BREAKING: Clinton Email Case Just Reopened!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

I hope to goodness sakes that there is something of relevance there. Still assuming good intent on the part of Jim Comey, I HOPE that there is reason to risk his career as he has.

I have no direct evidence of this statement either, but my guess revolves around Huma sharing confidential material with her husband.

We'll see next week I think.

You know he may just be honouring his promise to Congress and immediately providing updates as he gets them.
It's become clear that he has no idea what the content actually is - so it's not possible to conclude anything other than what he said... that the new emails may be pertinent.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
The case can be re-opened if new evidence is discovered.

Which are the new emails.

That's the only connection to a server.

Ever feel like you're shouting from the side-lines?

LOL.

What do you think about Huma's culpability?

a reply to: UKTruth

Agreed still.

I was enjoying having at least one Republican that I had some respect for ... I do hope he manages to pull out of this.

I wouldn't bet on it, though.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: imwilliam

No, it's not "picking at nits," indeed, because the material on the server DIDN'T only involve Clinton!!!

I'm so glad to see there are still ATSers who can read and have interest in discussing the facts of a given matter.

Restores a tiny molecule of faith in humanity, LOL.

If I understand the logic behind Comey's initial decision that there was no "intent" to distribute confidential information outside of a framework of those with appropriate credentials, then the content of these emails becomes VERY relevant if it is shown for example, that Huma Abedin shared information, directly or inadvertently, with her husband.

THAT is criminal intent.

Just to nit pick

Intent could not be proven. He did not say there was no intent.
As for Huma - if she did share confidential information with an unauthorised person then she will likely go to jail. That is going to hurt Hillary too. It will not play well to her judgement on the people she surrounds herself with.

Gross negligence doesn't need intent.

That whole "intent" is BS.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: imwilliam

No, it's not "picking at nits," indeed, because the material on the server DIDN'T only involve Clinton!!!

I'm so glad to see there are still ATSers who can read and have interest in discussing the facts of a given matter.

Restores a tiny molecule of faith in humanity, LOL.

If I understand the logic behind Comey's initial decision that there was no "intent" to distribute confidential information outside of a framework of those with appropriate credentials, then the content of these emails becomes VERY relevant if it is shown for example, that Huma Abedin shared information, directly or inadvertently, with her husband.

THAT is criminal intent.

Just to nit pick

Intent could not be proven. He did not say there was no intent.
As for Huma - if she did share confidential information with an unauthorised person then she will likely go to jail. That is going to hurt Hillary too. It will not play well to her judgement on the people she surrounds herself with.

Gross negligence doesn't need intent.

That whole "intent" is BS.

Sure ...

It's just, you know, a vital aspect not only of the wording of the releavant law but of a century of jurisprudence.

I'm sure "you're" right though.

Regarding "intent" and the statute:

The law doesn't require "intent"

"It's a complicated matter," Comey said of why Clinton could not be charged with violating a federal law that makes it a crime to exhibit gross negligence in handling classified information — regardless of intent.

But the law is shaky for the very reason that it doesn't require intent, so it might be unconstitutional:

The statute was passed in 1917, without a "great definition" for "gross negligence," he said, and even then lawmakers had "a lot of concern ... whether that was going to violate the American tradition of requiring that before you go and lock somebody up, you proved they knew they were doing something wrong."

Nevertheless, Justice Department officials — through Republican and Democratic administrations — have long had "grave concerns" that the law is "invalid" and would be challenged on constitutional grounds if used to bring charges again, Comey insisted.

"For 99 years, they've been very worried about its constitutionality," he said.

Source


So "intent" isn't necessary under the statute, but there's doubt about whether the statute would survive a constitutional challenge. Interestingly enough, I believe that the Supreme Court as decided that "intent" is no longer necessary if the penalty for the violation of a stature is less than one year in jail. But that's another thread.

I think Huma could argue that she had no intent, even if she sent the emails to Wiener, but I see her having to mount a constitutional challenge to the law itself, (or just convince prosecutors she's practically capable of it), before she or anyone else could claim lack of intent as a defense. Clearly Hillary has the resources to mount such a challenge, Huma, if Clinton doesn't' back her, maybe not so much

When he concluded there was no basis to recommend indictment, many on the right declared he was in Clinton's pocket. Now that he has informed congress of additional information and that they will be parsing it, some on the left are suggesting this is a GOP machanation to hurt her candidacy.

Honestly - and I could as always be 100% wrong, as I'm sure we can all agree I'm not psychic and have no authoritative insight into anyone's mind or motives - I just see someone trying to do their job and caught in the middle of an incredibly unusual election cycle between two unprecedentedly polarized sides of the isle.

If he were trying to protect Clinton, why take the unprecedented step of publicly censuring her the way he did? And if his goal was to hurt her irrespective of whether there was a prosecutable case, why wouldn't he simply recommend indictment? It likely wouldn't have been successfully prosecuted, for all the jurisprudence and precedent reasons he cited, but it certainly would have hurt her campaign to be indicted regardless of whether it went anywhere.

The most I can say about him is that he's taken some nontraditional, unprecedented steps, but my assessment - which again, could be wrong - is that he's, from his point of view, trying to be fair and just do his job. The fact that both sides have had cause to complain loudly about him, to me, is evidence of that.

Peace.

Funny how many posts say 'prove this is about hillary' . We don't know if it's about HER but we don't know if it's not about HER. No one does so how can anyone prove that at this moment? It's either about her or it is not. So with a non scientific guess, I would say there is a 50% chance is it about her. All we know, IIRC, is that she did not send or recieve the emails in question. Right?
All we can do is hide and watch.
I really like the theory that Huma may have kept some emails as leverage for a later date. I find that the most likely scenario. If the only thing that comes from this is removing Huma from Camp Clinton, that will be a good thing. I dislike the idea of her around so much power.

a reply to: IAMTAT

YES! Awesome!

An interesting observation.

I have the tv on, and it showed Hillary up 6% in a North Carolina poll.

Maybe people want a president like Hillary.

(shake my head at the whole crazy world)

a reply to: imwilliam

Let's make sure we're singing from the same hymnal ... (good work and thought by the way) we are taking about www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
An interesting observation.

I have the tv on, and it showed Hillary up 6% in a North Carolina poll.

Maybe people want a president like Hillary.

(shake my head at the whole crazy world)

If it makes you feel any better, maybe some don't:

However, the early voting largely occurred before FBI Director James Comey stunned the country by sending Congress a letter October 28 saying that the FBI was reviewing a new cache of emails found in an unrelated investigation (it turns out to be the Anthony Weiner sexting investigation). Comey wrote that the agency wants to see whether they are significant to the agency’s previous investigation into Clinton’s email server. Some have criticized Comey’s decision to release the letter, and Clinton has demanded the FBI provide more details. A few states allow people to change early votes and are reporting some people are doing so.

Link

a reply to: UKTruth

If that email Huma sent went through Hilary's email server what do you think will happen? Who is responsible for the server?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

I hope to goodness sakes that there is something of relevance there. Still assuming good intent on the part of Jim Comey, I HOPE that there is reason to risk his career as he has.

I have no direct evidence of this statement either, but my guess revolves around Huma sharing confidential material with her husband.

We'll see next week I think.

You know he may just be honouring his promise to Congress and immediately providing updates as he gets them.
It's become clear that he has no idea what the content actually is - so it's not possible to conclude anything other than what he said... that the new emails may be pertinent.

You are correct! Why people don't understand this is kind of stupid. If you inform someone of a situation and then inform them that it has been resolved...why wouldn't you inform the same someone if it was again opened?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Clinton has always been up in NC according to polls. However her lead was as much as 10 points in NC which would indicate her grasp is slipping. 6% is also only one poll. The RCP average is 3% which is within the margin of error.

Right now every major poll has them statistically tied nationwide.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Soooo ... anyone find any source yet that proves that these emails under current discussion have anything to do with Hillary Clinton?

That is, after all, the nominal subject here.

Distractions aside.

So, anyone?

Like I said, Comey has made it clear they could be pertinent. To actually see whether it furthers the criminal case against Hillary Clinton, we'll need to wait till he and his team review the emails.

You won't have to wait long. My guess is Mon-Wed of next week. Care to make a guess yourself?

Depends on how many emails... reports are 'thousands' but not confirmed. If it is thousands then it will not be resolved before the election.

Since there are many thousands of e-mails, and HUMA is saying that she doesn't know how they got on her laptop..

Huma says: www.foxnews.com...

Ha! She learned that from Hillary. (It worked, didn't it!)

There will need to be document, electronic hardware, and personal interview subpoenas issued as people dummy up and deflect.. Right?

a reply to: raymundoko

Thank you for the clarification.

originally posted by: schmae
Funny how many posts say 'prove this is about hillary' . We don't know if it's about HER but we don't know if it's not about HER. No one does so how can anyone prove that at this moment? It's either about her or it is not. So with a non scientific guess, I would say there is a 50% chance is it about her. All we know, IIRC, is that she did not send or recieve the emails in question. Right?
All we can do is hide and watch.
I really like the theory that Huma may have kept some emails as leverage for a later date. I find that the most likely scenario. If the only thing that comes from this is removing Huma from Camp Clinton, that will be a good thing. I dislike the idea of her around so much power.

I think it is very important to add this caveat:
Because the source is Huma Abedin's email we know that emails received were to her and emails sent were from her i.e. not Hillary Clinton. It does not mean the emails received by Abedin were not from Hillary and it does not mean she did not send emails to Clinton. We'll have to wait for that information.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: DBCowboy

Clinton has always been up in NC according to polls. However her lead was as much as 10 points in NC which would indicate her grasp is slipping. 6% is also only one poll. The RCP average is 3% which is within the margin of error.

Right now every major poll has them statistically tied nationwide.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

There are no polls post the Friday announcement showing up at RCP yet.
The last in NC is Clinton + 3 (up to the 27th) and the average is Clinton +2.5.

a reply to: UKTruth

i can guarantee you if there are emails to and from Abedin there are emails from Clinton on that computer.....why? because these are the idiots that were using gmail and even Obama was emailing Clinton on a non state dpt domain.