BREAKING: Clinton Email Case Just Reopened!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?)

Do you think it through? Apparently not.

You were already told they could be pertinent to the Hillary Clinton investigation - by Comey himself.
He does not know the contents of the emails as we know he is awaiting a warrant to review them.
There is no evidence at all to support a claim they have nothing to do with the Clinton investigation - that is something you made up (or more likely repeated what someone else made up)

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?

Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

A criminal one.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?

Here is just one source from Politico...but there is one on CNN, NBC, Etc...

source

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

Lol! Do you picture the server behind bars if it's found guilty??

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?)

Do you think it through? Apparently not.

You were already told they could be pertinent to the Hillary Clinton investigation - by Comey himself.
He does not know the contents of the emails as we know he is awaiting a warrant to review them.
There is no evidence at all to support a claim they have nothing to do with the Clinton investigation - that is something you made up.

Pertinent to the investigation of the server, in Comey's own words. Here, I'll remind you:

First sentence of Comey's letter to Congress -

In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server.

Now, go back to your grammar school training ... what is the subject of the second preposition "of" in that sentence?

As to the remainder of your baseless commentary, there's nothing to suggest that the emails have anything to do directly with HILLARY CLINTON.

Do you have a source that says that? If so, share it. If not, stop already with pretending you have knowledge you blatantly don't have.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?

Need the warrant first, right?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?

Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.

You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.

ETA: Criminal investigation, yes. Criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, no.

The information on the server could have served as prima facie evidence of several different crimes. Thus, investigation of the server was referred to as a criminal investigation.

The FBI, as director Comey stated, investigates crimes.

... and I'm not going through this again with you either.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?

Need the warrant first, right?

Apparently.

Things can move rapidly with proper motivation though ... eh?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?)

Do you think it through? Apparently not.

You were already told they could be pertinent to the Hillary Clinton investigation - by Comey himself.
He does not know the contents of the emails as we know he is awaiting a warrant to review them.
There is no evidence at all to support a claim they have nothing to do with the Clinton investigation - that is something you made up.

Pertinent to the investigation of the server, in Comey's own words. Here, I'll remind you:

First sentence of Comey's letter to Congress -

In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server.

Now, go back to your grammar school training ... what is the subject of the preposition "of" in that sentence?

As to the remainder of your baseless commentary, there's nothing to suggest that the emails have anything to do directly with HILLARY CLINTON.

Do you have a source that says that? If so, share it. If not, stop already with pretending you have knowledge you blatantly don't have.

Hahahaha! So the server is being investigated! I wonder what the sentence is for the server if it gets found guilty? Maybe it gets placed in the IBM graveyard for 5 years as punishment before it gets given a new hard drive (on the condition it votes democrat).

You really couldn't make it up.

Thanks for the laugh.

Now back to the real world...

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.

Comey has said the new emails could be pertinent to the Hillary Clinton email investigation. (which, by the way, is a criminal investigation)
He is awaiting a warrant to investigate further.
Any definitive statement that the emails have no content relating to the Hillary Clinton investigation is pure speculation at this time.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you realize what personal means? It means in the FBI's view Hilary is responsible for it. Do you not understand what the investigation was about? You think they were previously deciding whether charges should be brought up against a server?

The investigation has always been about "Hilary's clinton's personal email server".

As I said early, your facade is transparent.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you realize what personal means? It means in the FBI's view Hilary is responsible for it. Do you not understand what the investigation was about? You think they were previously deciding whether charges should be brought up against a server?

The investigation has always been about "Hilary's clinton's personal email server".

As I said early, your facade is transparent.

Personal ownership is lost with this one. The server was a bad boy, it must be brought to justice!

a reply to: UKTruth

Yuk yuk. You guys really love this ridiculous ploy.

If you don't like what Director Comey said, take it up with him; he was very specific: investigation OF the server.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?

Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.

You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.

I did provide a source, and this is about a criminal investigation as I showed.

I can't help it if you don't seem to actually know the facts of the case and I don't feel I need to be your teacher/researcher either.

I have pointed out numerous times in this long thread just how wrong you are on points you try to make, with the last being your statement that Bill Clinton was never impeached...and you were wrong.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Yuk yuk. You guys really love this ridiculous ploy.

If you don't like what Director Comey said, take it up with him; he was very specific: investigation OF the server.

So he doesn't mention the server here:

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.

Maybe he forgot his grammar?

I think you should just concentrate on what the server has done and work out what should happen to it.

The rest of us will focus on the Hillary Clinton investigation.

Deal?

I just talked to my uncle, rumor has it Anthony Weiner AKA Carlos Danger had about 30,000 HC emails on his lap top in a file named LIFE INSURANCE!!!!!

NYPD has seen some of them, word on the street is they're so classified the FBI can't even read them.

Hillary and Huma For Prison 2016

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you realize what personal means? It means in the FBI's view Hilary is responsible for it. Do you not understand what the investigation was about? You think they were previously deciding whether charges should be brought up against a server?

The investigation has always been about "Hilary's clinton's personal email server".

As I said early, your facade is transparent.

The evidence of any possible wrongdoing was on the server. Jim Comey has stated several times and again in his letter that the investigation was directed at the server, i.e. the contents of the server.

I really couldn't care less that neither you nor apparently several of the posters here can't read English.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Yuk yuk. You guys really love this ridiculous ploy.

If you don't like what Director Comey said, take it up with him; he was very specific: investigation OF the server.

I think you should just concentrate on what the server has done and work out what should happen to it.

The rest of us will focus on the Hillary Clinton investigation.

Deal?

I think you should take care of your own posts and I'll take care of mine.

Deal?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?

Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.

You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.

So, in this criminal investigation, please read the link I provided and then come back and let me know who was deposed in regards to the criminal investigation....I'll give you one of them...Hillary Clinton. So yes, Hillary herself is part of a criminal investigation.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?

Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.

You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.

ETA: Criminal investigation, yes. Criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, no.

The information on the server could have served as prima facie evidence of several different crimes. Thus, investigation of the server was referred to as a criminal investigation.

The FBI, as director Comey stated, investigates crimes.

... and I'm not going through this again with you either.

What server are you talking about?!

They are looking at Huma's device with the 10,000 emails she doesn't know how they got there.

No server involved, this time.

Stop watching CNN.