oct 2016 @ 3:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable

            "Really? I'd say serial sexual assault is kind of a big deal."

            It's actually kind of not on matters of public policy. It reveals a great deal about what a horrible retched piece of shit Donald Trump is, but it doesn't say much necessarily about how he would govern.

            Put another way: let's way I could promise you a candidate under which the economy would thrive for American generally, the country would be at peace, and he would have a public approval rating of 90%......but while in office he did something horrible. Take your pick: rape, murder, whatever. Would you vote for him/her?

            I think it's an interesting question without a clear and clean answer, given how many people he/she would help versus the few he/she would hurt. To be clear, I'm not suggesting there's a right answer here, only that it's an interesting moral dilemma....

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Thad, 28 Oct 2016 @ 4:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable

              It's actually kind of not on matters of public policy. It reveals a great deal about what a horrible retched piece of shit Donald Trump is, but it doesn't say much necessarily about how he would govern.

              I think it suggests a few things on how he'd handle legislation concerning sexual assault. And it's one of many datapoints about how he feels about women's rights in general.

              Put another way: let's way I could promise you a candidate under which the economy would thrive for American generally, the country would be at peace, and he would have a public approval rating of 90%......but while in office he did something horrible. Take your pick: rape, murder, whatever. Would you vote for him/her?

              I can't think of any President who isn't responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. But I don't suppose that's quite the same thing as what you're talking about.

              If a President provably personally commits a violent crime, he shouldn't be President; he should be in prison.

              Even if your hypothetical were possible, I do not believe it would be sustainable. Peace and prosperity cannot last when leaders can commit crimes with impunity, especially violent ones.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                art guerrilla (profile), 28 Oct 2016 @ 9:11pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable

                1. the only place a president has much standing on laws regarding sexual assault, is their bully pulpit: ie talking about it...
                2. *sigh* (Required Disclaimer: t-rump is worse than hitler, etc) IF you *supposedly* 'care' about t-rump's serial groping (and -frankly- i don't think most really do; they 'care' about having ANYTHING to slime t-rump with), then you should have excommunicated preznit bubba many decades ago...
                3. ASSUMING you grant pres cliton had some good qualities and/or oversaw good legislation being passed (he did not, he was an original neo-lib-con-artist); THEN you must aver that APPARENTLY -at least in his case- serial affairs and possible rapes were no hindrance to him doing as you like...
                i'm just saying, i am fed up with people's hypocrisy in blaming t-rump for some original sin on this, that and the other, when there are PLENTY of examples of hill/bill/etc being equally -if not moreso- 'guilty' of the same sins/crimes...
                4. just out of curiosity: exactly how many people have been MURDERED at t-rump's behest, either personally or through gummint actions he instituted ? ? ?
                can we count the hundreds of thousands to millions which hill/bill are responsible for murdering ? ? ?
                WHO is the 'crazy person' in this race ? ? ?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Jim Anderson, 29 Oct 2016 @ 6:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable

              I don't know who your writing about. I think you mean Trump but Bill certainly was and is in the same category. If one percent of the allegations of Hillary's conduct are true she belongs on the list also.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 3:40pm

        Re: Re: This isn't all even remarkable

        No. Not "meh" to grabbing pussy. That's sexual assault and it IS a big deal.

        I also strongly suspect that we've only seen the tip of this iceberg. I hope not, because it's painful to think that there are still women out there who were assaulted: but I think that there are probably many more who are afraid. (And who would blame them, given the way the ones who've come forward have been threatened?)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 28 Oct 2016 @ 2:09pm

    "Clinton's use of a private email server was incredibly stupid "

    Stupid? This wasn't some first year politician here Mike. She's a seasoned vet... and with everything she went through with Bill, the argument for incompetence or just "stupidity" is extremely weak. She knew damn well she shouldn't be doing something like that. And... if she didn't(for the sake of playing devils advocate)then she is in no position to be pres.

    #HatesTrump

    And for the fangurls that will say she didn't break any laws may I suggest some further reading:

    The Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.

    #StillHatesTrump

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 28 Oct 2016 @ 2:34pm

      Re:

      > _This wasn't some first year politician here Mike. She's a seasoned vet..._

      And she used a private email server just like all the other seasoned vets.

      Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy. Mitt Romney, Jeb!, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal all have their own email scandals. And of course all those Congressman who claim that they "don't use email", while having their aides use their private accounts to avoid FOIA requests.

      Sure, there's an urgent question of why most everyone avoided the official servers. (Not that I expect you to ask it.) But when the FBI can't find any evidence of intentionally breaking the law, and she's acting completely within the prevailing standards, it's not incompetence.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 28 Oct 2016 @ 2:41pm

        Re: Re:

        Or it's widespread incompetence.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 28 Oct 2016 @ 10:53pm

          "Oops, I seem to have created a personal email server, how'd that happen?"

          Possible, but I'd say unlikely. She knew exactly what she was doing setting up the private email server, just like the others knew what they were doing when they did the same.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2016 @ 5:59am

        Re: Re:

        None of those names mentioned had their own email servers. They had outside private email accounts that didn't pass any known Top Secret information. There is a huge difference..

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 29 Oct 2016 @ 4:43pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Incorrect on all counts.

          Jeb! as governor used his own server as Florida governor to discuss security and military issues such as troop deployments to the Middle East and the protection of nuclear plants. Perry, Jindal and the others also used private servers, and you can bet they weren't just swapping cookie recipes.

          Likewise Bush II, Cheney, Rove and anyone else connected to the Bush White House email controversy were using an off-site private server for government business. As for Secretaries of State Colin Powell. are you really suggesting that an AOL account is more secure than a private server?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 2:29pm

    I'm not sure who's worse, if Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 3:51pm

    "[Comey] said that it didn't actually break the law."

    That's not even close to what he said, Mike. Maybe you should read his statement again.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 28 Oct 2016 @ 4:23pm

      Re:

      I'd say it's close to what he said. Via a transcript at http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/transcript-james-comey-clinton-email-225103 :

      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.

      He says "evidence of potential violations of the statutes", which, as you indicate, does imply that he believes some laws were probably broken -- but he also believes that the evidence is insufficient to hold up in court.

      I'm not sure that the distinction is important in this context. He acknowledges some evidence of lawbreaking, but also indicates that it's insufficient as legal proof.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 4:16pm

    as a former email server admin and manager

    .... repeat after me:

    Email is not to be used for

    Time critical, sensitive (or classified)communication. It should be treated like a sticky note with bad adhesive. If you wouldn't use a note like that, don't use email.

    (A bit different if the email is solely on your own server and does not enter/exit your own supervised infrastructure.)

    I'll just note that the FBI doesn't appear to use email internally but I may be mistaken.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Digitari, 28 Oct 2016 @ 4:25pm

    I'll just put this out here

    group·ie
    ˈɡro͞opē/
    nouninformal
    plural noun: groupies
    a person, especially a young woman, who regularly follows a pop music group or other celebrity in the hope of meeting or getting to know them.
    derogatory
    an enthusiastic or uncritical follower.
    "the contemporary art groupie"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 7:10pm

    I for one am ready to see another Clinton disbarred after impeachment. Gowdy 2020.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    John Mayor, 28 Oct 2016 @ 7:12pm

    WEINERGATE

    First of all... if Hillary Clinton was using a server that was a personal/ private server, she has every Right to do with such a server, as she will!!... IT WASN'T GOVERNMENT ISSUED, AND IT WASN'T "GOVERNMENT MANAGED"! The "MATTER"!... IS THE SECURITY OF THE INFORMATION COMMUNICATED ON SUCH COMMERCIAL SERVERS!
    .
    And frankly!... the FACT is!... if the "Commercial Server (and cellphone!)" that Hillary was using C-A-N-'-T B-E T-R-U-S-T-E-D T-O E-N-S-U-R-E S-E-C-U-R-E I-N-F-O-R-M-A-T-I-O-N C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S... then!... W-H-A-T T-H-E H-*-L-L D-O-E-S T-H-I-S S-A-Y A-B-O-U-T T-H-E R-E-S-T O-F U-S? Why aren't American "Security Advisers" A-L-L O-V-E-R the inefficient and ineffective Commercial OEMs, re their inability to produce V-I-A-B-L-E C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S P-R-O-D-U-C-T-S?... A-N-D, F-O-R E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y? And!... W-H-Y T-H-E H-*-L-L I-S S-U-C-H C-O-M-M-E-R-C-I-A-L I-N-E-F-F-I-C-I-E-N-Y A-N-D I-N-E-F-F-E-C-T-I-V-E-N-E-S-S H-E-R P-R-O-B-L-E-M?
    .
    This is not about... HAS N-E-V-E-R BEEN ABOUT!... Hillary Clinton having gone "Rogue", and communicating "Federal secrets" to "foreign powers"!... e.g., to "S-P-E-C-T-R-E"! It's about her use of a personal/ private commercial server (and cellphone!)!... and her deletion of said "sensitive information" on her personal/ private commercial server, afterupon learning of expressed concerns by "security interests (namely, the FBI!)" of the "unsecured nature" of the communications, by way of the products she was using!
    .
    In other words!... if the Commerical Server she was using (and!... add in, her cellphone!) was to a REASONABLE STANDARD, then a directive to use government mandated and issued "SECURE TECHNOMAE" wouldn't have been an issue!... wouldn't have come up! And!... and as far as I'm concerned!... if U.S. government information was inadvertently leaked, or hacked!... and compromised the security of America!... I wouldn't be blaming her (going after her!) for such a hack, I-'-D B-E B-L-A-M-I-N-G (G-O-I-N-G A-F-T-E-R!) W-H-O-E-V-E-R A-L-L-O-W-E-D T-H-E S-A-L-E A-N-D D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N O-F S-U-C-H C-R-*-P T-E-C-H-N-O-M-A-E A-N-Y-W-H-E-R-E I-N T-H-E U.S. O-F A! And!... if such cr*p is to be sold, it's to be sold with a M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D W-A-R-N-I-N-G, T-H-A-T T-H-E U-S-E O-F S-A-M-E C-A-N-'-T B-E T-R-U-S-T-E-D!
    .
    Again!... what does this V-I-R-T-U-A-L A-D-M-I-S-S-I-O-N by way of the FBI, say about O-U-R U-S-E of such "proprietary technoma"? If the FBI... AND, "S-A-V-V-Y POLITICAL PUNDITS AND VOTERS"!... don't think that such commercial internet servers (and cellphones!) are "S-E-R-V-I-N-G O-U-R I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-S", then should W-E be using such systems?
    .
    This is not an indictment of Hillary Clinton!... T-H-I-S I-S A-N I-N-D-I-C-T-M-E-N-T O-F T-H-E P-R-O-P-R-I-E-T-A-R-Y C-R-*-P (THE SAMSUNG DEBACLE, NOTWITHSTANDING!) T-H-A-T M-I-L-L-I-O-N-S O-F N-E-T-I-Z-E-N-S A-R-O-U-N-D T-H-E W-O-R-L-D A-R-E U-S-I-N-G O-N A D-A-I-L-Y B-A-S-I-S T-O C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-E W-I-T-H! And so!... please!... GIVE US A BREAK FROM THIS R-H-E-T-O-R-I-C, A-N-D N-O-N-E-S-E-N-S-E!
    .
    Have a look at the Google result, titled, Volkswagen scandal Confirms the Dangers of Proprietary Code, by David Bollier, if one needs a "refresher" on the perils of commercial software! And then... check out the Purism Librem 15 PC!... and other such Free and Open Source Software based (FOSS based!) and Free and Open Source Hardware based (FOSH based!) ICT devices (including, FOSS and FOSH based servers!)!... and compare these just cited technomae to the said "SECURE SYSTEMS" being touted/ proffered by our "security infrastructure (and by the FBI!)" as the "SECURITY SOLUTION" for America's bureaucracies!
    .
    let's get something straight here!... Trump is willing to receive the WikiLeaks "goods" on elements of Clinton's Campaign (and etc.!)... but!... he won't be going after (nor, speaking to!) the WikiLeaks revelations by Assange, that led to Julian Assange seeking asylum for a series of "alleged" BREACHES OF NATIONAL SECURITY (for which, Julian Assange-- it's declared!-- must be brought to the U.S. to account for!)!... and, of course-- and conveniently!-- Donald Trump doesn't use email! And so!... the question to be asked of Donald Trump, is:... Will Donald Trump be seeking to bring Julian Assange to the U.S. to face charges concerning Assange's "WikiLeaking" of sensitive undertakings by the U.S. Government?... or!... Will Trump, now-- due to the WikiLeaks believed critical of Hillary Clinton (and thus-- Trump hopes!-- be "beneficial" to his campaign!)!-- be letting Julian Assange "off the hook"?
    .
    Or!... could it be, that Trump doesn't view Julian Assange's WikiLeaking of U.S. Government Strategic Information on foreign military tactical operations, a breach of National Security! And so!... with that admission by Trump (spoken, or unspoken!)!... one can only assume that Donald Trump will be allowing Julian Assange "FREE REIN (AND REIGN!)" re any "future WikiLeaking" of said sensitive U.S. Government Strategic Military tactical information! But!... if Trump DOESN'T AGREE with the WikiLeaking by Assange of sensitive U.S. Government Strategic Military tactical information, then what's this acceptance of the WikiLeaking of Hillary Clinton's Campaign information all about? Is it Trump's view... now (and despite the FBI's expressed concerns about Hillary's said mishandling of emails!)!... that it's OK to not only "play" with emails THAT SHOULDN'T BE MISHANDLED!... but!... also (directly and/ or indirectly!), to "thumb his nose" at the FBI's expression of concern about Hillary's said mishandling of her emails! Trump can't have it both ways!
    .
    If the release by Julian Assange of sensitive U.S. Government Strategic Military tactical information is of BENEFIT to the U.S. Government... YEA, TO THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY!... then, Trump should come out and say so!! Otherwise!... he is being a H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E in offering up A-N-Y CRITICISM of Julian Assange's WikiLeaking of sensitive U.S. Government information, while... all the while!... "playing" with WikiLeaks email information, that the FBI (for one!) suggests, SHOULDN'T BE MISHANDLED!... and thereby, "THUMBING HIS NOSE" at the FBI's expressed concerns! And this!... apart from allegations of collusion by Trump (and company) with the Russian Government, re hacks into Democratic Campaign servers!
    .
    Lastly... in a CBC report just hours after the announcement of the FBI's intent to have congress review its latest "finding", the CBC's reporter found... and by way of direct talks with FBI investigators close to this latest revelation!... that a) this latest "discovery" did not involve any known breach of National Security; b) this latest finding didn't involve any server being personally used by Hillary Clinton; and c) this latest find-- as this Blog has revealed!-- involved more "playful antics" emanating from Anthony Weiner's wiener (i.e., by way of a device owned by Anthony Weiner!)!
    .
    G-I-V-E U-S A B-R-E-A-K W-I-T-H T-H-I-S S-H-*-T!! W-O-R-S-T T-H-A-N W-A-T-E-R-G-A-T-E?... M-Y *-S-S! A-N-D B-Y T-H-E W-A-Y... T-R-U-M-P!... S-T-O-P T-R-Y-I-N-G T-O M-A-K-E Y-O-U-R L-A-T-E R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N B-U-D-D-Y L-O-O-K G-O-O-D, B-Y L-A-B-E-L-I-N-G H-I-L-L-A-R-Y W-O-R-S-E T-H-A-N H-I-M!! T-H-A-T A-I-N-'-T G-O-N-N-A H-A-P-P-E-N!!
    .
    Please!... no emails!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 7:33pm

      Re: WEINERGATE

      This is why we need single payer healthcare right here folks! We have to get these people the help they need.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        John Mayor, 29 Oct 2016 @ 3:20pm

        Re: Re: WEINERGATE

        What YOU need... Coward!... and which will save us a "sh*tload" of cash, and further "healthcare politics"!... I-S A B-O-O-T U-P Y-O-U-R *-S-S!!
        .
        Please!... no emails!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2016 @ 8:48pm

      Re: WEINERGATE

      I don't even know where to start... I couldn't make it thru the wall of text, but I wanted to address email and security.

      First of all, everyone in the tech community that knows about email security knows it is not standardly secure at all. It is most often transmitted in plain text and is definitely stored in plain text 99 times out of 100. That is why it is standard security protocol to

      1) not send passwords, credit card info, or other important information thru email (even secret business information shouldn't be transmitted this way)
      2) have things sent thru email like Password resets be time sensitive so that if someone digs them up, there is a high chance they have expired
      3) Use 2-factor/multi-factor authentication so that cracking your email doesn't lead to everything you have being pwned by the hacker

      Can we in the tech business make email secure? There are encrypted email clients and Lavabit used to be a great tool until the government forced it to shut down by demanding it to decrypt everything. So yeah, there have been forays into this stuff but the USG has done some work to slow it down... possibly because they are collecting and reading all our emails.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        John Mayor, 29 Oct 2016 @ 3:48pm

        Re: Re: WEINERGATE

        Please!... jerk!... don't respond to my stuff!... you don't know what the h*ll you're talking about!
        .
        I... nor millions of other conscionable souls!... don't need MORONIC MINDLESS RANTS! In other words... I need your views on what's important here, like a hemroid up the crack of my *ss! Get lost!
        .
        Please!... no emails!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2016 @ 4:11pm

          Re: Re: Re: WEINERGATE

          Hey asshole. You don't get to say who says what in this forum. You don't like it, you can fuck right on off.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            John Mayor, 29 Oct 2016 @ 6:13pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: WEINERGATE

            H-E-Y C-O-M-P-L-E-T-E A-N-D U-T-T-E-R I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E!... Y-O-U C-A-N A-L-S-O T-A-K-E Y-O-U-R V-I-E-W-S A-N-D S-H-O-V-E T-H-E-M U-P Y-O-U-R *-S-S!! A-N-D I-F Y-O-U D-O-N-'-T T-H-E H-E-A-T, Y-O-U-- L-I-K-E-W-I-S-E!-- C-A-N G-O F-*-C-K R-I-G-H-T O-N O-F-F!!... M-O-R-O-N!!... A-N-D C-O-W-A-R-D!!
            .
            Please!... no emails!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            John Mayor, 29 Oct 2016 @ 6:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: WEINERGATE

            O-H, A-N-D F-U-R-T-H-E-R-M-O-R-E!... P-I-N-H-E-A-D-!... I D-O G-E-T T-O S-A-Y W-H-O S-A-Y-S W-H-A-T I-N T-H-I-S F-O-R-U-M! A-N-D I-F Y-O-U D-O-N-'-T L-I-K-E I-T, Y-O-U C-A-N L-A-Y O-N Y-O-U-R B-A-C-K N-A-K-E-D, B-R-I-N-G Y-O-U-R K-N-E-E-S U-P T-O Y-O-U-R S-H-O-U-L-D-E-R-S, A-N-D S-H-O-V-E Y-O-U-R H-E-A-D U-P Y-O-U-R A-N-A-L C-A-N-A-L!! A-R-E Y-O-U R-E-A-D-I-N-G M-E N-O-W?... G-O-O-F!!
            .
            Please!... no emails!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        The Wanderer (profile), 30 Oct 2016 @ 10:08am

        Re: Re: WEINERGATE

        Don't feed the trolls, folks. Just hit Report/Flag and move on.

        (And, yes, he's trolling, even if he is somehow sincere about his positions. The fact that he replies to *every* post criticizing his posting style (or very nearly so) with another post which doubles down on that posting style doesn't leave much room for any other possibility.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          John Mayor, 6 Nov 2016 @ 8:53am

          Re: Re: Re: WEINERGATE

          The only "CONCLUSION" here... Y-O-U I-L-L-I-T-E-R-A-T-E I-D-I-O-T!... is that YOU are "POSING" as a "legit clogger"! The "TROLLING"... yea, attempted "N-E-T-T-R-O-L-L-I-C-I-D-E"!... is being performed by YOU! M-U-R-D-E-R-E-R-E-S-S!
          .
          Yeah!... just hit the "DENIAL OF DEMOCRATIC EXPRESSION REPORT/ FLAG"!... C-O-W-A-R-D! That's what you're GOOD at! Since you can't come up with a R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L position re my "STYLE" of expression, you're intention is to spread your V-I-L-E and M-U-R-D-E-R-O-U-S V-E-N-U-M whenever the occasion allows! What's that a "sign" of?
          .
          Please!... no emails!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2016 @ 3:44am

    "...calls into serious question the judgment of whoever told her this was okay..." She was told repeatedly that this was NOT "ok", but she did it regardless, and of her on volition (but hey, this never stopped Mike from trying to pass the buck). She's an irresponsible brat piece of shit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ColinCowpat (profile), 29 Oct 2016 @ 3:58am

    How are they doing with GW Bush email?

    I thought they were still trying to find the 24 million emails from the George W Bush Presidency.

    Always amazed at the US political scene (and the most ardent supporters) pee'ing all over each other rather than running the country. If an anti establishment figure emerges without Trump's trail of destruction (from either side), they'll easily win in 2020. Just a question of who susses it first.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2016 @ 4:34am

    And as it turns out...

    ...this is a big nothingburger. It doesn't relate to Clinton's email server. It doesn't relate to email from Clinton. And it probably shouldn't have even been announced -- because FBI procedure is not to discuss ongoing investigations -- except that they already announced it the last go-round.

    The best summary of this is by Kurt Eichenwald at Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-comey-donald-trump-anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-514 918

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Scott (profile), 29 Oct 2016 @ 6:47am

    Move Along

    This is a big nothing burger. All the screaming and gnashing of teeth by republicans about security is laughable. The State Department was hacked. Nobody as of yet has shown Clinton's server was hacked. The simple fact is nobody really knows much of anything because the letter Comey sent was so vague. From what I have picked up today, most of if not all of the emails arent even addressed to or from Clinton. They simply went through her server. They could also be emails the FBI already has but needs to verify. All in all Chaffetz acted irresponsibly tweeting about the letter and misrepresenting the investigation. His head should be the one that rolls, but it wont. Unfortunately his misrepresentation of the information was picked up by the media who went on like rabid dogs. Just goes to show, its not about truth. Its about who gets their story out first facts be damned.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2016 @ 7:10am

    Get ready for draconian new email laws

    The U.S. govt will not be mocked.

    Expect draconian new email laws in January, no matter who is elected.

    E.g.,

    * hacking Congressional or Executive email will be punishable by death by public/YouTube execution (remember how quickly Congress moved on privacy after Congressional porn videotape rentals were disclosed?);

    * encryption for govt emails will become mandatory;

    * encryption for private citizens email will be prohibited;

    * NSA will be allowed -- actually required -- to store *all* emails, both govt & private, forever;

    * in order to ensure the legitimacy of future elections, voting by email will be required, and all votes will be made public so that all citizens can be assured that there is no voting fraud.

    There, email hacking problems solved!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stosh, 29 Oct 2016 @ 10:11am

    Breaking - Hillary's emails found on pervert pedophile's device.

    It's the only device that hasn't been hammered or bleach-bit wiped...could be interesting reading. But Hillary said she already released everything except yoga emails, what is she worried about...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2016 @ 4:31pm

    "Huma Abedin Given Immunity"

    ... headline expected for Monday morning.

    The bus carrying the growing number of Hillary aides given immunity will then roll over Anthony Weiner.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Mayor, 29 Oct 2016 @ 6:19pm

    COMEY'S SECRET AGENDA

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2016 @ 6:56pm

    Keep lying to congressional investigators and sooner or later it will catch up to you. Don't believe it? Ask Bill Clinton, he was impeached and disbarred.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2016 @ 1:41am

    Clarence Thomas hit the nail on the head last week.
    (And I'm amazed I'm saying that.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2016 @ 8:22am

    "...But, earlier this year, the FBI came out and said that it didn't actually break the law..."

    A lot of morally reprehensible actions do not technically break the law, but that does not make those actions any less deplorable, let alone those who commit said actions - in this case Hillary Clinton. Additionally, the FBI has stated she is irresponsible as one can possibly be with regard to matters of national security. Nobody actually "wants" her to run the country. Most of those inane enough to vote for her simply want her to destroy it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 30 Oct 2016 @ 5:16pm

      "I don't want A OR B, but I want B less than I want A... guess I'm voting A."

      Most of those inane enough to vote for her simply want her to destroy it.

      I'm guessing a large chunk of the Clinton voters aren't voting for her so much as they're voting against the alternative, because the system we've got incentivizes defensive voting, where you don't vote for what do you want, but against what you don't want.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2016 @ 8:29am

    "...But, earlier this year, the FBI came out and said that it didn't actually break the law..."

    No Mike, you're a liar. They said there wasn't enough there to prosecute, they didn't say she didn't break the law. That's just your usual attempt at history revision (as expected).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    baywatch, 30 Oct 2016 @ 3:30pm

    Isn't the pertinent issue that had the FBI properly executed its original investigation into the matter - there wouldn't be any surprise devices out there containing classified data.

    See that none of us know what the emails in question contain, stating this is a "nothing burger" and otherwise making light of the situation really just enablement for your candidate. Also changing the topic doesn't win you any pints, or points.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2016 @ 6:20am

    When will that email saga stop?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.