Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[Tony Stark]

At what point does something become evidence?

Right away. If I buy some drugs, they immediately become evidence that I committed a crime.

I think people have the right to destroy their own property before anyone comes looking for it. I don't know if this has been litigated.

Sure you can destroy your property. But if you do it with the invention of preventing investigators from finding evidence, that's a crime. They are literally laws against it.

 

[acbytesla]

Guilty and innocent are broad terms. Bill Clinton probably didn't break any laws in his affair with Monica Lewinsky, but still felt the need to cover it up.

Dave

Well he was guilty of cheating on his wife. I get the idea of hiding your personal pecadillos. It's not a crime to have porn on your computer, but how many husbands hide that from their wife? So I get hiding that.

I agree that just wanting personal privacy is not a crime. But try and tell that to a jury. Let's say you deleted the partition on your hard drive but a forensic computer tech recovers the data and there is obvious evidence of a crime, it's not going to look good.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well he was guilty of cheating on his wife. I get the idea of hiding your personal pecadillos. It's not a crime to have porn on your computer, but how many husbands hide that from their wife.So I get hiding tbat.
.

That was what got weiner and huma and Hillary in trouble!

 

[Andy_Ross]

Comey notified Congress of email probe despite DOJ concerns

Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates disagreed with FBI Director James Comey's decision to notify Congress about his bureau's review of emails potentially related to Hillary Clinton's personal server, law enforcement officials familiar with the discussion said.

http://us.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politi...r-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html

 

[Andy_Ross]

Comey notified Congress of email probe despite DOJ concerns

Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates disagreed with FBI Director James Comey's decision to notify Congress about his bureau's review of emails potentially related to Hillary Clinton's personal server, law enforcement officials familiar with the discussion said.

http://us.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politi...r-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html

 

[TJM]

Oh for pity's sake, CNN is claiming game changer, and polls tightening.

If I fell butt first into a BBQ pit and CNN reported my ass on fire, I'd still double check the source.

 

[Tero]

Can we get a "head" count of how many wieners have got Hillary into trouble?

 

[acbytesla]

That was what got weiner and huma and Hillary in trouble!

Neither is really in trouble.

 

[Stacko]

Why is this whole fiasco reminding me of this:

 

[Tony Stark]

The FBI hasn't even begun reading the emails yet! They need a court order.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/3...email-justice.html?ref=politics&_r=0&referer=

I'm starting to think that Obama should fire him after the election.

 

[acbytesla]

The FBI hasn't even begun reading the emails yet! They need a court order.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/3...email-justice.html?ref=politics&_r=0&referer=

I'm starting to think that Obama should fire him after the election.

If Hillary gets elected ...definitely. What he did was corrupt or stupid. Either way, it is reason to send him packing. He's not conducting any investigations.

 

[The Big Dog]

Off with his head!

Hee hee!

 

[Minoosh]

The FBI hasn't even begun reading the emails yet! They need a court order.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/3...email-justice.html?ref=politics&_r=0&referer=

I'm starting to think that Obama should fire him after the election.

From your link:

But while Mr. Comey had told Congress this summer that the Clinton investigation was complete, he believed that if word of the new emails leaked out — and it was sure to leak out, he concluded — he risked being accused of misleading Congress and the public ahead of an election, colleagues said.

So my theory is shared by "colleagues," whoever they are.

ETA: I hope that the 48+ hours of endless speculation has people completely fatigued about this issue by Monday, which is probably the soonest we'll hear more from named sources who actually know things.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From your link:



So my theory is shared by "colleagues," whoever they are.

ETA: I hope that the 48+ hours of endless speculation has people completely fatigued about this issue by Monday, which is probably the soonest we'll hear more from named sources.

That paragraph isn't attributed to anyone. I wonder who the reporter was channeling.

 

[acbytesla]

Off with his head!

Hee hee!

I'll settle for a pink slip. But there may be a reason I haven't thought of for not firing him.

 

[Minoosh]

That paragraph isn't attributed to anyone. I wonder who the reporter was channeling.

It's attributed to "colleagues," plural, and I suspect the Times requires at least two such colleagues in order to use unnamed sources.

 

[Tony Stark]

From your link:



So my theory is shared by "colleagues," whoever they are.

It's ridiculous. Misleading Congress and the public by not telling them about emails the FBI can't even read yet? I mean, yeah, idiotic Republicans who already hate him may say that but so what.

Also, if he was so interested in being transparent, why didn't he make it clear that the FBI hasn't even begun reading the emails? Seems like an important detail yet the only reason we know is because other people leaked it to the press.

 

[Minoosh]

Right away. If I buy some drugs, they immediately become evidence that I committed a crime.

The interesting thing is that if you, say, smoke the weed, you are not guilty of obstructing justice because your intent is to get high.

Per Net sources the definition of evidence was codified in 1975, I suspect in reaction to Nixon's shiftiness regarding the White House tapes.

I on the other hand believe that a person ought to be able to withhold/destroy/hide information that may tend to incriminate them without fear of legal repercussions. I'm basing this on the broad principle of the Fifth Amendment.

 

[Minoosh]

It's ridiculous. Misleading Congress and the public by not telling them about emails the FBI can't even read yet? I mean, yeah, idiotic Republicans who already hate him may say that but so what.

I'm not the one who said it. Colleagues plural per NYT.

I don't know if you noticed, but the article did not say whether a court order was ever obtained - just that one was sought only recently. A hole in the story. The all-purpose disclaimer would be, "It was not immediately clear if such a court order had been obtained."

Also, if he was so interested in being transparent, why didn't he make it clear that the FBI hasn't even begun reading the emails? Seems like an important detail yet the only reason we know is because other people leaked it to the press.

You don't know the FBI hasn't obtained a court order, for the reasons I cited above, and I think the NYT was being a bit sloppy in not addressing the issue. Court orders can be issued on very short notice. It's possible Comey has agents poring over every single one of those emails right now in order to be able to issue a preliminary finding in the next few days. By Monday, preferably. In fact there should be at least 2 teams of agents poring over them so they can compare notes.

I never said Comey was interested in being transparent, only in appearing transparent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's attributed to "colleagues," plural, and I suspect the Times requires at least two such colleagues in order to use unnamed sources.

I did not see any attribution. Could you post the quote including the attribution?