• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Another investigation by the FBI about Clinton emails

Will Wiley said:
There has apparently been a lot of unhappy former and present FBI agents lately...
Click to expand...
Eh, sounds like typical partisan muttering to me.
so....there is likely all sorts of pressure on the FBI
Click to expand...
Hmm, you think maybe that a 1/3 of the country screaming that Clinton should be in prison might make conservative FBI agents frustrated? Yeah, I don't doubt it.
 
zorq said:
Hmm, you think maybe that a 1/3 of the country screaming that Clinton should be in prison might make conservative FBI agents frustrated? Yeah, I don't doubt it.
Click to expand...

I think they are probably feeling pressure from a lot of places. But if agents themselves are unhappy then that adds quite a bit to any other pressures
 
Will Wiley said:
zorq said:
Hmm, you think maybe that a 1/3 of the country screaming that Clinton should be in prison might make conservative FBI agents frustrated? Yeah, I don't doubt it.
Click to expand...

I think they are probably feeling pressure from a lot of places. But if agents themselves are unhappy then that adds quite a bit to any other pressures
Click to expand...
No more than any other professional pissed off about politics.
 
Deepak said:
Tom Sawyer said:
A non-cynical answer would be that this is when the FBI got enough information to open an investigation and they did so without taking partisan political considerations into account one way or the other.
Click to expand...

It's also the likely answer. There won't be enough time to investigate the emails and I predict this won't have a 1 percentage point difference in polling or voting.

What I'm wondering though, if the polls were reversed and there was an investigation into Trump would we have calls of partisan hackery? Or would burying the announcement until after the election, and a hypothetical Trump win, be partisan hackery?

My personal take is that governmental agencies shouldn't editorialize and should announce these things as they find them.
Click to expand...

According to 538, we could very well see a drop in the polls:

One of those events came July 5, when Comey announced that there would be no criminal charges in the investigation into Clinton’s server but repudiated Clinton for the way she handled email. That announcement brought the story back into the news and preceded a 2-percentage-point drop for Clinton in national polls, although there was no obvious gain for Trump — instead, voters retreated into the undecided column.

If, hypothetically, the same thing were to happen again — Clinton loses 2 points to undecided overnight — her odds of winning the election would decline to 68 percent in our polls-only model. So that’s a significant shift.
Click to expand...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=mobilebar&v=1
 
Axulus said:
Deepak said:
It's also the likely answer. There won't be enough time to investigate the emails and I predict this won't have a 1 percentage point difference in polling or voting.

What I'm wondering though, if the polls were reversed and there was an investigation into Trump would we have calls of partisan hackery? Or would burying the announcement until after the election, and a hypothetical Trump win, be partisan hackery?

My personal take is that governmental agencies shouldn't editorialize and should announce these things as they find them.
Click to expand...

According to 538, we could very well see a drop in the polls:

One of those events came July 5, when Comey announced that there would be no criminal charges in the investigation into Clinton’s server but repudiated Clinton for the way she handled email. That announcement brought the story back into the news and preceded a 2-percentage-point drop for Clinton in national polls, although there was no obvious gain for Trump — instead, voters retreated into the undecided column.

If, hypothetically, the same thing were to happen again — Clinton loses 2 points to undecided overnight — her odds of winning the election would decline to 68 percent in our polls-only model. So that’s a significant shift.
Click to expand...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=mobilebar&v=1
Click to expand...

They're saying that if there is a drop in polls then that affects her odds of winning, not that there will very well be a drop in polls. July 5 and Oct 28 are worlds apart. Indeed, from the next paragraph:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-fbi-is-back-this-time-with-anthony-weiner/

But it’s not clear that the situations are comparable, especially if the “investigative steps” have nothing directly to do with Clinton or her email server and won’t be completed until after the election. My hunch (like The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel’s) is that Weiner is such a tragicomic figure, and such a lightning rod for news coverage, that he could insulate Clinton from some of the fallout she might have suffered otherwise. There are also fewer undecided voters now than there were in July, voter choices are more locked in, and many people have already voted — which could lessen the impact.
Click to expand...
 
ElectEngr said:
It only took 2 hours for the story to collapse


http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politi...stigation-story-to-completely-collapse-video/

Later,
ElectEngr
Click to expand...

This was an investigation and not a conviction of course. Her fault was she should not have used her own server for government mails which she must have been aware of.
Where such breaches occur, investigations can be carried out more than once.

I am not sure if she could have been given access such from home since here office as secretary of state was not a 9 to 5 job. For those working from home, using own mail if there is no outside access is a temptation but I am surprised that there were no special provisions for access in her case.
 
I don't think Hillary Clinton's troubles are ever going to go away. Whether it is her emails or the Clinton Foundation or any number of things.
Even if she get's elected, she is going to be dogged by one thing or another in a probably unprecedented way.
It will never go away and it will likely tarnish the whole presidency for as long as she is President

If only the Democratic Party had a good candidate to put up.

I think a danger is that people now, in greater numbers, realise this and vote for Trump
 
Danger? But you want Trump to win.
 
Deepak said:
blastula said:
As I just said, it's been reported that they are investigating Manafort and the Russian hacks, but there are no statements like this about it.

It's not like there was anything urgent about this investigation that they had to say anything at all.
Click to expand...

I think I replied before you added that, but if you look at the actual statement from the FBI it's about as bog standard as you can get:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3198222/Letter.pdf

What statement 'like this' wasn't made about any other FBI investigation? What exactly is so controversial in the text of the letter?
Click to expand...

I just said in the reply you quoted. What he did was not standard procedure. This article is by a legal expert.

Time for FBI director Comey to resign - CNN.com

Donald Trump's oft-repeated claim that the FBI's investigation of "Crooked Hillary" and the presidential election itself were and are "rigged," seems to have thrown FBI Director James Comey into a state of panic. In foolishly making a public announcement that the bureau is reviewing newly discovered emails related to Hillary Clinton's personal server, he has inserted himself yet again into the presidential campaign.The FBI virtually never announces the commencement or termination of ongoing criminal investigations or the discovery of new evidence. Such inquiries are often conducted in relative secrecy, enabling a more efficient investigation.

It is not unusual for investigations in so-called "white collar" cases to go on for years, luring the target into an unfounded belief that he or she is in the clear. Then the hammer falls. A grand jury indictment is announced by the Department of Justice and the handcuffs are swiftly employed.

The old, sensible FBI rule book apparently has been thrown on the trash heap this year. While undoubtedly attempting to be open and "transparent," to protect the reputation of the FBI, the FBI director has tossed a Molotov cocktail into the presidential race.
Click to expand...


And if you don't believe him, this is from Comey today in a letter to FBI employees.

To all:

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.

Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.

Jim Comey
Click to expand...

Here’s the Letter James Comey Sent to FBI Employees Explaining Clinton Letter | Mediaite

Presumably, there's been concerns about it by his staff.

If he felt there was absolutely no way he could wait 12 days to tell Congress, he at least had the obligation to be very clear about what it was he was investigating and what they know so far, because the way he presented it made it very easy to make misleasding headlines about it and unnecessarily influence the election in an unfair way. If he's not a partisan hack, he's at least been extremely careless.
 
blastula said:
Danger? But you want Trump to win.
Click to expand...

They are both dangerous. Hillary is a greater danger to the rest of the world, so I don't want her. Trump would be my preference out of the two, but that doesn't mean I don't think he is not dangerous.
Americans seem mainly concerned about domestic issues (that's the impression I get on here). I'm not American so I'm more concerned about how the next President will deal with the rest of the world.

If the truth be known I'm a Giant Meteor guy, myself
 
Sorry, but you don't seem to know much about Trump if you think he's less dangerous. One of the main reasons I oppose him is the threat he poses to the world. If it were about dogma, you wouldn't see so many Republicans disavowing him. A main reason they say they do so is that he has a reckless temperament.
 
blastula said:
Sorry, but you don't seem to know much about Trump if you think he's less dangerous. One of the main reasons I oppose him is the threat he poses to the world. If it were about dogma, you wouldn't see so many Republicans disavowing him. A main reason they say they do so is that he has a reckless temperament.
Click to expand...

I think he has problems but i'm not sure what evidence you are thinking of when you say reckless temperament.

Hillary has been extremely reckless. Reckless in Libya and other countries. Reckless with her emails. Her temperament is wild according to people who have worked with her. There are plenty of anecdotes about her completely losing it from people who have worked closely with her.

A secret service agent recently wrote about her in a book. But there are lots of other examples.
Secret Service Agent Book: Raging Hillary Clinton Threw Bible at Agent’s Colleague
 
I can only assume you have never seen him speak.
 
Pretty much everything he says is untrue
Plus he just threw put a black trump supporter at one of his rallies because he was, as trump said, a " thug"
 
blastula said:
I can only assume you have never seen him speak.
Click to expand...
I have. Do you have an example of him speaking that shows a reckless temperament, and particularly one that shows him to be more reckless than Hillary Clinton?

- - - Updated - - -

Schrodinger's Outlaw said:
Pretty much everything he says is untrue
Plus he just threw put a black trump supporter at one of his rallies because he was a thug
Click to expand...

Throwing someone out means he is reckless??
 
Trump stereotyped him even though he was a trump supporter, called him a thug
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom