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

[SirMuxALot]

Came from Carlos Danger

WTF, did not see that coming.

Figured it would be from some investigation of Wikileaks/Podesta/DNC or the like.  But from the Wiener investigation?

[SirMuxALot]

"getting" hillary through carlos danger is like al capone getting indicted cause of taxes.

Actually, I think this would be two orders of magnitude weirder.

[SirMuxALot]

1. Unreleated to private server investigation.
2. Was not classified.

To assert this means that you know (think) that Huma never emailed Hillary on work related things.  That's pretty much impossible.

[SirMuxALot]

So.... apparently the emails relevant to HRC came from Wiener, but how were they relevant?

We don't know if they were Wiener's emails, just that there are some emails acquired in the Wiener investigation.  It's plausible that the FBI acquired Huma's emails during the investigation into her husband.

[SirMuxALot]

Nice for the blue avatars to get their first sunshine since the last few weeks.

Just curious, do you prefer this to be a red-only sandbox?

That's a honest question, not trying to poke.  Just curious if you'd prefer this board to be "friendlier" that way.

[SirMuxALot]

Important point about why Comey had to send this letter, and why today.

Comey testified under oath to Congress that the investigation was "complete".  The letter is an amendment to that statement.  And as that was under oath, he could theoretically be under some legal jeopardy if he did not issue timely notification that his testimony had to be modified.

That could tell us that there's less here than we think, but it seems this letter is purely for Comey to covering himself with Congress.

[SirMuxALot]

If it was only three emails as has been reported why couldn't he have quickly reviewed them

Per the New York Times, it was "thousands".

Recovered from one of Huma's devices. So likely emails between Huma and Hillary.

[SirMuxALot]

Ugh, Politico still not editing their headline title in line with this. I should probably switch my political news source

But now Atlas is the one with the slightly misleading title.

The emails were not Wiener emails, they were Huma emails.

[SirMuxALot]

not Wiener emails but from the investigation right?

Indeed.

Seems utterly obvious that the emails deemed relevant would be between Huma and Hillary, not any emails to or from Wiener.

The NYT article is worth reading for anyone who wants to make sense of this.

[SirMuxALot]

Fox's Jennifer Griffin now reporting that the devices seized were Anthony Wiener's.  Direct disagreement with the NYT reporting that it was Huma's device they acquired.

If Griffin is right, this is really bizarre.

[SirMuxALot]

No, it is not.

Ah, thank you.  So it was indeed devices from both Wiener and Huma.  I should always listen to Sweden.

[SirMuxALot]

I think it's becoming more apparent that this is about Huma Abedin and whatever she said when she was part of the investigation into the emails. Reporting seems firm that this isn't about HRC.

That seems to be a direct contradiction of what Comey stated in his letter to Congress.

You don't see the highly probable situation that Huma's device contained emails between her and Hillary?

[SirMuxALot]

Speculation here, but I think it's likely that:

1. The relevant emails were between Huma and Hillary (otherwise how would they be relevant to the original investigation?).

2. These emails between Huma/Hillary were deleted from Hillary's private server (otherwise FBI would already have been in possession of them).

[SirMuxALot]

2. These emails between Huma/Hillary were deleted from Hillary's private server (otherwise FBI would already have been in possession of them).

they have stated before that this is not the case.

Where?

[SirMuxALot]

about 15 sites earlier...not classified, not from private server....

That's contrary to what you just said.  I stated these are likely emails between Huma/Hillary that the FBI did not previously possess.  To say they are not from Hillary's private server by definition means they were deleted or lost from Hillary's server before the FBI acquired it.

[SirMuxALot]

What we do know...

1. the emails did not come from her private server
2. the emails did not come from Hillary
3. the device did not belong to Hillary
4. there are only 3 emails being checked

Let me attempt to knock down this myth-making in progress:

1. Stated another way, the emails came from Huma's server; logically this can only mean any Huma/Hillary emails here were deleted or lost from Hillary's server

2. They came from Huma.  Unless you're suggesting Huma and Hillary never emailed each other, we can't state that they aren't to/from Hillary.

3. Correct.

4. NYT is quoting a source saying "thousands".  Which is more likely?  That Huma and Hillary only exchanged 3 emails in all those years?  Or thousands.

[SirMuxALot]

Also looks like they sat on this for five weeks.

What are you reading that indicates that?

[SirMuxALot]

Ari Melber on MSNBC.

Can we get a little more information than that?  Merely Melber's opinion?  Or Melber knows somebody/something?

[SirMuxALot]

here is the ari melber thing.

http://www.msnbc.com/kate-snow/watch/legal-perspective-on-new-clinton-emails-796034627875

Wherein Mr. Melber says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how long the FBI has been in possession of the emails.

So I'll assume the other side is hereby conceding they're making up the myth about the FBI having sat on this to time to release for political purposes.

[SirMuxALot]

Supposedly there's only three emails.

Total myth.  Source or stop it.

NYT source says "thousands".

If you want to keep promoting this "three emails" myth, please provide a plausible scenario where Huma only emailed Hillary THREE TIMES IN FOUR YEARS while they worked at the State Department.  C'mon people.

[SirMuxALot]

They started seizing Wiener stuff 5 weeks ago, including this laptop, get it now?

Source, please.  Take care to make sure the source includes the fact that they acquired Huma's devices at the same time.  And take care to include sourcing on the fact that the FBI had in fact read and analyzed emails 5 weeks ago.  Just having the device land in the FBI mailbox 5 weeks ago won't be enough to prove your claim.

[SirMuxALot]

It also says that the FBI will at most have to search 10s of those.

Where?  Source, please.

This is what the NYT article says:

"The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case — one federal official said they numbered in the tens of thousands."

www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html

[SirMuxALot]

I gave it to you, if you don't want to believe it, fine, but don't say I didn't give it to you.  And remember, this was on Weiners stuff, Huma's doesn't matter in this case. 

No, you gave no source.  If you did, go ahead and re-paste it in here.

[SirMuxALot]

debunk this new FBI story

Oh, he debunked it?  So this means Comey did not send a letter to Congress?

And there's no devices seized from Wiener/Huma?

And there's no emails to review?

That IS a thorough debunking!

[SirMuxALot]

Can Comey be forced out of office or compelled to resign? That would put the email business to rest once and for all.

President Obama would be well within his constitutional rights to pull a Nixon by firing Comey and instructing the FBI to drop the matter.

However, I suspect the President will conclude that won't be the best course of action he can take to help Hillary.