FBI reopens Clinton email investigation

[BS Wildcats]

25 minutes ago, new tobie said:

We have a very dysfunctional congress and one thing is for sure, we will have a very dysfunctional president in 2017 to match it.

This we can agree on.

[Big girl]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

E mail scandal?

[Big girl]

6 hours ago, new tobie said:

New life for pubs for a losing campaign. Hannity was overjoyed. He could cut back on his lies.

This"scandal" is making the Repubs look bad. It is my understanding that they aren't looking at her personal server.

[baddog]

2 minutes ago, Big girl said:

This"scandal" is making the Repubs look bad. It is my understanding that they aren't looking at her personal server.

Good thing it never comes down to your understanding. Don't you read? It's in black and white. Stay out from between the lines. 

Some of these emails are from Weiner. Probably sent Hillary a pic of his. It's what he does, or did you misunderstand that too?

[JWB]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Big girl]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Big girl]

What do you guys think about this?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[BS Wildcats]

20 minutes ago, Big girl said:

What do you guys think about this?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This happened at least 8 years ago.  What does it have to do with this?  

[baddog]

33 minutes ago, Big girl said:

What do you guys think about this?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

So now it is a bad thing? Make up your mind. What was on the Bush  emails? I'll wait.

[baddog]

Oh yeah, let's wait for the report. lmao

[77]

guess the dems should have investigated but I bet they didnt because they had to much to hide!

[stevenash]

19 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

This happened at least 8 years ago.  What does it have to do with this?  

No need to worry about those, Big Girl.  They were just notes about yoga and grandchildren.

[BLUEDOVE3]

This is ABOUT the  FBI director.  Dude has no clue what's on these emails. Food recipes,  homework assignments,  GOP ho-hum as usual,  or more GOP hoe -hum? I'm sstill waiting for all the BISD administrators who were gonna be going to jail  and... ooops, that's for another thread

[baddog]

20 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

This is ABOUT the  FBI director.  Dude has no clue what's on these emails. Food recipes,  homework assignments,  GOP ho-hum as usual,  or more GOP hoe -hum? I'm sstill waiting for all the BISD administrators who were gonna be going to jail  and... ooops, that's for another thread

Exactly the point of posting this stuff on a board like this. It's in all the papers and on the news, so why post it here......to get comments like yours. You love all the ripoff artists just as long as they're on "your side"

[PhatMack19]

Supposedly Weiner is co-operating, not that he has much choice.  He's trying to avoid prison time, so he's giving up everything to the FBI. 

 

[BS Wildcats]

39 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

This is ABOUT the  FBI director.  Dude has no clue what's on these emails. Food recipes,  homework assignments,  GOP ho-hum as usual,  or more GOP hoe -hum? I'm sstill waiting for all the BISD administrators who were gonna be going to jail  and... ooops, that's for another thread

If there is nothing of consequence on these emails, why won't the AG issue the subpoena so they can be seen.  Maybe she is neck deep in the illegalities as well, along with Clinton.

[PhatMack19]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

On 10/28/2016 at 2:16 PM, Big girl said:

They are being diligent, this doesn't mean that she did anything illegal. Wait for the report.

Comey has already said under oath that Clinton broke the law. 

[stevenash]

35 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Comey has already said under oath that Clinton broke the law. 

Anxious for response from Dove and Big Girl on this

[stevenash]

3 hours ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

This is ABOUT the  FBI director.  Dude has no clue what's on these emails. Food recipes,  homework assignments,  GOP ho-hum as usual,  or more GOP hoe -hum? I'm sstill waiting for all the BISD administrators who were gonna be going to jail  and... ooops, that's for another thread

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

Waiting for the report. Lol

[tvc184]

55 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Anxious for response from Dove and Big Girl on this

Here is my two cents on this case. It might not even be worth that much but here goes.....

Everyone should know about the "accidental" meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton in a private hangar in Phoenix. For those of you who completely ignored this incident, the AG of the USA bumped into the husband of the current Democratic nominee for the presidency which also happens to be the same person that the FBI was investigating for various crimes. Of course that would be Bill and Hillary Clinton.

With people that travel like them, having a former president and a sitting AG bump into each other in a private hangar in an out of the way city like Phoenix is normal........ right?

Actually I would think the odds are about the same as winning the lottery but hey, people win the lottery.

So during this private meeting, I mean, the accidental bumping into, they exchange pleasantries. You know, like, "Hey Mr. President, what are you doing here?". "Oh, just on my way to wherever, you know, campaigning for Hillary and accepting donations for the Clinton Foundation, stuff like that". But.... they decided to exchange the small talk in Lynch's private government aircraft... all alone... with the FBI guarding the area... to discuss..... what Ms. Lynch says was talking about their grandchildren. 

Everyone believes that, right? A completely accidental meeting by the woman who is the head of the department running the investigation on Hillary Clinton and the person she bumps into is Bill Clinton and they have this impromptu meeting over grandkids in a plane guarded by federal agents for 30 minutes. 

By my mindset is that this was not a chance meeting. This meeting was planned. Shortly after the meeting, Hillary or her campaign announced that Lynch might remain as her AG. Then in the same time frame FBI Director Comey announces that Hillary, while committing all kinds of questionable acts (using terms like "reckless"), committed no crime because they could find no "intent". Of course those in criminal justice know that intent is almost never proven in crimes and in fact does not have to be proven. Almost every crime comes with a required culpable mental state that has to be proven by law. There are exceptions for very minor crimes or infractions (as some states call it) like traffic citations that do not have to prove anything. 

While "intent" may not be proven, many (probably most) laws require a lesser and sometimes much lesser mental state like knowingly, recklessly or criminal negligence. Examples might be under TX law it is not required to prove intent to prove murder. It only requires that you knowingly committed an act that was likely to produce the result. Whether you intended for the person to die is of no consequence. Also under TX law is assault with injuries. That only requires a person to act recklessly while causing the injury. If you recklessly cause simply pain to a person you can get a year in the county jail. There is not need to prove intent to cause pain or even knowingly that the result would likely happen. It only requires a reckless act. 

To simply say, "We couldn't show intent" only has a bearing if that crime requires the showing of intent. Some of the things that were claimed in the email and Benghazi accusations do not require intent. So why was Comey seeming to concentrate of that term or mental state? Because of plausible deniability. Hey, I couldn't show intent. 

The part that I was referring to above was when Comey was questioned by Congress. During his presentation Comey made several statements that I thought showed that a crime had been committed. For example Hillary had made statements that she only used one or two or something like that, of cell phones. I believe that she made some of these statements under oath. But Comey under questioning made statements that went something like, "Ms. Clinton use several phone devices contrary to her statement". Hmmm..... Could that be perjury? Obstruction of justice? 

Now I can't quote what was said and I don't feel like googling it at this moment. This kind of questioning happened more than once during Comey's testimony.... not long after the accidental meeting between the AG and former President. While Comey could not prove intent, was intent a requirement? I believe not. Certainly at the very least it should have been brought before a federal grand jury to decide but that possibility was quashed. If a local cop kills someone, it is routine to run it by the grand jury as an independent body even with the evidence is so clear that there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt (or any proof at all) of a crime yet it is done. Not so in this case. At some point in the questioning of Comey, he was asked about other charges and his response was something like (from my memory), "We didn't look into that aspect of it". That would be like me investigating a homicide and finding evidence of child molesting and not doing anything about it because it was not really what I was looking for. But, that was his answer.... we didn't look into that part of a possible crime.

So with all that, here is what I think happened. Comey was ordered by Lynch to announce that there was no evidence of intent and the investigation was over. Comey could likely do so in complete honesty because he could not prove intent. Assuming that is true, Comey was hampered in his investigation. His wings were clipped. 

And barely over a week from the election, Comey hits the bombshell that the investigation will be reopened .. with the excuse that there were new email revelations. I am fairly certain that Lynch has recently made statements about Comey's integrity. 

So here we have it. Lynch and Bill Clinton meet. Hillary then announces that Lynch might continue as AG. Also after that meeting, Comey says that there are not charges but that Hillary did make all kinds of errors but he didn't look at those were not really looked at. Then Comey comes forward with info that the investigation is now back open... and naturally Lynch did not approve. 

Was this Comey's hitting back at being interfered with or merely coincidental in timing? 

Will Comey now be removed adding more suspicion?

[Englebert]

16 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Here is my two cents on this case. It might not even be worth that much but here goes.....

Everyone should know about the "accidental" meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton in a private hangar in Phoenix. For those of you who completely ignored this incident, the AG of the USA bumped into the husband of the current Democratic nominee for the presidency which also happens to be the same person that the FBI was investigating for various crimes. Of course that would be Bill and Hillary Clinton.

With people that travel like them, having a former president and a sitting AG bump into each other in a private hangar in an out of the way city like Phoenix is normal........ right?

Actually I would think the odds are about the same as winning the lottery but hey, people win the lottery.

So during this private meeting, I mean, the accidental bumping into, they exchange pleasantries. You know, like, "Hey Mr. President, what are you doing here?". "Oh, just on my way to wherever, you know, campaigning for Hillary and accepting donations for the Clinton Foundation, stuff like that". But.... they decided to exchange the small talk in Lynch's private government aircraft... all alone... with the FBI guarding the area... to discuss..... what Ms. Lynch says was talking about their grandchildren. 

Everyone believes that, right? A completely accidental meeting by the woman who is the head of the department running the investigation on Hillary Clinton and the person she bumps into is Bill Clinton and they have this impromptu meeting over grandkids in a plane guarded by federal agents for 30 minutes. 

By my mindset is that this was not a chance meeting. This meeting was planned. Shortly after the meeting, Hillary or her campaign announced that Lynch might remain as her AG. Then in the same time frame FBI Director Comey announces that Hillary, while committing all kinds of questionable acts (using terms like "reckless"), committed no crime because they could find no "intent". Of course those in criminal justice know that intent is almost never proven in crimes and in fact does not have to be proven. Almost every crime comes with a required culpable mental state that has to be proven by law. There are exceptions for very minor crimes or infractions (as some states call it) like traffic citations that do not have to prove anything. 

While "intent" may not be proven, many (probably most) laws require a lesser and sometimes much lesser mental state like knowingly, recklessly or criminal negligence. Examples might be under TX law it is not required to prove intent to prove murder. It only requires that you knowingly committed an act that was likely to produce the result. Whether you intended for the person to die is of no consequence. Also under TX law is assault with injuries. That only requires a person to act recklessly while causing the injury. If you recklessly cause simply pain to a person you can get a year in the county jail. There is not need to prove intent to cause pain or even knowingly that the result would likely happen. It only requires a reckless act. 

To simply say, "We couldn't show intent" only has a bearing if that crime requires the showing of intent. Some of the things that were claimed in the email and Benghazi accusations do not require intent. So why was Comey seeming to concentrate of that term or mental state? Because of plausible deniability. Hey, I couldn't show intent. 

The part that I was referring to above was when Comey was questioned by Congress. During his presentation Comey made several statements that I thought showed that a crime had been committed. For example Hillary had made statements that she only used one or two or something like that, of cell phones. I believe that she made some of these statements under oath. But Comey under questioning made statements that went something like, "Ms. Clinton use several phone devices contrary to her statement". Hmmm..... Could that be perjury? Obstruction of justice? 

Now I can't quote what was said and I don't feel like googling it at this moment. This kind of questioning happened more than once during Comey's testimony.... not long after the accidental meeting between the AG and former President. While Comey could not prove intent, was intent a requirement? I believe not. Certainly at the very least it should have been brought before a federal grand jury to decide but that possibility was quashed. If a local cop kills someone, it is routine to run it by the grand jury as an independent body even with the evidence is so clear that there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt (or any proof at all) of a crime yet it is done. Not so in this case. At some point in the questioning of Comey, he was asked about other charges and his response was something like (from my memory), "We didn't look into that aspect of it". That would be like me investigating a homicide and finding evidence of child molesting and not doing anything about it because it was not really what I was looking for. But, that was his answer.... we didn't look into that part of a possible crime.

So with all that, here is what I think happened. Comey was ordered by Lynch to announce that there was no evidence of intent and the investigation was over. Comey could likely do so in complete honesty because he could not prove intent. Assuming that is true, Comey was hampered in his investigation. His wings were clipped. 

And barely over a week from the election, Comey hits the bombshell that the investigation will be reopened .. with the excuse that there were new email revelations. I am fairly certain that Lynch has recently made statements about Comey's integrity. 

So here we have it. Lynch and Bill Clinton meet. Hillary then announces that Lynch might continue as AG. Also after that meeting, Comey says that there are not charges but that Hillary did make all kinds of errors but he didn't look at those were not really looked at. Then Comey comes forward with info that the investigation is now back open... and naturally Lynch did not approve. 

Was this Comey's hitting back at being interfered with or merely coincidental in timing? 

Will Comey now be removed adding more suspicion?

I'm guessing Comey's conscious got the better of him, along with all of the backlash. He knows he initially made the wrong decision (under heavy pressure) and has finally decided to try to absolve his guilt.

A second theory is that the Clinton Foundation checked bounced.

A third theory is that Obama's hatred for the Clintons boiled back up and he flip-flopped and gave Comey the green light to prosecute Hillary. I doubt this because Obama knows Hillary will carry on his legacy.

A fourth theory is that Trump promised Comey a cushy future if he re-opened the investigation. I highly doubt this one, but then again, I used to think the FBI was above reproach.

I'm very curious to learn the circumstances involving Anthony Weiner. Huma Abedin has filed for divorce. Did Weiner go to the FBI and tell them he has all of these emails in an effort to retaliate against Huma and Hillary? Did Weiner make a deal with the FBI to hand over this evidence to help him with his own legal troubles? I would not be surprised if it is the former, or possibly even a combination.

[baddog]

5 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'm guessing Comey's conscious got the better of him, along with all of the backlash. He knows he initially made the wrong decision (under heavy pressure) and has finally decided to try to absolve his guilt.

A second theory is that the Clinton Foundation checked bounced.

A third theory is that Obama's hatred for the Clintons boiled back up and he flip-flopped and gave Comey the green light to prosecute Hillary. I doubt this because Obama knows Hillary will carry on his legacy.

A fourth theory is that Trump promised Comey a cushy future if he re-opened the investigation. I highly doubt this one, but then again, I used to think the FBI was above reproach.

I'm very curious to learn the circumstances involving Anthony Weiner. Huma Abedin has filed for divorce. Did Weiner go to the FBI and tell them he has all of these emails in an effort to retaliate against Huma and Hillary? Did Weiner make a deal with the FBI to hand over this evidence to help him with his own legal troubles? I would not be surprised if it is the former, or possibly even a combination.

I'll make this short and sweet as I am not as well versed as you two. I think they are all criminals. Every last one of them. They are all guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice, bribery, blackmail, sexual perversion with minors, shall I continue? I hope they all rot in hell after lengthy jail terms. Ok, that's all.

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

I'll make this short and sweet as I am not as well versed as you two. I think they are all criminals. Every last one of them. They are all guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice, bribery, blackmail, sexual perversion with minors, shall I continue? I hope they all rot in hell after lengthy jail terms. Ok, that's all.

I agree- but there are a bunch of people who prefer to let the criminals run things rather than changing to a guy who has uttered harsh words