The Hillary Clinton thread

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:48 pm

If all that Pete Williams says is accurate, then I'm at a loss what this story even is, and I question the reasoning behind Comey dropping this letter now with such incomplete wording.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:50 pm

"Pete Williams sources say in course of a separate investigation, FBI came across "a device."

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:52 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:If all that Pete Williams says is accurate, then I'm at a loss what this story even is, and I question the reasoning behind Comey dropping this letter now with such incomplete wording.

Right. If you came across a device with additional emails - not from Clinton....why tell Congress you are re-opening Clinton email case 11 days before an election without providing any more details?

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:57 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:If all that Pete Williams says is accurate, then I'm at a loss what this story even is, and I question the reasoning behind Comey dropping this letter now with such incomplete wording.
Right. If you came across a device with additional emails - not from Clinton....why tell Congress you are re-opening Clinton email case 11 days before an election without providing any more details?

I just saw some reporting that Comey is legally required to inform Congress that the FBI will be reviewing new evidence given that he testified that the FBI was done reviewing evidence. But that doesn't explain his awfully ambiguous letter that pretty much invites wanton speculation.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:58 pm

He didn't say he was reopening the case. The letter just made it sound like that.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:00 pm

El Guapo wrote:He didn't say he was reopening the case. The letter just made it sound like that.

He also didn't say that the emails weren't from Clinton, weren't from Clinton's private server, weren't withheld by Clinton... all of which seems kind of important information. Especially right before an election.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:06 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: Right. If you came across a device with additional emails - not from Clinton....why tell Congress you are re-opening Clinton email case 11 days before an election without providing any more details?

Because the FBI does not comment on ongoing investigations, duh.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:10 pm

OK, that does it, Clinton no longer has my support

However, there is one email* that has come out that may truly signal the end of her hopes for the Presidency. Instead of being political in nature, or housing secret government information, this email discusses Doctor Who — or, rather, how she just does not appreciate the show, calling it “boring garbage” and feeling as though she is being left out on a joke that everyone else understands.

*Validity of email not verified.

Unless she was only referring to the new series, in which case, I can overlook it and we're cool.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:
El Guapo wrote:He didn't say he was reopening the case. The letter just made it sound like that.
He also didn't say that the emails weren't from Clinton, weren't from Clinton's private server, weren't withheld by Clinton... all of which seems kind of important information. Especially right before an election.

Reports are emails were not from Clinton, and were not withheld.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:15 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
El Guapo wrote:He didn't say he was reopening the case. The letter just made it sound like that.
He also didn't say that the emails weren't from Clinton, weren't from Clinton's private server, weren't withheld by Clinton... all of which seems kind of important information. Especially right before an election.
Reports are emails were not from Clinton, and were not withheld.

Yes, but that wasn't in the letter is CC's point.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:20 pm

GODDAMNIT WEINER

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:24 pm

El Guapo wrote:He didn't say he was reopening the case. The letter just made it sound like that.

He wasn't reopening the case because the case was never officially closed. FBI was just holding out for more information should it surface...which it did (doesn't have to be a smoking gun, just something pertinent to the investigation).

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:25 pm

This is starting to sound a lot less scary. Unless of course they reveal new Weiner dick pics.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:28 pm

This just in: Weiner sent dick picks to HRC.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:37 pm

Defiant wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote: Right. If you came across a device with additional emails - not from Clinton....why tell Congress you are re-opening Clinton email case 11 days before an election without providing any more details?
Because the FBI does not comment on ongoing investigations, duh.

I mean, yeah. But we now already know a lot more details, so they were coming out anyway. But in the meantime, because the Congressman leaked the memo to help his candidate, all we have is the headline, and that's all most people will get.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:44 pm

This won't be the last time a Weiner gets somebody in trouble.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:20 pm

The Clinton campaigns response:

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:33 pm

Can't say I disagree with the letter. If you've got something, let's hear it. And if you don't, or aren't sure, keep your fucking mouth closed until you do.

Geezus, it's like they want riots after the election.

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:52 pm

There are even some Republicans now that are openly questioning the timing of Comey's letter - because unless there is something truly outrageous in FBI's new findings, Comey has just embarassed himself and the Bureau. FBI is not supposed to play into election politics, and dropping this 11 days before the election knowing full well that nothing will be concluded for weeks, if not months, is highly irresponsible. Comey himself noted that the emails may not even be significant, but his letter was so vague as to only invite more speculation.

Chaffetz is just a spineless piece of shit, he's proven that time and time again, nothing new there.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:12 pm

Probably just Huma telling Carlos to play it cool for awhile because they are busy covering up Hillary's dirty dealings that they don't have time for his as well.

That or Carlos threatening to disclose (and probably disclosing some of it in the process) all of Clinton's dirty laundry if Huma doesn't make her get him out of this pesky situation.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:16 pm

Lol, that's right. Somehow there was nothing on the server but FINALLY Clinton is going to jail because of Weiner's cel phone.

You guys just can't let it go, can you?

And now you've got the election cycle you deserve.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:43 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:This is starting to sound a lot less scary. Unless of course they reveal new Weiner dick pics.

Nothing to see here regarding HRC. Basically more evidence of crappy state department IT for the most part. At most, a problem for Abedin.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:53 pm

It's a shitty little teapot, though.

The way this campaign works is that Clinton "scandal" false-positives have the same effect on the polls as Trump groping a lesbian nun while stomping a puppy.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:07 pm

Holman wrote:It's a shitty little teapot, though.

The way this campaign works is that Clinton "scandal" false-positives have the same effect on the polls as Trump groping a lesbian nun while stomping a puppy.

On the bright side I think they still have a couple shots left.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:51 pm

Holman wrote:It's a shitty little teapot, though.

The way this campaign works is that Clinton "scandal" false-positives have the same effect on the polls as Trump groping a lesbian nun while stomping a puppy.

Yeah, based upon past stories like this, I expect this'll cost Clinton 1-2 points in the polls. She's probably ahead by ~6% nationally. But Trump's gained a bit over the past couple days anyway, and Clinton's probably only ahead in FL (which Trump needs to win) by ~ 3%, and probably tied in OH and AZ.

My guess is that because if Comey's shitty fucking irresponsible letter, by mid next week AZ, IA, and OH will be lean Trump, and FL will be a toss up, and Trump's chances overall will be up to 30% - 35%.

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 2:06 am

El Guapo wrote:My guess is that because if Comey's shitty fucking irresponsible letter, by mid next week AZ, IA, and OH will be lean Trump, and FL will be a toss up, and Trump's chances overall will be up to 30% - 35%.

It blows my mind that this is an issue for people, when the person to whom they'd be switching their vote (presumably) is under indictment for fraud right now. That is an investigation that went somewhere, and where it went was "Hey, we think this guy committed fraud." But no one cares!

MIND BOGGLING

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 3:48 am

The FBI is in a tough spot. If they don't say anything about the new emails and Clinton wins, Supreme Glory Kim Jong Trump has more "evidence" that the fix was in.

The letter is poorly worded, but Comey didn't have much of a choice.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 6:01 am

Comey had a choice. He could have written a letter *that he had to know would be leaked* in a less amibuous way. Just the facts sounds honorable but as a national figure days before a major election? Politically incompetent or partisan are two leading conclusions here. And I personally don't think partisan.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 6:42 am

Two things I picked up reading about this last night:

1) Because he swore under oath that the investigation was over, Comey was legally obligated to let them know he found what could be new evidence.

2) The FBI is not entitled to read the emails without a court order, which they haven't yet gotten. (Not to say that they didn't probably read them anyway, but they couldn't give any indication if they had).

Could he have waited until the court order to make the announcement, and then say if there's anything to them? Possibly. But word would have most certainly have leaked out.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:16 am

Right but he could have clearly said that they hadn't looked at the emails and don't know if they are relevant or not. Instead he drops a statement that is indefensible. The Clinton campaign did as much as they probably could but this all looks highly political. Combine this with his unusual statement in the summer and you could easily see the picture of a guy who has made a series of political blunders at the top of the national food chain.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:18 am

Huma's Weiner giving Hillary nightmares.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:39 am

Holman wrote:It's a shitty little teapot, though.

The way this campaign works is that Clinton "scandal" false-positives have the same effect on the polls as Trump groping a lesbian nun while stomping a puppy.

Oh come on, Hillary would stomp on a puppy way before Donald. Trump might grab a sweater puppy or two though.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 12:20 pm

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 1:34 pm

Insight into the blazing speed of federal law enforcement? Crap just look at how long it takes them to release e-mails and even then fail to meet their own release dates time after time. If anything I am surprised it only took a month to see there was something there. Must have placed a top priority on it.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:02 pm

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:56 pm

Rip wrote:Insight into the blazing speed of federal law enforcement? Crap just look at how long it takes them to release e-mails and even then fail to meet their own release dates time after time. If anything I am surprised it only took a month to see there was something there. Must have placed a top priority on it.

Oh absolutely. There's no reason to prioritize workload. Why would they?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:31 am

What comes around goes around.

A reader points out the irony of Hillary Clinton complaining about timing of the reopening of the FBI investigation. In 1992, the reader reminds me, President Bush was gaining on Bill Clinton as Election Day approached. But just four days before the election, the special counsel, Lawrence Walsh, obtained a new indictment of former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger.

Weinberger had been indicted earlier in the year. But the new indictment cited a Weinberger diary entry that contradicted something President Bush had said.

The Clintons seized on the new indictment, howling about a “culture of corruption” that supposedly pervaded the administration. Bush’s poll numbers declined and Bill Clinton won the election.

Shortly after the election, a federal judge threw out the new indictment because it violated the five-year statute of limitations and improperly broadened the original charges.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:53 am

There are barely any parallels there except the timing and being a bad idea. It didn't involve the candidate themself, the evidence was actually known to the prosecutor, there wasn't a specific policy precluding release of information, and it wasn't an officer of regular order.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:13 am

malchior wrote:There are barely any parallels there except the timing and being a bad idea. It didn't involve the candidate themself, the evidence was actually known to the prosecutor, there wasn't a specific policy precluding release of information, and it wasn't an officer of regular order.

I will give you a parallel, it was an announcement that effected an election that could have been made later.