[kenberg]

Yes, I have read the Post article more thoroughly and it seems that the FBI already had. and presumably looked through, a large amount of records from Abedin. I remain confused, but perhaps a little more optimistic. Here is part of the article.

Quote

Federal law enforcement officials said it was possible the messages could be duplicates to others already recovered in the case, and they could also be benign. Former FBI officials said that once agents have the legal authority to more closely examine the emails, they would likely use a computer program to weed out duplicates, then slowly examine the remaining messages for classified information and evidence of obstruction or bad intent.

"more closely examine"? They can examine them without a warrant, but they need a warrant to more closely examine? I can speculate on what this means but again I guess I will just wait.

Maybe my first suggestion is that Anthony Weiner should never again be allowed near a computer for any purpose whatsoever.. Given his enthusiasm for idiocy, this might in fact happen.

Anyway, it seems at least possible, perhaps even plausible, that the emails on Weiner's computer somehow came from Abedin's computer, and the FBI has already looked at those. We can hope.

Probably just about everyone would agree that a guy who uses a computer to send pictures of his whatever to adolescent girls should not be in possession of State Department materials on his computer. Nobody looks good here. A while back I passed on an observation (I think it was from Kathleen Parker) that the best proof that the Clinton's don't actually have people killed is that Anthony Weiner is still alive. I guess we could add on "for the moment, stay tuned".

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-30, 08:24, said:

This thread itself dramatically shows how ridiculous it was for Comey to send his letter without the information to back it up - nothing but rampant speculation and guesswork about complete unknowns.

Perhaps, but one of my speculations goes like this: Comey wanted a warrant to delve more deeply into this.. Justice blocked him, he thought for political reasons, and so he went public.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

This has not gone well. Maybe Comey is to blame, but I am holding off on drawing this conclusion. I don't rule it out, but experience suggests caution.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-October-30, 09:01, said:

Perhaps, but one of my speculations goes like this: Comey wanted a warrant to delve more deeply into this.. Justice blocked him, he thought for political reasons, and so he went public.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

This has not gone well. Maybe Comey is to blame, but I am holding off on drawing this conclusion. I don't rule it out, but experience suggests caution.

I can't buy that. Too many sources are saying Comey grossly overstepped his bounds. Best quote I saw was that there is a vast difference between being independent and flying solo. Comey is navigating this one on his personal magic carpet ride with no net from Justice.

I found this today from the Washington Post, from two sources, one pro-Clinton Democrat and the other anti-Trump Republican: both are experienced with the Justice Department: (emphasis added)

Quote

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing the federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics. It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

And now it is impossible to put the spilled ink back into the bottle. It really is deplorable action. How could waiting two weeks to write the letter affect the investigation or compromise Comey himself for failing to notify? His own policies dictate and years of precedent establish without doubt he should fave waited.

If FBI directors start interfering with elections while winning candidates jail the losing side, we may as well pull the plug on this experiment.

[barmar]

An earlier post said that because this is a continuation of the investigation that he already testified to Congress about, he couldn't keep it secret. He had to tell them that new information had come to light and the investigation is being reopened, even before they've actually gotten access to the evidence.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2016-October-30, 10:06, said:

An earlier post said that because this is a continuation of the investigation that he already testified to Congress about, he couldn't keep it secret. He had to tell them that new information had come to light and the investigation is being reopened, even before they've actually gotten access to the evidence.

That turns out to have been an erroneous report.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-30, 09:30, said:

I can't buy that. Too many sources are saying Comey grossly overstepped his bounds. Best quote I saw was that there is a vast difference between being independent and flying solo. Comey is navigating this one on his personal magic carpet ride with no net from Justice.

I found this today from the Washington Post, from two sources, one pro-Clinton Democrat and the other anti-Trump Republican: both are experienced with the Justice Department: (emphasis added)


And now it is impossible to put the spilled ink back into the bottle. It really is deplorable action. How could waiting two weeks to write the letter affect the investigation or compromise Comey himself for failing to notify? His own policies dictate and years of precedent establish without doubt he should fave waited.

If FBI directors start interfering with elections while winning candidates jail the losing side, we may as well pull the plug on this experiment.

OK so you feel that Comey is ridiculous and deplorable and acted dishonorably and is on a magic carpet ride, got it. Clearly you dont trust his leadership of the FBI.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-October-30, 11:06, said:

OK so you feel that Comey is ridiculous and deplorable and acted dishonorably and is on a magic carpet ride, got it. Clearly you dont trust his leadership of the FBI.

First, I called his actions deplorable, not him. I don't see the word "ridiculous" anywhere.

That said, you are right that I feel his leadership is questionable, at best.

[Al_U_Card]

But it was okay when he found that Hillary had bad judgement but had done nothing illegal?

[cherdano]

barmar, on 2016-October-30, 10:06, said:

An earlier post said that because this is a continuation of the investigation that he already testified to Congress about, he couldn't keep it secret. He had to tell them that new information had come to light and the investigation is being reopened, even before they've actually gotten access to the evidence.

It seems the actual reason he couldn't keep it secret is because there are two many FBI agents leaking details of such investigations to media.

[mike777]

"Hillary Clinton took her war against FBI Director James Comey...."

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz4ObUMGuMK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


It looks like The next President of the United States and her closest aids are out to destroy Comey's career at the FBI. Attack his honor, attack his integrity and his leadership at the FBI becomes impossible.

Good lesson for those in government, cross Clinton and she will destroy you.

[kenberg]

I have a question.

The FBI needs a warrant. My question is a simple factual one. How is this obtained?

Comey, or some representative of the FBI, goes directly to a federal judge?
The FBI works through Justice Department lawyers and they go before a federal judge?
I am assuming someone goes before a federal judge.


I am still grappling with the basic facts here. I did see something somewhere that said Comey had not yet been give permission by the Justice Department to seek a warrant. I know he needs a warrant but the head of the FBI has to ask permission to seek a warrant? Perhaps so, but it surprises me.

Added: The "somewhere" that I saw this is
http://www.rawstory....l-announcement/

Quote

The Justice Department has not granted approval for FBI agents to examine the materials, so FBI officials have no idea whether the emails contain sensitive or incriminating information or anything investigators have seen before.

This seems to say he needs permission. I have no idea if that is correct.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-October-30, 14:51, said:

"Hillary Clinton took her war against FBI Director James Comey...."

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz4ObUMGuMK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


It looks like The next President of the United States and her closest aids are out to destroy Comey's career at the FBI. Attack his honor, attack his integrity and his leadership at the FBI becomes impossible.

Good lesson for those in government, cross Clinton and she will destroy you.

I don't think reasonable people see that as the lesson to be learned.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-30, 15:26, said:

I don't think reasonable people see that as the lesson to be learned.

I agree with you on that, but I think that she is making a mistake. "The crowd booed at the first mention of the FBI issue."
Sure. But they still get to vote only once each. She needs to address not her cheering supporters, but the country as a whole. There are a lot of centrists out there. Center, left, center right, center center. They won't be doing the booing, they will be doing the voting that will decide who is president.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2016-October-30, 15:50, said:

I agree with you on that, but I think that she is making a mistake. "The crowd booed at the first mention of the FBI issue."
Sure. But they still get to vote only once each. She needs to address not her cheering supporters, but the country as a whole. There are a lot of centrists out there. Center, left, center right, center center. They won't be doing the booing, they will be doing the voting that will decide who is president.

Clinton has convinced enough voters by now, she just needs them to turn out. I think a Republican FBI director who broke precedent by making opinionated comments on Clinton's email use back in July, and who (despite warnings) wrote a letter 11 days before the election that he should have known would result in misleading coverage, will help turn them out.

[cherdano]

blackshoe, on 2016-October-29, 17:20, said:

There's "classified" and then there's "classified". Some things are classified because of their potential impact on national security. Some things are 'classified' because somebody doesn't want the general public to know about them. The questions about Hillary's emails revolve, afaik, around classification of the former sort. FBI "leaks" (if that's what they are) are of 'classified' information of the latter sort.

The sort of "classified" information in Clinton's emails was quite likely just of the form "THE US IS OPERATING A TOP-SECRET DRONE PROGRAM IN PAKISTAN/AFGHANISTAN".
If the content of Clinton's emails had actually endangered US citizens if it had come out, then you can be sure Comey would have told us about it.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2016-October-30, 16:01, said:

Clinton has convinced enough voters by now, she just needs them to turn out. I think a Republican FBI director who broke precedent by making opinionated comments on Clinton's email use back in July, and who (despite warnings) wrote a letter 11 days before the election that he should have known would result in misleading coverage, will help turn them out.

That might well be so. She can go with that, and apparently she is doing so. If I were her campaign manager, I would advise her differently, but I am not, and there are no doubt good reasons why I am not.

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on 2016-October-30, 16:01, said:

Clinton has convinced enough voters by now, she just needs them to turn out. I think a Republican FBI director who broke precedent by making opinionated comments on Clinton's email use back in July, and who (despite warnings) wrote a letter 11 days before the election that he should have known would result in misleading coverage, will help turn them out.

Totally agree. I think their campaign is still somewhat shell-shocked. Perhaps after Monday, when the demand for answers has been addressed, she will say more?

[Al_U_Card]

Being Hil's #1 aide, what if Abedin was copied on some of those deleted e-mails?

[Al_U_Card]

Didn't some of them have to do with foreign policy?

[cherdano]

I think Josh Marshall (who initially defended Comey) has this right.
http://talkingpoints...eply-disturbing