FBI Reviewing Clinton emails news: LATEST - Emails from Weiner investigation

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Yahoo: FBI still does not have warrant to review new Abedin emails linked to Clinton probe



This is turning into a giant joke

Interesting how that is what you get out of this.  It's disturbing that the justice department is stonewalling the investigation, certainly.

The FBI is discussing it with the Justice Department. They should have waited until they had approval.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

I mean... practically, what is the difference between having one phone and having it replaced umpteen times? If they contained the same information, then she could easily have forgotten about the replacements (I've done the same thing).

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

btw...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.redstate.com/jimjamitis/2016/10/30/trump-campaign-manager-drops-p-word-anthony-weiner/


wasn't she suppoed to be the cool-headed one?

Are you saying Weiner is not a disgusting pedophile who sent dick pics to a girl in High School?

And he is being condemned by a guy who ogled 15-year old girls while changing clothes.

Remember one is Trump, so it is excused.

In defense of Weiner and Trump, at least they never settled a rape case for millions of dollars.

It wasn't millions and at a certain point I would pay a person to just go away even if I did nothing wrong.

But what say you over the rape trial in December?

So, in other words, you are saying that you'd compromise and admit culpability too for such a crime. Ok. I guess I admire Bill for admitting that he did in fact rape someone, but is is a shame that he didn't face the full weight of justice. Oh well, at least that pesky rape victim "went away."

The trial where the girl who is accusing him, Bill Clinton, and Prince Andrew of raping her on Jeffrey Epsteins jet and rape island? I could ask you the same question. Why did Bill take 32 flights to his private island? Wanna talk about that?

Only places I have seen who are running with that are the rightwing websites you like to frequent, and I really don't care at the same time. 

A Fascist can just say Alex Jones three times and you can win any argument when you are in a corner!

When you don't want to deal with the delusion, I'll let go of it.  It is the best way for them to win, bog the other person down in a conspiracy until they give up, which I am.

Who was that Coast to Coast AM guy who blamed Global Warming on these charming fellows?

I hear he has a "great reputation"

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

To anyone insisting that this is standard operating procedure:

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Harry Reid informs Comey that he may have violated the Hatch Act via letter today:

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/792843842479239168

lol the Hatch Act? that's tenuous.

An Anti-Trump pac has already filed a complaint against him on these grounds: http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/28/complaint-filed-against-james-comey/

According to Wikipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, it sounds like it's pretty open to interpretation, unless "interfere" has a very specific legal definition.

OK, I agree the Hatch Act is vague.  But do you want to construe its vagueness this way?  This would basically be saying that, if in the course of someone's job conduct, they did something as part of the regular course of their job that affected the perception of someone running for partisan office, it could be a Hatch Act violation.  Right now, the Hatch Act generally just prohibits campaigning in partisan races.  This would take any action that could affect a partisan race, even if the effect is incident to normal job conduct, and apply some kind of subjective test about whether the job conduct is intended to influence the election or whether it's genuine conduct.

The rationale behind that standard would be to prohibit governmental job conduct from being influenced by partisan considerations.  But, paradoxically, it would intensely politicize that kind of conduct.  Can you imagine that a decision like Comey's could possibly be evaluated apolitically, when the standard is whether it's justified enough to not be presumed politically motivated?  That's an incredibly politically-loaded question.

The thing is, Comey actually admitted that what he did was outside of normal conduct.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

FBI is hiring best people with best merits, believe me, folks. Obama "hired" Comey because Comey had a tremondious merits. Best words, best people, folks!

I have absolutely no reasons to question FBI/Comey. As Obama said "I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations, we don’t operate on innuendo. We don’t operate on incomplete information. We don’t operate on leaks. We operate based on concrete decisions that are made".

And all critique of Comey's letter is based on rumors as "the source say", i.e. at best "incomplete information".

Comey is the one who has most complete information.

I love to post obvious things.

If Comey had complete information, then why share something so vague...?