Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[Tony Stark]

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

Yeah, they said that's what his reasoning was. Doesn't mean the reasoning isn't ridiculous.

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."



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.

The article made it clear that the FBI hadn't even begun to read the emails when he sent the letter.

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

And by not making it clear that the FBI doesn't know what's in the emails he has made him self look worse.

 

[Tony Stark]

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

Colleagues is the attribution. Obviously meaning that the NYT spoke to some of his colleagues about it. They presumably wished to remain anonymous.

 

[Minoosh]

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

I posted the quote in my response to Tony that began: "From your link ..." You've missed it at least twice: once on this thread and once when you read the Times article.

For your convenience:

From The New York Times:
"But although Mr. Comey 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."

What else do you need, a screen shot?

 

[Minoosh]

Yeah, they said that's what his reasoning was. Doesn't mean the reasoning isn't ridiculous.

It does mean my speculation wasn't completely off the wall.

The article made it clear that the FBI hadn't even begun to read the emails when he sent the letter.

Hmm. A couple of hours ago it said "only recently" had a court order been sought. It now says:

"Law enforcement officials have begun the process to get court authority to read the emails, officials said. How soon they will get that is unclear ..."

The quote now implies that the Times knows a court order hasn't been issued (as of this posting). If the Times doesn't know this for a fact, I would suggest changing that to, "The timeline for obtaining a court order wasn't immediately clear."

Now my problem is that the article doesn't explain why a court order is needed in the first place. Because agents would have to read possibly classified information? Because the material is so tangential to what the search warrant sought? Has that been addressed, and I've missed it?

Court orders can be granted in hours, even minutes. It happens all the time. At this point the court pretty much has to give Comey a green light. IMO. Even though the evidence would probably be inadmissible in an actual court, the potential damage of not airing the contents is severe.

 

[Minoosh]

Informed opinion from The Washington Post

ETA: Which also doesn't say why a court order is needed. Maybe just because they are on a person's private computer.

 

[Noztradamus]

Neither is really in trouble.

So which of the three is really in trouble?

 

[Tony Stark]

Informed opinion from The Washington Post

ETA: Which also doesn't say why a court order is needed. Maybe just because they are on a person's private computer.

So basically what I think.

He sent a vaguely worded letter to Republicans in Congress before he really knew anything as the FBI hasn't even begun to read the emails. Certainly he knew they would instantly tell everyone in the most hyper partisan way possible in an effort to hurt Hillary.

And his excuse is that he didn't want to be accused of misleading people? Why didn't he just issue a press release with the facts? That due to an unrelated investigation they came across some emails. They don't know if they contain new information pertinent to the case because they haven't even started reviewing them, though they intend to.

 

[Minoosh]

Why didn't he just issue a press release with the facts? That due to an unrelated investigation they came across some emails. They don't know if they contain new information pertinent to the case because they haven't even started reviewing them, though they intend to.

Because then he would literally be the one announcing it. Bad form. If he really was just trying to get out ahead of this finding he should have used your language in his letter to Congress. It's too bad he didn't.

 

[Steve]

So basically what I think.

He sent a vaguely worded letter to Republicans in Congress before he really knew anything as the FBI hasn't even begun to read the emails. Certainly he knew they would instantly tell everyone in the most hyper partisan way possible in an effort to hurt Hillary.

And his excuse is that he didn't want to be accused of misleading people? Why didn't he just issue a press release with the facts? That due to an unrelated investigation they came across some emails. They don't know if they contain new information pertinent to the case because they haven't even started reviewing them, though they intend to.

Because the facts would not help the GOP. For his sake I hope the GOP is holding a job for him because his FBI career is over unless Trump wins.

 

[Tony Stark]

Because then he would literally be the one announcing it. Bad form. If he really was just trying to get out ahead of this finding he should have used your language in his letter to Congress. It's too bad he didn't.

It was bad form to send the letter to Congress in the first place and he did it anyway. Worse form even given that he must have known that the Republicans would immediately use it in the most partisan way possible in an attempt to sway the election.

 

[Tony Stark]

Because the facts would not help the GOP. For his sake I hope the GOP is holding a job for him because his FBI career is over unless Trump wins.

I doubt that Trump would keep him.

 

[Minoosh]

It was bad form to send the letter to Congress in the first place and he did it anyway. Worse form even given that he must have known that the Republicans would immediately use it in the most partisan way possible in an attempt to sway the election.

I think it would have been OK if he hadn't said the emails were "pertinent."

He probably ought to resign for (inadvertently?) crafting such potent ammunition for Congress.

"I want to apologize to the American people for unforgivably characterizing those emails as 'pertinent.' The truth is I have no idea if those emails are pertinent. I defend notifying Congress, but I can't defend my vast overstep in stating flatly that these emails were relevant to an investigation of criminal wrongdoing. It has damaged my credibility, and rightly so. For this reason I can no longer lead the FBI, the greatest investigative agency in history.

"I hope the American people continue to trust the process for vetting and electing presidential candidates - and the process for removing them, should it ever become necessary - no matter who wins next Tuesday."

 

[PartSkeptic]

Prove that the Clintons use the Clinton Foundation to benefit themselves to the tune of millions of dollars. Hint: I know for a fact that you can't. You just made it up.

The Clintons do donate to the foundation. And they get other people to as well. Because you know, the more money a charity has, the more people it can help.

The Clinton Foundation is a highly rated charity that uses an excellent nearly 88% of its money on its programs.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

But let me guess, you know how to evaluate charities better than charity watchdogs, right.

I looked at your ratings watchdogs. I was not impressed. I know how it is possible for charities to make their reporting and their paperwork look good while delivering little actual benefit to the poor. There are no real metrics the way the Foundation is set up.

The first rating agency gave supposedly adverse news articles. But they were defending the Clintons

The devil in in the detail, and the detail is being buried. I will investigate a bit further, but the overall tone of how they "benefit" the poor rather than a select group is suspicious.

That led me to look at the income for the Clintons, and at their actual 2014 tax return.

Combined Tax Return Hillary and Bill for 2014
Wage Income = $ 93
Interest Income= $ 25,171
Net Business Income = $ 28,020,811
The Gross Income of $ 32,267,205 is made of
HRC as author = $ 18,421 + $ 5,563,867
HRC as Speaking = $ 10,492,000
WJC as Speaking = $ 9,739,000
WJC as author = $ 36,442
WJC as consulting = $ 6,417,475
Gifts to Charity = $ 3,022,700
Tax = $ 8,970,503

What knowledge do they have that is so valuable to a few corporates willing to pay such high fees? I guess I will have to find a Wikileaks transcript.

Tax donation - most people would give 10% of questionable income to be able to be claim to be philanthropic.

Chelsea has become vice president (and her husband has also joined the Foundation?? not sure when I tried to confirm this). Bill Clinton is on the board. It is reasonable to presume they do not work for free, but according to their "worth".

Do the Clintons benefit directly and indirectly from this foundation? Most certainly. They are both clever lawyers who employ other clever lawyers and accountants.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I may have mis-interpreted this statement. Will keep looking.

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-marc-mez...sband-10-facts-about-hillarys-son-law-2395319

Chelsea brought her husband Marc Mezvinsky, a hedge fund manager, into the Clinton Foundation. He quickly learned how to play the Clinton Family Game and sought out Hillary's help with getting a meeting with the State Department.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Interesting what comes up when tries to dig for facts.

Bill Clinton – Sexual assault. Anthony Weiner – Pervert. Ed Mezvinsky – Fraudster

All with close links to Hillary.

http://freedomoutpost.com/who-is-ed...-he-so-important-to-the-clinton-crime-family/

...At the same time, the then 27-year-old Hillary Clinton got herself hired and fired by the same Judiciary Committee. According to Jerry Zeifman, a long-time Democrat and 17-year-long congressional staffer who supervised Hillary:
“Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Hillary was fired for lying to her superior, and for her unethical behavior in conspiring to deny legal counsel to Richard Nixon during the hearings.

...On a darker note, federal prosecutors said Ed Mezvinsky habitually dropped the Clintons’ names and boasted of their friendship during the 1990s as he defrauded friends, family members and institutions out of more than $10 million.

Ed Mezvinsky was sentenced in 2003 to serve 80 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to a massive fraud that prosecutors said amounted to a Ponzi scheme. He was released from custody in April 2008, but remains under federal probation supervision.

 

[Tony Stark]

I looked at your ratings watchdogs. I was not impressed. I know how it is possible for charities to make their reporting and their paperwork look good while delivering little actual benefit to the poor. There are no real metrics the way the Foundation is set up.

The first rating agency gave supposedly adverse news articles. But they were defending the Clintons

The devil in in the detail, and the detail is being buried. I will investigate a bit further, but the overall tone of how they "benefit" the poor rather than a select group is suspicious.

Just as I knew, you think you know more than charity watchdogs because that's what you need to believe in order to maintain your conspiracy theory.

That led me to look at the income for the Clintons, and at their actual 2014 tax return.

Combined Tax Return Hillary and Bill for 2014
Wage Income = $ 93
Interest Income= $ 25,171
Net Business Income = $ 28,020,811
The Gross Income of $ 32,267,205 is made of
HRC as author = $ 18,421 + $ 5,563,867
HRC as Speaking = $ 10,492,000
WJC as Speaking = $ 9,739,000
WJC as author = $ 36,442
WJC as consulting = $ 6,417,475
Gifts to Charity = $ 3,022,700
Tax = $ 8,970,503

What knowledge do they have that is so valuable to a few corporates willing to pay such high fees? I guess I will have to find a Wikileaks transcript.

First of all $250k for a speech is nothing for a large corporation. Second of all it is not unusual or suspicious that a company would be willing to pay a former President and former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State for speeches. If Obama wants to, he will make millions giving speeches too and he will never hold any public office again.

Tax donation - most people would give 10% of questionable income to be able to be claim to be philanthropic.

Arbitrary standard that you pulled out of your ass. Fact of the matter is that they give millions to charity. Which is in fact infinitely more than your Fuhrer does as he gives nothing despite being an alleged multibillionaire.

Chelsea has become vice president and her husband has also joined the Foundation. Bill Clinton is on the board. It is reasonable to presume they do not work for free, but according to their "worth".

It is not reasonable to believe they are paid for working on the foundation board since they aren't.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...at-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/

Can you prove they are compensated some other way? No, of course you can't. And so the sane, non conspiracy theory whackjob explanation for why they serve on the board is that want to ensure that the charity that they founded and bears their name continues to do good work. And they can certainly afford to work for free.

Do the Clintons benefit directly and indirectly from this foundation? Most certainly. They are both clever lawyers who employ other clever lawyers and accountants.

Given the complete and total lack evidence, you have no good reason at all to be certain. You just believe it because you want to.

The belief that the Clinton Foundation is a fake charity that the Clintons use to benifit themselves is nothing more than a whacked out conspiracy theory.

And by the way, we know for a fact that your Fuhrer has used his "charity" to benefit himself. He has used its money to settle his company's disputes, bought portraits of himself, bought sports memorabilia, "donated" to a state AG that was considering investigating his scam "university" and more. But you don't give the slightest ****.

 

[Tony Stark]

Interesting what comes up when tries to dig for facts.

Bill Clinton – Sexual assault. Anthony Weiner – Pervert. Ed Mezvinsky – Fraudster

All with close links to Hillary.

While your Fuhrer himself is a sexual predator. Not that you care.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Informed opinion from The Washington Post

ETA: Which also doesn't say why a court order is needed. Maybe just because they are on a person's private computer.

Or maybe because "in plain sight" doesn't cover information buried in a laptop of the housemate of the person they're investigating for other reasons.

I'm not sure of how much leeway the FBI or DoJ get, but some kind of warrant is involved and they were investigating Wiener's sexting. I assume they got it extended to cover any electronic devices in the house. But they may not actually have the right to information on Abedin's computer if it's not related to that particular crime and investigation.

The "in plain sight" doctrine, I believe, allows a cop dealing with a domestic violence complaint to bust you for a crack pipe and bag of dope on the table. It does not (or may not, IANAL) allow you to go through their belongings. My speculation is that they see the emails but can't legally open them. (I'd think they probably already have and are pretending they haven't until they get that court order.)

Any lawyers want to comment? I was a sort of paralegal without portfolio, but not in criminal areas.

 

[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

 

[Tero]

I'm putting my psychic hat on. Info in the new emails will reveal that:
- A UK footballer was denied visa for Las Vegas party trip, despite bribe to Clinton foundation
- Hillary had something to do with an attack on an embassy. It's coming to me...in North Africa. I see a B abd a Z but can't see the whole word