FBI reopens investigation of Clinton emails

Post Reply New Topic

The emails being investigated now by FBI director James Comey did not come from her server and was not sent by her, the emails in question came from Anthony Weiner and his wife's laptop computers!

In the course of that investigation, agents seized a laptop computer Weiner shared with his wife...

...when the Secretary forwarded emails to her for printing.

Because Clinton preferred to read documents on paper rather than on a screen, emails and other files were often printed out and provided to her either at her office or home...

I think anybody thinks she is going to be locked up over this is likely mistaken. If she was not indicted over her emails, why expect she will be indicted over Huma's?. The only way it might happen is if Huma's emails show direct Hillary collusion in withholding evidence of deliberate attempt to hide classified information, but even that was not enough to indict her the first time around.

Yeah, I agree----there's no WAY, we'll ever get to see Hillary in handcuffs (those of us, like me, who WANT to), because the chances are HIGH that whatever is on Huma's (and hubby's) laptop, are the same things they already found on Hillary's server.

I also agree that unless they find something in Huma's stuff where Hillary said, something like: "Did you get rid of all those emails, like I told you? I need to have all of that stuff removed, before they get here, Tuesday", or something similar, Hillary won't be indicted.

If Hillary is President she will not be indicted because impeachment is the constitutional mechanism set up for that. There is the Watergate precedent. The Grand jury wanted to indict Nixon but prosecutors were fearful about the constutionality of indicting a sitting president. They had a hell of time persuading the grand jury to not indicted him and ended up naming Nixon as an unindicted co conspirator. He was of course pardoned by his successor. There was more then enough circumstantial evedince to look into the Bush family connections to 9/11 but Obama said no.

Well, I dunno----I'm not clear, on that..... Someone else posted something similar on here, and I pulled-up my copy of The Constitution, to re-read that bit----but, it's not clear to me that that would be the case, if the crime(s) was committed PRIOR to taking office.

Watergate was committed DURING Nixon's presidency----and, President Obama saying "no", regarding President Bush (W), means President Bush was already OUT of office; therefore, not "sitting"; so, therefore, maybe he could have been indicted on crimes committed when he WAS sitting.

Comey was trying to help his party and they did not not even realize it. If he indicted Clinton he would have taken out the weakest candidate in recent memory if not all time. If any other other Democrat but Clinton were running we would be wondering if that candidate could lose one state. But the Republicans bit the hand that fed them and now Comey had to do this desperation move to try to avoid his own impeachment. The party Republican "plan" seems be elect Hillary due to never Trump and hound Hillary for the next 8 years. Maybe they can get it right this time, they have not done so since 1992, but what the hell.

I don't understand this paragraph----cuz, I read that when Comey talked to Congress about Hillary's investigation, he stated he was no longer a registered Republican; and, I'm thinking that would've been the only way "trying to help his party" would've made sense, to me.

The issue is this, should elected officials be allowed to keep their private communications private? We have a classification system that enshrines certain communications in secrecy. Who decides what is secret? Isn't it those same public officials? I don't think anyone can disagree that a functioning government needs to be able to keep it's own secrets. If Hillary was allowed to do that by law, then none of this would have happened. I argue that the law which requires all communications to become public after a term is over is not compatible with a functioning system.

Sidebar: It's always nice to see you post, ASPartOfMe!! I hope you're progressing, well!!

You don't understand, I'm asking why she shouldn't be allowed to keep all of her communications private, including those involving Federal business?

No, I'm asking why shouldn't all government communications be kept private when they are on secure government servers? In other words, this would not have happened if Hillary felt secure to use the gov. server for everything.

Abedin, like many State Department officials, found the government network technology to be cumbersome...

[color=#9932CC][b]Well, apparently, I'm still not understanding what you mean----cuz, I would think her communications WOULD be private, if her email account was password-protected.

BS.

That's not how the justice system works. I would prefer if Trump didn't believe what he said (and I think he probably doesn't, he knows how the game works).

Ok, the murder accusation is a Breitbart fever dream, and she should be proud of being a successful public defender. You don't know how she laughed or not, that isn't evidence. I'd rather have a Senator and Sec State than an idiot reality show loser that thinks he can grope women with immunity.

...a lying, corporate harlot?