Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
It's not a secret and nothing came out. Congress or the people did not have a need to know as it is superfluous information at this point. What are we to think? Comey's letter in fact tells us not to.
Click to expand...
Here's something I've never been clear on. Has the FBI been able to reconstitute the contents of Hillary's deleted emails by looking on recipients' government servers?

If previously unknown emails from that server turn up, should the FBI just ignore the contents? Or should it quietly investigate the "new" emails from a purportedly "completed" investigation, while withholding that fact from Congress? Thereby inevitably giving more fodder to the "coverup" crowd when it finally is leaked?

I don't want Trump to win either. But I also don't want the FBI or even the president impeached because relevant information was withheld from Congress. If they are brand-new emails from Hillary, and they may contain classified information stored on a non-government computer, aren't they relevant to the investigation? Remember that accusations of a coverup are often more damaging than what is being covered up. I'd rather see this thing aired out now before it becomes fodder for more festering resentment after the election is over. Remember, this has prompted Trump to say that the FBI's not so bad after all. He may have to pivot back from that PDQ.

I fully expect an announcement on Monday that an exhaustive search of the emails has yielded nothing that would implicate Clinton in a crime. But they have to at least look. And what happens to faith in the nation's institutions if the FBI reveals after the election that they have actually found something?
 
Minoosh said:
Here's something I've never been clear on. Has the FBI been able to reconstitute the contents of Hillary's deleted emails by looking on recipients' government servers?

If previously unknown emails from that server turn up, should the FBI just ignore the contents? Or should it quietly investigate the "new" emails from a purportedly "completed" investigation, while withholding that fact from Congress? Thereby inevitably giving more fodder to the "coverup" crowd when it finally is leaked?

I don't want Trump to win either. But I also don't want the FBI or even the president impeached because relevant information was withheld from Congress. If they are brand-new emails from Hillary, and they may contain classified information stored on a non-government computer, aren't they relevant to the investigation? Remember that accusations of a coverup are often more damaging than what is being covered up. I'd rather see this thing aired out now before it becomes fodder for more festering resentment after the election is over. Remember, this has prompted Trump to say that the FBI's not so bad after all. He may have to pivot back from that PDQ.

I fully expect an announcement on Monday that an exhaustive search of the emails has yielded nothing that would implicate Clinton in a crime. But they have to at least look. And what happens to faith in the nation's institutions if the FBI reveals after the election that they have actually found something?
Click to expand...

The FBI isn't required to update Congress on investigations (especially if they don't even know if they have anything). In fact it is highly unusual that Comey choose to.

And who gives a **** if Republicans get mad that it wasn't disclosed to Congress right away. They're already mad that she didn't get indicted.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
For not telling House Republicans something he didn't have to? Even if they were stupid enough to do such a BS impeachment, he would never get convicted in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Well, I think it's been well established that House Republicans are stupid enough to do almost anything. And I'm also not sure it's a given that he would never get convicted in the Senate.

I don't think what I'm saying is too far out there given the current climate. It would be a disaster if the general non-core-Trump public got the impression that the FBI was covering up for Clinton. It wouldn't do either Comey or Clinton any favors.

Don't know why that computer didn't end up at the bottom of the Potamac, or the Hudson, or thrown in a volcano. The stupidity of it all blows my mind. That includes HRC's initial idiocy. She should have known better. She's owned that, but the rest is out of her hands. Let voters decide.
 
What I find highly usual is Comey going public with that. If there was an indictment yes I would understand it, but so far there seems to be nothing. It reeks really of wanting to influence elections without having anything solid.
 
Tony Stark said:
The FBI isn't required to update Congress on investigations (especially if they don't even know if they have anything). In fact it is highly unusual that Comey choose to.
Click to expand...
It's highly unusual to have a nominee who was the target of an FBI investigation to begin with. I don't know how you can say what Comey did is unusual unless there is some hidden metric I'm missing that allows an apples-to-apples comparison.

Tony Stark said:
And who gives a **** if Republicans get mad that it wasn't disclosed to Congress right away. They're already mad that she didn't get indicted.
Click to expand...
I don't care about Republicans' perceptions. I'm talking about the general public.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
Comey is also the guy who basically exonerated Clinton, so there's that.
Click to expand...

I would not call what he said exoneration.

He basically said that while the elements of a crime may very well have been present, there were reasons not to proceed with a prosecution.

The "Opening Arguments" episode on it spell it out quite clearly. I just listened to it again today with Karen as background as to what's going on now.

When the decision not to prosecute is based in part on the fine line between simple negligence and gross negligence, it's hardly an exoneration.

Edited to add: from reading Minoosh's subsequent posts, I think we're pretty much on the same page.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
What I find highly usual is Comey going public with that. If there was an indictment yes I would understand it, but so far there seems to be nothing. It reeks really of wanting to influence elections without having anything solid.
Click to expand...
Highly unusual by what measure?
 
BobTheCoward said:
They didn't refile as a result of an audit, right?

What you call a lack of naivete is a willingness to take your speculation of reasons as fact. They resubmitted missing information. You have no evidence the information was initially missing to avoid scrutiny. You say they paid for speeches to receive favors. You have no evidence they received favors. I need to actually see evidence of that before believing the charge leveled at them.
Click to expand...

Gosh, golly Mr. Bob, when you put it that way you would have to be all wet to think that the Clintons were anything other than above board!

I have a crazy friend who says it is wrong to believe the Clintons. Is he crazy?
 
The Big Dog said:
Gosh, golly Mr. Bob, when you put it that way you would have to be all wet to think that the Clintons were anything other than above board!

I have a crazy friend who says it is wrong to believe the Clintons. Is he crazy?
Click to expand...

Can you clarify why you yourself place weight on your own speculation of motive?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I would not call what he said exoneration.

He basically said that while the elements of a crime may very well have been present, there were reasons not to proceed with a prosecution.
Click to expand...
Exoneration is too strong. I'm just fed up with everyone right now. I don't really care what Hillary typed or didn't type as I think she'd be a far better president than Trump. I'm angry that this is even close to begin with but I'll settle down soon.
 
Minoosh said:
Well, I think it's been well established that House Republicans are stupid enough to do almost anything. And I'm also not sure it's a given that he would never get convicted in the Senate.
Click to expand...

67 Senate votes are required to convict. There are 54 Republican Senators. Which 13 Democrats would convict Comey for the non existent crime of not updating Congress about an investigation right away?

I don't think what I'm saying is too far out there given the current climate. It would be a disaster if the general non-core-Trump public got the impression that the FBI was covering up for Clinton. It wouldn't do either Comey or Clinton any favors.
Click to expand...

The only people who would think the FBI was covering for Hillary for not excercising the non existent duty to update Congress before the facts are known are Republicans. And they already think the FBI was covering for her by not recommending an indictment.

Don't know why that computer didn't end up at the bottom of the Potamac, or the Hudson, or thrown in a volcano. The stupidity of it all blows my mind. That includes HRC's initial idiocy. She should have known better. She's owned that, but the rest is out of her hands. Let voters decide.
Click to expand...

For all we know the emails do not contain anything incriminating. If so, are you saying that Huma not knowing that the FBI would sieze it because of an unrelated investigation, and that the FBI Director would take it upon himself to make the unprecedented decision to blab to Congress makes her stupid?


Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk
 
Minoosh said:
It's highly unusual to have a nominee who was the target of an FBI investigation to begin with. I don't know how you can say what Comey did is unusual unless there is some hidden metric I'm missing that allows an apples-to-apples comparison.
Click to expand...

It is highly unusual because the FBI doesn't take it upon them to update Congress on investigations before they have the facts. I fail to see how it maybe being related to Hillary Clinton changes that.

I don't care about Republicans' perceptions. I'm talking about the general public.
Click to expand...

And I think that the only people who would care about the FBI not excercising its none existent duty of notifying Congress about an investigation before it had the facts are Republicans.

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I would not call what he said exoneration.

He basically said that while the elements of a crime may very well have been present, there were reasons not to proceed with a prosecution.

The "Opening Arguments" episode on it spell it out quite clearly. I just listened to it again today with Karen as background as to what's going on now.

When the decision not to prosecute is based in part on the fine line between simple negligence and gross negligence, it's hardly an exoneration.

Edited to add: from reading Minoosh's subsequent posts, I think we're pretty much on the same page.
Click to expand...

He said it wasn't a close call, that no reasonable prosecutor would charge her, that charging her would be an example of celebrity hunting, and that the investigation team was in unanimous agreement.
 
If the meme that Clinton is righteously untrustworthy is futhered by this, seeming to help the election of Trump and she is, ultimately, exonerated... there's gonna be some pretty hard feelings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom