BREAKING: Clinton Email Case Just Reopened!

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: UKTruth

I can't find words. I read the first few sentences of the article and had to close the page.

There is definitely a growing schism in how people process and perceive events. The actual action and source of the non-physical mind/mental forces interfacing with the limited physical brain and in what way (which parts of the brain are being activated to process information) has been/is being "reworked" in a percentage of the population. I've been thinking a lot about this. It is very serious and glaringly apparent in my view but it's off topic so I'll stop there.

That might be why there are so many "Mandella" threads all of a sudden.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You made a claim that 122 people fled the county because Hillary Clinton, somehow, made them break the law, and they had to flee in order to protect her, or to avoid prison.

You have not sourced that claim!

Huma Abedin statement through her lawyers:

A lawyer for top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin said Monday that Abedin did not know that her emails were on a computer that belonged to her estranged husband, disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner. In a statement, attorney Karen Dunn, who has also been a Clinton adviser, said that Abedin,

"only learned for the first time on Friday, from press reports, of the possibility that a laptop belonging to Mr. Weiner could contain emails of hers." Law enforcement officials previously told NBC News that Abedin used the laptop to send thousands of emails to Clinton. Dunn said that the FBI had not contacted them about the issue, though she added that "Ms. Abedin will continue to be, as she always has been, forthcoming and cooperative." "From the beginning, Ms. Abedin has complied fully and voluntarily with State Department and law enforcement requests, including sitting for hours-long interviews and providing her work-related and potentially work-related documents," Dunn said. "Ms. Abedin's willing cooperation has been praised by Members of Congress and law enforcement officials alike," Dunn said.

She is playing the "I didn't know" card, which she hopes, I guess, will only be viewed as "extremely careless". I didn't know and I don't remember seem to be good excuses these days.

This was just posted on Twitter..... the very same day as New York Times breaks the story on Hillarys email server, Podesta in clear words write to the other campaign people that they "have to dump those emails so better to do sooner than later".

We got him... criminal intent.

pbs.twimg.com...

Email: 41841

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
So the FBI reopens a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and the defence is a combination of :

1) Comey broke the law.
2) Trump is working with Putin.
3) The Republicans are working with the KGB.
4) Comey is now partisan, when he wasn't before.
5) None of it is Hillary's fault and nothing is in the emails as they are all duplicates.

..and the 'right-wingers' are accused of being conspiracy theorists nut jobs.

It seems the inversion of reality continues unabated.

Really? They re-open an investigation that had already cleared Hillary and you've already convicted her. Talk about jumping the gun.

What defence is needed, nothing has come out yet, your talking rubbish as usual. The 5 points you've made are no defences, they are separate issues, how can you defend something that hasn't happened yet?

I actually haven't convicted her. The FBI have reopened the criminal investigation. We'll have to wait to see whether she goes to jail.
All the 'separate issues' mentioned have come up in response to questions about the FBI investigation, so yes, they are defences. Very bad ones aimed at deflecting, but defences nonetheless.

Except your not "waiting and seeing" you've already made up your mind.

This isn't 162 pages of people saying, "lets wait and see" its 162 pages of people saying she should now be jailed.

What are they defending? Stop talking BS.

99.9% chance there is emails that will finish Hillary 2016.... do the math.

That's not math, that's opinion.

The opinion is that out of 650,000 emails, if just 65 contain either previously unseen work related or classified emails. Clinton through.

IF just 1% of 1% of those 650,000 emails are Hillary related and meet the criteria above, Clinton is finished..good times


Glad you are taking the stance that there is a 0.01% chance nothing involves Clinton.

Why 65? What the hell are you talking about?

Why if 1% or any percent of those emails are Hillary related would that mean she is through?

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
So the FBI reopens a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and the defence is a combination of :

1) Comey broke the law.
2) Trump is working with Putin.
3) The Republicans are working with the KGB.
4) Comey is now partisan, when he wasn't before.
5) None of it is Hillary's fault and nothing is in the emails as they are all duplicates.

..and the 'right-wingers' are accused of being conspiracy theorists nut jobs.

It seems the inversion of reality continues unabated.

Really? They re-open an investigation that had already cleared Hillary and you've already convicted her. Talk about jumping the gun.

What defence is needed, nothing has come out yet, your talking rubbish as usual. The 5 points you've made are no defences, they are separate issues, how can you defend something that hasn't happened yet?

I actually haven't convicted her. The FBI have reopened the criminal investigation. We'll have to wait to see whether she goes to jail.
All the 'separate issues' mentioned have come up in response to questions about the FBI investigation, so yes, they are defences. Very bad ones aimed at deflecting, but defences nonetheless.

Except your not "waiting and seeing" you've already made up your mind.

This isn't 162 pages of people saying, "lets wait and see" its 162 pages of people saying she should now be jailed.

What are they defending? Stop talking BS.

99.9% chance there is emails that will finish Hillary 2016.... do the math.

That's not math, that's opinion.

The opinion is that out of 650,000 emails, if just 65 contain either previously unseen work related or classified emails. Clinton through.

IF just 1% of 1% of those 650,000 emails are Hillary related and meet the criteria above, Clinton is finished..good times


Glad you are taking the stance that there is a 0.01% chance nothing involves Clinton.

Why 65? What the hell are you talking about?

Why if 1% or any percent of those emails are Hillary related would that mean she is through?

Again, if any of the emails contain work previously unseen work related or classified information, Hillary is through. The political fallout will end it. Period.

originally posted by: flice
This was just posted on Twitter..... the very same day as New York Times breaks the story on Hillarys email server, Podesta in clear words write to the other campaign people that they "have to dump those emails so better to do sooner than later".

We got him... criminal intent.

pbs.twimg.com...

Email: 41841

criminal intent?.....no there isn't, because you have no idea, and no proof, of exactly WHAT e-mails he was talking about...

originally posted by: flice
This was just posted on Twitter..... the very same day as New York Times breaks the story on Hillarys email server, Podesta in clear words write to the other campaign people that they "have to dump those emails so better to do sooner than later".

We got him... criminal intent.

pbs.twimg.com...

Email: 41841

That's intent to obstruct rather than intent relating to the security of classified information.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
So the FBI reopens a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and the defence is a combination of :

1) Comey broke the law.
2) Trump is working with Putin.
3) The Republicans are working with the KGB.
4) Comey is now partisan, when he wasn't before.
5) None of it is Hillary's fault and nothing is in the emails as they are all duplicates.

..and the 'right-wingers' are accused of being conspiracy theorists nut jobs.

It seems the inversion of reality continues unabated.

Really? They re-open an investigation that had already cleared Hillary and you've already convicted her. Talk about jumping the gun.

What defence is needed, nothing has come out yet, your talking rubbish as usual. The 5 points you've made are no defences, they are separate issues, how can you defend something that hasn't happened yet?

I actually haven't convicted her. The FBI have reopened the criminal investigation. We'll have to wait to see whether she goes to jail.
All the 'separate issues' mentioned have come up in response to questions about the FBI investigation, so yes, they are defences. Very bad ones aimed at deflecting, but defences nonetheless.

Except your not "waiting and seeing" you've already made up your mind.

This isn't 162 pages of people saying, "lets wait and see" its 162 pages of people saying she should now be jailed.

What are they defending? Stop talking BS.

99.9% chance there is emails that will finish Hillary 2016.... do the math.

That's not math, that's opinion.

The opinion is that out of 650,000 emails, if just 65 contain either previously unseen work related or classified emails. Clinton through.

IF just 1% of 1% of those 650,000 emails are Hillary related and meet the criteria above, Clinton is finished..good times


Glad you are taking the stance that there is a 0.01% chance nothing involves Clinton.

Why 65? What the hell are you talking about?

Why if 1% or any percent of those emails are Hillary related would that mean she is through?

Again, if any of the emails contain work previously unseen work related or classified information, Hillary is through. The political fallout will end it. Period.

That will be one of the key things to find out. Are there emails that are work related and classified that were not turned over? We'll see. Even then I think the nature of any such information will be important as Comey already found out last time that Hillary had failed to hand over work related emails, some of which were classified.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
So the FBI reopens a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and the defence is a combination of :

1) Comey broke the law.
2) Trump is working with Putin.
3) The Republicans are working with the KGB.
4) Comey is now partisan, when he wasn't before.
5) None of it is Hillary's fault and nothing is in the emails as they are all duplicates.

..and the 'right-wingers' are accused of being conspiracy theorists nut jobs.

It seems the inversion of reality continues unabated.

Really? They re-open an investigation that had already cleared Hillary and you've already convicted her. Talk about jumping the gun.

What defence is needed, nothing has come out yet, your talking rubbish as usual. The 5 points you've made are no defences, they are separate issues, how can you defend something that hasn't happened yet?

I actually haven't convicted her. The FBI have reopened the criminal investigation. We'll have to wait to see whether she goes to jail.
All the 'separate issues' mentioned have come up in response to questions about the FBI investigation, so yes, they are defences. Very bad ones aimed at deflecting, but defences nonetheless.

Except your not "waiting and seeing" you've already made up your mind.

This isn't 162 pages of people saying, "lets wait and see" its 162 pages of people saying she should now be jailed.

What are they defending? Stop talking BS.

99.9% chance there is emails that will finish Hillary 2016.... do the math.

That's not math, that's opinion.

The opinion is that out of 650,000 emails, if just 65 contain either previously unseen work related or classified emails. Clinton through.

IF just 1% of 1% of those 650,000 emails are Hillary related and meet the criteria above, Clinton is finished..good times


Glad you are taking the stance that there is a 0.01% chance nothing involves Clinton.

Why 65? What the hell are you talking about?

Why if 1% or any percent of those emails are Hillary related would that mean she is through?

Again, if any of the emails contain work previously unseen work related or classified information, Hillary is through. The political fallout will end it. Period.

Why? Are you just repeating that because you want it to be true?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: flice
This was just posted on Twitter..... the very same day as New York Times breaks the story on Hillarys email server, Podesta in clear words write to the other campaign people that they "have to dump those emails so better to do sooner than later".

We got him... criminal intent.

pbs.twimg.com...

Email: 41841

That's intent to obstruct rather than intent relating to the security of classified information.

Yes which means Podesta should go to jail, along with those carrying out his wish. He needs to be put away as much as Hillary. We might as well take as many of them down as possible. Worry about the aftermath later on.

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
So the FBI reopens a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and the defence is a combination of :

1) Comey broke the law.
2) Trump is working with Putin.
3) The Republicans are working with the KGB.
4) Comey is now partisan, when he wasn't before.
5) None of it is Hillary's fault and nothing is in the emails as they are all duplicates.

..and the 'right-wingers' are accused of being conspiracy theorists nut jobs.

It seems the inversion of reality continues unabated.

Really? They re-open an investigation that had already cleared Hillary and you've already convicted her. Talk about jumping the gun.

Yes. If you know anything about law enforcement at any level that is exactly what they do (and should) when presented with new evidence.

New evidence. Remember that?

If the FBI did not re-open an investigation after finding new evidence then *that* would be a cover-up and a crime.

I'm really surprised you don't know this, as it is a standard practice of law enforcement world-wide....

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
So the FBI reopens a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and the defence is a combination of :

1) Comey broke the law.
2) Trump is working with Putin.
3) The Republicans are working with the KGB.
4) Comey is now partisan, when he wasn't before.
5) None of it is Hillary's fault and nothing is in the emails as they are all duplicates.

..and the 'right-wingers' are accused of being conspiracy theorists nut jobs.

It seems the inversion of reality continues unabated.

Really? They re-open an investigation that had already cleared Hillary and you've already convicted her. Talk about jumping the gun.

Yes. If you know anything about law enforcement at any level that is exactly what they do (and should) when presented with new evidence.

New evidence. Remember that?

If the FBI did not re-open an investigation after finding new evidence then *that* would be a cover-up and a crime.

I'm really surprised you don't know this, as it is a standard practice of law enforcement world-wide....

Are you saying that its correct that she should be convicted already before this new evidence has been evaluated.

Or did you mis-read my post? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I was saying the wrong thing is to convict her (which many in this thread have already done) and not that its wrong to re-open. In fact I've previously posted that this was pretty much the only option and timing is just unfortunate for both parties.

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
So the FBI reopens a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and the defence is a combination of :

1) Comey broke the law.
2) Trump is working with Putin.
3) The Republicans are working with the KGB.
4) Comey is now partisan, when he wasn't before.
5) None of it is Hillary's fault and nothing is in the emails as they are all duplicates.

..and the 'right-wingers' are accused of being conspiracy theorists nut jobs.

It seems the inversion of reality continues unabated.

Really? They re-open an investigation that had already cleared Hillary and you've already convicted her. Talk about jumping the gun.

Yes. If you know anything about law enforcement at any level that is exactly what they do (and should) when presented with new evidence.

New evidence. Remember that?

If the FBI did not re-open an investigation after finding new evidence then *that* would be a cover-up and a crime.

I'm really surprised you don't know this, as it is a standard practice of law enforcement world-wide....

Are you saying that its correct that she should be convicted already before this new evidence has been evaluated.

Or did you mis-read my post? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I was saying the wrong thing is to convict her (which many in this thread have already done) and not that its wrong to re-open. In fact I've previously posted that this was pretty much the only option and timing is just unfortunate for both parties.

Just so we're clear, you do not believe Hilary Clinton has done anything wrong? You do not see anything wrong with the pay-2-play state department / Clinton foundation? Nothing wrong with deleting 33K emails after you've received a subpoena? Nothing wrong with selling uranium to Russians all the while calling Trump a Russian plant? Where do you draw the line with her?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: flice
This was just posted on Twitter..... the very same day as New York Times breaks the story on Hillarys email server, Podesta in clear words write to the other campaign people that they "have to dump those emails so better to do sooner than later".

We got him... criminal intent.

pbs.twimg.com...

Email: 41841

That's intent to obstruct rather than intent relating to the security of classified information.

to obstruct?...obstruct what?....if it's private e-mails, or private democratic party e-mails, that's allowed. how about checking if the republican party or their representatives deliberately and criminally hacked into a private server run by the DNC.....that e-mail from Podesta you cited, says nothing about deleting government e-mails

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
So the FBI reopens a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and the defence is a combination of :

1) Comey broke the law.
2) Trump is working with Putin.
3) The Republicans are working with the KGB.
4) Comey is now partisan, when he wasn't before.
5) None of it is Hillary's fault and nothing is in the emails as they are all duplicates.

..and the 'right-wingers' are accused of being conspiracy theorists nut jobs.

It seems the inversion of reality continues unabated.

Really? They re-open an investigation that had already cleared Hillary and you've already convicted her. Talk about jumping the gun.

Yes. If you know anything about law enforcement at any level that is exactly what they do (and should) when presented with new evidence.

New evidence. Remember that?

If the FBI did not re-open an investigation after finding new evidence then *that* would be a cover-up and a crime.

I'm really surprised you don't know this, as it is a standard practice of law enforcement world-wide....

Are you saying that its correct that she should be convicted already before this new evidence has been evaluated.

Or did you mis-read my post? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I was saying the wrong thing is to convict her (which many in this thread have already done) and not that its wrong to re-open. In fact I've previously posted that this was pretty much the only option and timing is just unfortunate for both parties.

Just so we're clear, you do not believe Hilary Clinton has done anything wrong? You do not see anything wrong with the pay-2-play state department / Clinton foundation? Nothing wrong with deleting 33K emails after you've received a subpoena? Nothing wrong with selling uranium to Russians all the while calling Trump a Russian plant? Where do you draw the line with her?

Even if all those things were true, she's still a better option than Trump.

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
So the FBI reopens a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and the defence is a combination of :

1) Comey broke the law.
2) Trump is working with Putin.
3) The Republicans are working with the KGB.
4) Comey is now partisan, when he wasn't before.
5) None of it is Hillary's fault and nothing is in the emails as they are all duplicates.

..and the 'right-wingers' are accused of being conspiracy theorists nut jobs.

It seems the inversion of reality continues unabated.

Really? They re-open an investigation that had already cleared Hillary and you've already convicted her. Talk about jumping the gun.

Yes. If you know anything about law enforcement at any level that is exactly what they do (and should) when presented with new evidence.

New evidence. Remember that?

If the FBI did not re-open an investigation after finding new evidence then *that* would be a cover-up and a crime.

I'm really surprised you don't know this, as it is a standard practice of law enforcement world-wide....

Are you saying that its correct that she should be convicted already before this new evidence has been evaluated.

Or did you mis-read my post? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I was saying the wrong thing is to convict her (which many in this thread have already done) and not that its wrong to re-open. In fact I've previously posted that this was pretty much the only option and timing is just unfortunate for both parties.

I understand what you're saying - thx for clarifying.

But ultimately people are entitled to their opinion whether others like it or not.

Also what do you mean by convicted? Do you mean convicted criminally or convicted in the sense that they don't like her as a candidate and therefore aren't going to vote for her.

I'm genuinely curious - and thanks in advance.

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
So the FBI reopens a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and the defence is a combination of :

1) Comey broke the law.
2) Trump is working with Putin.
3) The Republicans are working with the KGB.
4) Comey is now partisan, when he wasn't before.
5) None of it is Hillary's fault and nothing is in the emails as they are all duplicates.

..and the 'right-wingers' are accused of being conspiracy theorists nut jobs.

It seems the inversion of reality continues unabated.

Really? They re-open an investigation that had already cleared Hillary and you've already convicted her. Talk about jumping the gun.

Yes. If you know anything about law enforcement at any level that is exactly what they do (and should) when presented with new evidence.

New evidence. Remember that?

If the FBI did not re-open an investigation after finding new evidence then *that* would be a cover-up and a crime.

I'm really surprised you don't know this, as it is a standard practice of law enforcement world-wide....

Are you saying that its correct that she should be convicted already before this new evidence has been evaluated.

Or did you mis-read my post? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I was saying the wrong thing is to convict her (which many in this thread have already done) and not that its wrong to re-open. In fact I've previously posted that this was pretty much the only option and timing is just unfortunate for both parties.

Just so we're clear, you do not believe Hilary Clinton has done anything wrong? You do not see anything wrong with the pay-2-play state department / Clinton foundation? Nothing wrong with deleting 33K emails after you've received a subpoena? Nothing wrong with selling uranium to Russians all the while calling Trump a Russian plant? Where do you draw the line with her?

Even if all those things were true, she's still a better option than Trump.

You must have your head in the sand. Even if they were true? Come on, are you paying attention or just listening to what Hilary herself has to say?

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: flice
This was just posted on Twitter..... the very same day as New York Times breaks the story on Hillarys email server, Podesta in clear words write to the other campaign people that they "have to dump those emails so better to do sooner than later".

We got him... criminal intent.

pbs.twimg.com...

Email: 41841

That's intent to obstruct rather than intent relating to the security of classified information.

to obstruct?...obstruct what?....if it's private e-mails, or private democratic party e-mails, that's allowed. how about checking if the republican party or their representatives deliberately and criminally hacked into a private server run by the DNC.....that e-mail from Podesta you cited, says nothing about deleting government e-mails

Depends on timing. I think it's pretty obvious that Podesta was worried about the emails after the story broke and wanted them deleted in case they came to light, or should we pretend it could have been something else and all very innocent?

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: UKTruth
So the FBI reopens a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and the defence is a combination of :

1) Comey broke the law.
2) Trump is working with Putin.
3) The Republicans are working with the KGB.
4) Comey is now partisan, when he wasn't before.
5) None of it is Hillary's fault and nothing is in the emails as they are all duplicates.

..and the 'right-wingers' are accused of being conspiracy theorists nut jobs.

It seems the inversion of reality continues unabated.

Really? They re-open an investigation that had already cleared Hillary and you've already convicted her. Talk about jumping the gun.

Yes. If you know anything about law enforcement at any level that is exactly what they do (and should) when presented with new evidence.

New evidence. Remember that?

If the FBI did not re-open an investigation after finding new evidence then *that* would be a cover-up and a crime.

I'm really surprised you don't know this, as it is a standard practice of law enforcement world-wide....

Are you saying that its correct that she should be convicted already before this new evidence has been evaluated.

Or did you mis-read my post? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I was saying the wrong thing is to convict her (which many in this thread have already done) and not that its wrong to re-open. In fact I've previously posted that this was pretty much the only option and timing is just unfortunate for both parties.

Just so we're clear, you do not believe Hilary Clinton has done anything wrong? You do not see anything wrong with the pay-2-play state department / Clinton foundation? Nothing wrong with deleting 33K emails after you've received a subpoena? Nothing wrong with selling uranium to Russians all the while calling Trump a Russian plant? Where do you draw the line with her?

Even if all those things were true, she's still a better option than Trump.

I genuinely feel sorry for the Hillary Clinton supporters at this point.

If the best argument for a candidate is that they somehow suck less than the other guy - that's a long way from where HRC was a few months ago.

And PS - I don't like Trump either. I'm praying HRC is convinced to drop out of the race for some "reason" so that the DNC can run Bernie Sanders as the Dem candidate. He'd win in a landslide - and ppl would feel good about voting again too.