That's what I was trying to imply. The FBI already has the server on warrant. Or like you state because Weiner turned it over.
OT - FBI reopening Clinton E-mail investigation
- Thread starter BoilerMadness
- Start date
That's what I was trying to imply. The FBI already has the server on warrant. Or like you state because Weiner turned it over.
What youngsters may have a chance to learn is that strong, independent and courageous Americans still exist who will stand up to the White House and powerful undercurrents and do the right thing regardless of the consequences and whose ox gets gored.
http://www.newsweek.com/john-sirica-man-his-season-198118
http://www.newsweek.com/john-sirica-man-his-season-198118
Anthony Weiner is just like the Clintons and Huma Abedin. Lying, corrupt, p.o.s's. The only reason he's doing this is help reduce whatever punishment he ultimately receives.
Remember, when more than one person knows there's crap in the chicken soup it is no longer a secret. Whether it be John Dean or The Fat !ady, somebody usually sings when it's their testicles or tits in the wringer!
Sigh, your ignorance is tiresome.
1. The folks investigating Anthony Weiner's possibly sending nude pics to a child under the age of 16 have his computer. On that computer may be (apparently are) some emails from Huma, because they shared the computer. They have possession of the computer but they cannot look at stuff from Huma without a warrant because, you know, the 4th Amendment and stuff. Guess what they just got in the last 24 hours? A warrant.
2. They have not read the emails. Comey says they haven't read the emails. It's literally in the letter he sent to Congress. It's also what is been reported by everyone. But hey why believe him right? It's WHY he says it will take time to determine what's in the emails and whether or not they are relevant because he hasn't seen them yet.
I mean, this is stuff that is reported all around, but you don't have the ten seconds it would take to look it the F up to even have a clue about what you are talking about.
no, it was sent to the Reps first. It was tweeted by a Republican congressman Chaffetz before the minority members were cc'd. Again, your ignorance isn't my fault.
you cannot voluntarily hand over someone else's emails. You can only search for what the warrant says you can search for. There were no naked pics being sent to underaged girls in Huma's emails.
And they just GOT the warrant. So you are saying they didn't need one, but they went and got one anyways because...
Please stop trying to pretend you know the law.
they may not have read the emails yet but the previous investigation turned up clinton addresses in the metadata search. Most of these are probably duplicates they have already seen, but if new ones pop up that weren't originally turned over, clinton is going to have some 'splainin to do.
So, again, we don't know anything about what's in there or if they are even new.
And unless the emails say: I knew about all these rules but screw the rules I'm doing it anyways, then what would be in there that would require more "'splainin'?"
If it turns out there were say 4 emails marked classified instead of 2, it changes what exactly?
To be clear, they didn't need a warrant to obtain Weiner's/Abedin's computer, but they did in order to look at Abedin's emails.
that is correct...it was his computer, she used it on occasion. The warrant would have been focused solely on his activity so they couldn't go snooping around her stuff without a new warrant.
Interesting article for those who are willing to take a peek outside the echo chamber; which means many of you wouldn't even consider reading it.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ton-outrage-cycle-took-over-the-media-w447574
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ton-outrage-cycle-took-over-the-media-w447574
Touché... this, however, is an opinion piece. So the f'ing up is subjective.Yeah...these guys never f*ck up a story.
Not sure I agree with the definition of a cycle as it is presented here. This outrage is not the result of an unfair media cycle. No one has jailed clinton. No one has stopped her from pursuing her dreams. The emails were not a "mistake". This was a purposeful and thoughtful avoidance. She lies ALL THE TIME. If investigations corroborated her stories, then I would call it a witch hunt, but they never do.
When one has personal attorneys deleting the emails, is scrubbing hard drives clean with BleachBit, and sending the hard drive to CO for a tech company to clean-yeah, intent and willfully apply. And yes she knew this was illegal. Any military or govt employee only signs paper work on a yearly basis regarding emails, classified info etc.
That said,do not think this changes anything. She still wins. People that had issues with her actions before still feel that way. People that are looking the other way still feel the same.
Listen genius, of course the Republicans got it first. They are the Chairmen on the committees. The Chairmen would always get it first and cc it to committee members.
You said:
"But hey details don't matter.
And now we know:
1. There are 3 total emails they are looking at
2. None are from Clinton
3. None were even on her server
But sure, totally big deal."
And now we really know:
1. There are 650,000 e-mails they're looking at.
2. Some are from the State Department
3. Some are from her server
And yes, it is becoming a very big deal, and details DO matter.
You keep trying to act like you're the smartest guy in the room, but you're stupid enough to support someone this crooked and slimy. And she's been this way for 30 years. Are you that blinded by ideology or are you just that stupid?
Yeah, Rolling Stone is a paragon of honest, unbiased journalism. The only question is: Which of Clinton's staffers wrote the article for them?
You obviously are too young to have followed the Clinton slime trail for very long. There are many books detailing the specifics. Read "Clinton Cash", if you just want some insight on the last few years of corruption.
Last edited:
Which makes it more F'd up or less? When someone is referencing Rolling Stone, you know desperation is setting in.
I was under the impression, that intent could be determined if someone lied to cover up what they were doing, which she did, and if they destroyed evidence to cover up what they had done, and she did that, too.
She said she got the private server for convenience, so she would only have to use one device. Yet, she was on a TV show bragging about having an I-phone, Blackberry, I-pad and an I-pad mini. Hmmmm? Seems like more than one.
She deleted 33,000 e-mails, that had been subpoenaed by Congress.
But it's all a Right Wing Conspiracy. Damn Right Wingers made her use that server, then used BleachBit on her server. Dastardly plot.
Why I even bother responding to this is maybe a stupid early decision, but you're putting so many words in so many people's mouths.
First off, she clearly never lied to the FBI because all of these lies you say are all over the place would have gotten perjury charges.
Secondly, it's pretty clear there was nothing that nefarious with her emails. The few emails found with "classified" info were about things like rescheduling a phone call with a President of a small country. As someone who's worked in government, the classified system is not only very archaic and also misleading to the lay-person - i.e. you. The way people talk about "classified emails" on this subject is like she's casually emailing state secrets.
Third, not that any of this excuses having a private server or email set up (which obviously is not something worth doing in the future for anyone for any purpose, even though others have before), but if you subpoenaed everyone's emails in Congress, State Department, Justice Department, etc. - over any administration - you're going to find MUCH worse wrongdoing. It's funny to see an investigation over "classified" emails - and earlier in the year, a classified update was sent to Congress and immediately leaked to the press (which happens all the time). So it's ok for Congress to leak classified info?
At the end of the day, this thing has been talked about, conspiracy theories fly, etc. - and yet still nothing can be proven. It's the same thing with Benghazi. If we investigated every damn thing that happened that's remotely a mistake, we could spend billions of dollars on investigations. If these things had anyone else's name associated with them, it wouldn't be happening. Hell, the Bush Justice Department literally fired people based on political expedience, Republicans didn't seem to want to look into that much...
It's nothing but political gamesmanship at the end of the day.
No it's not gamesmanship. The ONLY reason this is even an issue is because of her lying. No one would even be looking at her server if she hadn't lied about benghazi! Does everyone forget their history so quickly? This is ALL ON HER. Tell the truth about your job and none of this ever happens.
This is right. HRC is totally to blame for this whole fiasco. She keeps trying to blame Jim Comey, Anthony Weiner - anybody but herself. She has repeatedly lied and tried to cover this up for an extended period of time. the fact that Progressives keep trying to make excuses for her, along with the mainstream media, speaks volumes about them as people.
no they ARENT looking at 650K emails. We have no idea where they are from, or what they contain. Each of those "facts" are rumors and suppositions.
It's not becoming ANYTHING yet except you glom on to any negative guesses or rumors as fact because you have a preset notion.
We need to get you into the FBI stat! Clearly you know more about the law than they do!
Yup - if she doesn't delete 30,000+ emails and then lie to congress about it then this story doesn't exist.
Nixon was vain and thought he could tape his conversations for posterity. Hillary was vain and thought she could avoid FOIA by choosing a private sever to conduct government, Clinton Foundation and private correspondence without anyone ever knowing.
Last edited:
Being smarter than either of you doesn't require being the smartest person in the room.
It doesn't even require being the smartest mammal in the room, and I'm iffy on smartest vertebrate.
At this point what difference does it make? When, who, what or why? Get on with it!
Last edited:
Disagree. The FBI agents on the case in off the record interviews said they wanted her indicted and were in agreement the case was swept under the rug. They understand the law.
And while I will readily admit one can have a private email server in some circumstances, the other actions are illegal.
Had job offers with FBI as a lot of veterans do-except for an anti terror team, just have no interest. Thanks for your support though and understanding of what an asset I would be for them!
yes, we shouldn't believe the public statements of the head of the FBI, we should believe "off the record interviews" because, well why wouldn't we, and they "understand the law."
you keep doing you lol
Doesnt exist because her actions didn't warrant it, or because her actions would have never surfaced/come to light?
You keep using buzzwords like "lie", yet if any of that happened in either of these investigations, that's exactly how you get perjury charges and that is often what the criminal charges in these types of situations are. See Scooter Libby...who had his sentence commuted by Bush, I'm sure you were very upset then, right?!
With any of these "scandals" you speak so direly about, an extremely vast majority of actual experts on the actual situations have not agreed with the shouting from Republicans that they should result in any charges. It's all a political firestorm and because Republicans keep screaming about it, it's resulted in the controversies that Comey has created. I certainly don't envy the guy, but there's also expert after expert, including Republican Justice Dept. folks, saying this case has not followed protocol - and much of that blame has been put on the pressure from Republicans. I.e. political gamesmanship.
Why would I be upset either way? I didn't say she should be charged. All I'm saying is, this whole email thing is because she tried to bullshit people about a video causing benghazi. Then people wanted answers because they couldn't trust her anymore. Then guess what? Oh out comes that she has a private email server...so how is any of that gamesmanship? It deserved investigation and it's her fault. Republicans didn't make her lie about a video. Republicans didn't make her lie about her emails. You have an interesting way of twisting what is happening. Republicans didn't make Comey reopen the case. nice try. your interpretation of events is fantastical at best.
More like CYA. Doubt anything new comes from it but sets a new precedent will affect future elections.
The polls are already swinging significantly in Trump's favor. Trump is shown as leading in new polls in places like VA and CO, for God's sake. He has strong momentum and she is running out of gas.
