BREAKING: Clinton Email Case Just Reopened!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do those sources have names?

If they emails had nothing at all to do with Clinton, why reopen her investigation?

it's clear from today's news that anyone saying that they have nothing to do with Clinton is making it up. Comey does not even know what the emails contain yet.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

Oh, my bad, how about a tradition of having facilities for men and women?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It's not going to take months.

10,000 emails.

How long do YOU figure it will take.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: EchoesInTime

Imagine that.. the FBI field agent sifting through the folder structure of the laptop and finding something like clintonemail.pst

your jaw would drop... did we get lucky? there's rumours of revolt inside the FBI... did someone on that side of the fence discover this and lodge it so it couldn't be ignored?

One step further with a conspiracy theory...
Maybe someone (in the FBI) looking for the insurance file set up Weiner with the 15 year old girl?

Wouldn't that be illegal if discovered?

Wouldn't you condemn such an action if proven true?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?

a reply to: tadaman

Apropos of nothing ...

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It's not going to take months.

10,000 emails.

How long do YOU figure it will take.

a) Don't believe everything you hear on Fox News.

b) We'll see how long it takes. My bet is on Wednesday of next week if not Monday. Care to make a guess?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

Oh, my bad, how about a tradition of having facilities for men and women?

Indeed.
/applause

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?

Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.

a reply to: butcherguy

Since you mentioned it, I'll toss this out there, this is in response to a news article another member asked me to read regarding the Wiener story:



[tinhat]
NSA knows everything about everyone

They know about every connection everyone has to everyone else

They have profiles on everyone, the more important you are or the closer you are to an important person, the more detailed a profile they have

They knew not all of Hillary's emails were deleted and also knew were else they would be contained

Knowing all of the above, it is not too much of a stretch to think that someone would have initiated an Op to take advantage of the existing proclivities of Wiener in order to provide the impetus to take the investigation in a direction which would lead to the uncovering of previously unknown (to investigative agents, not unknown to the NSA) information relating to the closed case

[/tinhat]

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

Oh, my bad, how about a tradition of having facilities for men and women?

And you manage to toss in the transgender issue as well!

You are on your toes this morning, aren't you?

That has nothing to do with this discussion; you know that; you're merely doing what you usually do, distraction.

I don't think I've asked you directly ... do you have ANY information that these emails have anything to do directly with Hillary Clinton?

Since Jim Comey doesn't know the contents, I'm wondering how you do? Did God reveal it to you as divine inspiration?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?

Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.

I'm not a right winger.

So what is the proper terminology then for the FBI having over 100 resources inquiring into a potential criminal matter over HRC emails?

It's unprecedented but you are blaming the wrong entity. You should be blaming Hilary and her band of crooks for that.

Accountability is a great trait to have, I see none of it from Hilary.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do those sources have names?

If they emails had nothing at all to do with Clinton, why reopen her investigation?

it's clear from today's news that anyone saying that they have nothing to do with Clinton is making it up. Comey does not even know what the emails contain yet.

Someone does; if not, how was the relevance determined?

What basis do they have to ask for a search warrant?

(Do you ever think these comments through?)

a reply to: Throes

One point of clarification, my comment was generic. When you repeat the lie, you repeat a right-wing lie. There, better?

I told you I'm not going over the distinction between investigating the server and investigating Clinton again. I was serious.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?

Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.

What kind of investigation is it then?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?

Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.

Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?

Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.

Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"

Care to source that quote so we can all play?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?

Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.

What kind of investigation is it then?

An on-going one, at this point.