
FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote - uptown
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/fbi-is-re-opening-clinton-e-mail-investigation-chaffetz-says
======
gthtjtkt
As much as I would like this to be true, I think that's a pretty biased
interpretation of his letter.

My reading would be this: "We found some new emails. They're relevant, but we
don't know if they're important. We're looking into it."

What I find interesting is the timing of this letter and, possibly, _the fact
that he wrote it at all_. But we can't judge the significance of those without
knowing if this is standard procedure. For all we know, he may regularly send
letters that say things like "I spelled a word wrong on page 875 of our
report. Agents are looking into correcting it and resubmitting the report."

Or this type of letter could be highly unusual, especially days before a
presidential election.

Either way, he had to know Chaffetz would be shouting this from the top of a
mountain...

~~~
downandout
So on the timing....there's an interesting backstory here. James Comey was a
lifelong Republican until this year [1]. He appears to be a Republican in the
"never Trump" camp. Prior to the public disclosure of Comey's recommendation
that Clinton not be prosecuted, Loretta Lynch publicly stated that she would
try to appear impartial by going with whatever the FBI recommended. This
effectively put Comey - a "never Trump" man - in the position of appointing
the next President of the United States. If he had elected to recommend
prosecution, Trump was the guaranteed winner. If he didn't, most realized that
Clinton would beat Trump.

Perhaps this "reopening" is more the result of an attack of conscience than of
the significance of any new information. It's possible that this is a
halfhearted attempt to do what many legal experts considered to be the right
thing in the first place.

[1] [http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-
testimony/2016/07/...](http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-
testimony/2016/07/what-party-is-james-comey-registered-as-225223)

~~~
xenadu02
Which legal experts?

The relevant laws are clear as to what happens. It is the CIO responsible for
the individual department who is required to regulate the use of IT resources.
It would have been their responsibility to tell Clinton specifically that she
wasn't allowed to use the server then cite her if she continued. That didn't
happen so she's completely in the clear. The law even allows the CIO leeway to
allow things contrary to policy under certain conditions (though I don't think
that was done in this case).

The law doesn't provide for felony prosecution for using personal IT
resources, no matter how much some people want that to be true for politically
convenient reasons. The same people crying about Clinton would reject the
charges out of hand if it were their favored political candidate.

In the end she didn't do anything morally wrong which is why this whole email
thing has been one big nothing-burger. Everyone has had to fight corporate
IT's outdated and stupid policies at one time or another and almost all of us
have subverted those policies to get our jobs done.

The only reason we even know about this is because she disclosed it. Colin
Powell and Condoleza Rice both used private email servers. So did the entire
Bush administration. When confronted with requests for the data they just
nuked it from orbit and no one gave a shit. Suddenly it's a huge scandal! The
crime of the century!

Trump has violated tax law by using is "charitable" foundation as a piggy
bank. I'm not calling for an investigation and prosecution of him because
that's banana republic territory.

~~~
downandout
Ok, so I'll put aside for a moment the fact that she lied directly to the FBI
when the _former Secretary of State_ told them that she didn't know that "C"
meant classified, along with the myriad criminal pay-to-play issues that the
FBI has simply ignored, both of which are slam-dunk federal felony cases. The
law provides for criminal charges when someone uses gross negligence in the
mishandling of classified materials - no intent required. According to Comey
himself, her conduct actually met the legal definition of gross negligence. He
just didn't want to use the gross negligence statute instead of the statute
that requires intent because it would have handed Trump the presidency.

~~~
dragonwriter
(C), as a portion marker in a classified document (which it would properly
only occur in if the document itself was at least as highly classified, with
banners marking the classification in full words) means "confidential", not
"classified". In email, the banner text is placed at the top and bottom of the
body (the subject line of a classified email is portion marked to indicate the
classification status -- including (U) for unclassified if that applies -- of
the _subject line itself_.) [0] Any place that portion markers are properly
used, the whole containing document is clearly marked as classified with a
specific level, and the whole content -- other than parts portion-marked as
unclassified -- is classified.

It's kind of funny how the majority of the people who mock Clinton over this
get it wrong themselves.

And also omit the context, which was a (C) used in an email which had neither
a portion marker in the header (as all classified emails should) nor
classification banners. In that context, I think mlet's actually pretty
reasonable to have no idea that a parenthetical (C) on a paragraph was
intended as a portion marker of classification level.

[0]
[http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/Marking_Classified_Inform...](http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/Marking_Classified_Information.pdf)

~~~
downandout
I apparently used the wrong word in my comment (Clasified vs Confidential),
but regardless, she claimed that she didn't know what it meant. I'm not the
former Secretary of State, so my gaff is understandable. Hillary Clinton,
however, _is_ the former Secretary of State, and undoubtedly received
extensive training in these matters. That means she either lied or has some
kind of mental defect that made her unable to remember some of the most
critical training that she received during her tenure. Either of those are
disqualifiers for the Presidency in my opinion.

~~~
dragonwriter
No, she said she didn't know what it was intended to mean _in the email in
question_ , which had neither classification banners nor a portion marker on
the subject line.

It's perfectly reasonable to not know that a lone parenthetical letter at the
start of a paragraph in an email that is not itself marked as classified is
intended as a classification portion marker. Because parenthetical letters
have many uses in general written communication, and there special use as
portion markers is specific to documents that are classified as a whole, which
there are standard ways of marking.

~~~
downandout
Once again, we are talking about the _former Secretary of State_ and
_government emails_. In that context, it is not reasonable for her to claim
that she wouldn't have applied her intimate knowledge of the indicators of
classified/confidential materials to the email in question. We won't agree on
this, at least until after the election when perhaps many Clinton supporters
like yourself will be free to acknowledge simple, unassailable facts about
your candidate.

~~~
dragonwriter
Most government emails are not classified. Outside of a classified context,
parenthetical letters have the full take off uses they have in general English
communication, especially the use that Clinton suggested was the only one that
came to mind in the context of the email in question.

Without any of the indications that should have been present indicating that
the email itself was classified, there's little radon to think a stay
parenthetical (C) is intended as a portion marker.

Clinton didn't say she didn't know what (C) meant as a portion marker (which
would be worthy of mockery) , she said she didn't know that the (C) in an
email lacking any indication that it was a classified document was intended to
have the special meaning that (C) has within a classified document.

~~~
downandout
_> Most government emails are not classified._

I would guess that a significant percentage of State Department emails to and
from the Secretary of State are at least confidential. Again, we won't agree
on this until after the election when Clinton supporters like yourself are
able to undertake an honest assessment of their new President without Trump in
the picture. She lied, she will very likely continue lying, and given the
history of the Clinton family, the odds are overwhelmingly high that this will
be far from the most significant scandal overshadowing her
candidacy/Presidency.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I would guess that a significant percentage of State Department emails to
> and from the Secretary of State are at least confidential

Probably, so? The fact that it's a mixed environment means that it's a code
switching situation, which means that the indicators that a particular context
is in play are critical. There's a reason that classified documents have
banners (and though it's not the purpose of portion marking email subject
lines to serve as a "this document is classified" flag, it probably in
practice schedule at least as useful as a code switching trigger as proper
banners.

> Again, we won't agree on this until after the election when Clinton
> supporters like yourself are able to undertake an honest assessment of their
> new President

We won't agree on _this_ question even then. I mean, my position on the emails
in general or this particular point hasn't changed since I was a vociferous
opponent of Clinton in the primary, I don't see why it would even if I became
entirely disenchanted with her performance in office.

I suspect you're projecting from the fact that your reaction is based on your
prefered electoral outcome to assume the same must be true of anyone who
disagrees with you as well.

~~~
downandout
I would prefer that neither of them win. Certainly we can do better than this.

------
sp332
Here is the actual letter. Note the FBI does not say they are "re-opening"
anything.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv3vbcHXgAAMdPE.jpg:orig](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv3vbcHXgAAMdPE.jpg:orig)

~~~
dsp1234
The letter states "referred to the fact that the FBI had completed it's
investigation". Then the letter states "I agreed that the FBI should take
appropriate investigative steps designed to allow.... whether they contain
classified information".

In plain English, the case was closed, but now there is new evidence and we're
investigating it. Sounds like 're-opening' to me.

~~~
o0-0o
They are in fact re-opening so they can ammend the findings. If it is
determined that new emails warrant charges, she may be charged.

The real news story here is that this is what everyone will be talking about
for the next weekend, that's three days, with a response by her on Monday. So,
maybe four days. That's more than 30% of the remaining election cycle.

As Trump would say. This is big league.

~~~
triangleman
Normally Friday is a classic "dumping bad news" day because most people don't
watch the news on weekends.

------
thecrow1213
Oh my god everyone here is splitting hairs like the rest of the goddamn
internet.

The FBI is looking at more Clinton emails. That sounds shady and bad for
Clinton no matter how you swing it.

~~~
drewrv
She could hire someone to walk her dog and 40% of the country would consider
it scandalous and criminal.

~~~
gragas
You're dramatically downplaying the things HRC has been implicated in. It's
almost as if you've already made up your mind that she's not guilty of
anything.

~~~
drewrv
33 congressional hearings and $7 million were spent on the whole Benghazi
thing, and what did it prove? Obviously she should have supported the
ambassador better but hindsight is 20/20\.
[http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/house-select-
committe...](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/house-select-committee-
benghazi-report)

Then there's the accusation that she rigged the primary, despite the fact that
she had nothing to do with that. It was on the DNC.

Or there was the "scandal" about how her staff was smashing cell phones. It's
a legit and basically mundane data security procedure.
[https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-
pho...](https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-phones-
better/)

People scream scandal at her over mundane stuff or stuff she has nothing to do
with all the time. It's absurd.

~~~
dreta
She ran a private e-mail server for top-secret communication while in office.
DNC rigged the primary in her favour, and you’re suggesting she had nothing to
do with that. Who’s being absurd here.

------
mzw_mzw
That was a very strange article with all the near-wishful "igniting
speculation about a Clinton defeat" stuff. The whole emails issue has been
inside baseball, politics-wise. Insiders and pundits love yelling about it but
average voters either don't care (the vast majority) or have already assumed
she's guilty/not guilty and priced that into their vote. Reopening the
investigation is not going to change the election outcome.

~~~
Kenji
The e-mails should have put her in prison, and they would have put anyone else
in the same situation in prison. But you're right, with her being her, they're
a complete nonissue. They simply don't matter at all.

~~~
malchow
To be absolutely objective about it, there really _are_ people in prison for
doing with confidential state secrets what Secretary Clinton did with
confidential state secrets.

[1] [http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-
inves...](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-
investigation-hillary-clinton-223646)

~~~
jljljl
There's a few likely differences, although it's hard to tell from the limited
info in the Clinton case:

1) Saucier generated the classified information. He took the photos. I don't
think there was evidence the Clinton was knowingly sending classified
information to non-cleared individuals

2) Saucier himself deleted the files from his laptop after learning he was
under investigation. The FBI in Clinton's case determined that there was no
willful attempt to obstruct justice

3) The quantity and quality of the information likely differs. If the Clinton
emails contained photographs of classified military hardware, we'd probably
see more motion.

See Comey's quote comparing the Petraeus case to the Clinton case:

"So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct and a
vast quantity of information," Comey said. "He admitted he knew that was the
wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that
get prosecuted."

[http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-
hillary-c...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-hillary-
clinton-david-petraeus/)

~~~
jbermudes
Regarding #2, there's some circumstantial evidence that there was an attempt
to hide emails either through deleting them or not turning them over:

[https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/9272#efmBA7BOJ](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/9272#efmBA7BOJ)

~~~
jljljl
The FBI explicitly investigated whether there was an attempt to hide emails.
Here is Comey's statment:

> The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not
> individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those
> available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search
> terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than
> 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in
> 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related
> e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of
> other officials or in the slack space of a server.

> It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did
> not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now
> gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the
> lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic
> recovery.

> We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to
> understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not
> have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the
> electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been
> sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional
> misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

[http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-
hillary-c...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/james-comey-hillary-
clinton-david-petraeus/)

------
hackuser
To say the obvious: There is great risk of the FBI and/or Comey trying to
influence the outcome of the election. Earlier, when Comey said Clinton had
been "extremely careless", it seemed to overstep his bounds: He played judge
and jury, and convicted her without trial.

To do this two weeks before the election raises very serious questions about
the U.S.'s most fundamental institutions, rule of law, and democracy. Every
Democratic leader is subject to endless investigation and deligitimization.

EDIT: This is not a partisan concern. Everyone needs these institutions,
democracy and the rule of law.

~~~
jsprogrammer
I don't think you watched Comey's presentation. He said that Clinton should
not be prosecuted (ie. no conviction).

~~~
swissoak
He said he doesn't _recommend prosecution_ because he didn't believe there was
a _reasonable_ prosecutor that would do it. It's a huge load of horse shit.
Hillary got off because she's well connected, not because there wasn't a case.

~~~
jsprogrammer
"We are expressing to Justice, our view, that no charges are appropriate in
this case." \- Comey

------
danvoell
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of
emails" \- Sounds very happenstance. What are the odds something coincidental
happened two weeks before the election?

~~~
pwg
What is the probability that "an unrelated case" is political speak for
"wikileaks"?

~~~
nitrogen
Given the sheer number of cases and the government's prior willingness to name
and shame Wikileaks, I'd expect that probability to be low without further
evidence (high uncertainty remains).

~~~
mordocai
Would the FBI want to admit to the committee that wikileaks had data they
didn't unless they had to though?

------
downandout
Unless an indictment comes down before Election Day, I think it's probably too
late for this to have any material impact. Most likely Clinton voters aren't
actually Clinton voters - they are anti-Trump voters. An indictment prior to
the election would change things, but that will not happen. Clinton has almost
no chance of losing.

Once she wins, she will then either short circuit the investigation by forcing
Comey and anyone else associated with it to resign, or she will actually be
indicted and then she will pardon herself. For the record I believe that both
of the candidates are despicable human beings and either one will make the
worst President I have ever had in my lifetime, but we are almost certainly
stuck with Clinton for at least the next four years.

~~~
swissoak
I think the more likely situation is that Obama pardons her some time after
election day.

~~~
arzt
Is their a historical precedent for something like this? (ie sitting president
pardons incoming president?)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Not quite. There is precedent for the new president pardoning the _outgoing_
president, though - Ford pardoned Nixon for anything and everything Nixon had
done that was illegal during his term in office. That closed the book on
Watergate, but it arguably cost Ford the election to Carter.

------
danenania
Ok, so Hillary Clinton was and continues to be a corrupt, deceitful, and self-
interested operator. She's doubtlessly done all kinds of both borderline and
outright illegal things throughout her career. No big surprise here. If
elected, she will continue to work the highly imperfect system we've got in
lots of shady and questionable ways.

But please, let's get real. For all her numerous faults, her opponent
represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of
our free society.

Honestly, I hate to say this, but we are past the point of laws here and the
fairy tale than ANY sufficiently powerful person will be held accountable for
their misdeeds. I've never been one to buy the two-party lesser of evils
narrative, but we are really and truly at the edge of the cliff right now. Do
we let righteous indignation push us over the edge? Or do we live to fight
another day?

~~~
swissoak
>her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the
closing of our free society

Let me get this straight. Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic
process by having the DNC work against Sanders. We have concrete evidence of
her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting
our democratic process. She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people
responsible for running the voting process. She's sponsored by people who own
the voting machines. And not to mention that she has inarguably done highly
illegal things with her private email server and got off without charges,
showing the injustice of our two-tier criminal justice system.

edit: removed argument I rescind and check out this recording of Hillary that
came out today: [http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-
cl...](http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-
proposing-rigging-palestine-election/)

"That troubled me deeply. I do not think we should have pushed for an election
in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And...if we
were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did
something to determine who was going to win."

And Trump is the one threatening our democracy?

~~~
Delmania
> And Trump is the one threatening our democracy?

He has stated that if elected, he'll spend the first 100 days suing his
accusers.

He believes the press has too much freedom of speech.

He has claimed the election is rigged against him, and has all but told his
supporters to engage in vote suppression.

He has said he will attempt to force all Muslims to register into a database.

He has said he will ban all Muslims from entering the nation.

Would you like me to go? If you listen to his words at campaign rallies, they
bear a striking resemblance to fascist dictators on the rise.

Clinton may fit the mold of the "crooked Washington politician", but at the
least, she has a basic respect for democracy. Trump, on the other hand, would
attempt to utterly plow his way through our legal system for his own gain.

~~~
luxuryballs
The reason he said it was 'rigged' is because of the overwhelming bias and
frankly twilight-zone behavior of the media who are clearly donating to
Clinton and wanting to maintain whatever special privileges they have under
Obama.

We have a real problem with the press in this country... great example:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVsnMuaFjhE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVsnMuaFjhE)

~~~
Delmania
Yes, I've seen that interview, where Gingrinch accused Kelley of being
fascinated with sex and then attempted to use Bill Clinton's indiscretions as
some sort of way to discredit Hillary. This is after he talked to his exwife
about divorce while she was recovering from cancer and then later has an
affair. At that point, it was clear the interview served no useful purpose.

Additionally, all major media publications have come out in support of Trump
for the simple fact he has, in no way shape or form, demonstrated any
leadership capabilities. He tweeted at 3 am for days following the first
campaign about the Miss USA issue. How does demonstrate a steady hand and
patience?

~~~
swissoak
Oh no, he tweeted at 3AM. Obviously unqualified to be President.

Pathetic.

~~~
chris11
He tweeted at three a.m. that people should look for a non-existent sex tape
because he got his feelings hurt that a model he called fat was publicly
supporting Hillary.

I for one hope our president isn't concerned about how much models weigh. And
if they are, I hope they don't respond to criticism by slut-shaming that
person, especially for something they didn't do. So, no suggesting at 3 am
that people investigate the sex life of someone who attacked him isn't very
presidential.

~~~
swissoak
I'm more concerned about our President's view about foreign wars that kill
tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians, but I guess if you want to focus
on their tweets then go ahead.

~~~
chris11
I haven't gotten to a point where I can compare Clinton and Trump on policy.
First I don't think Trump really has consistent or in depth policy on
anything. Second, I just don't think Trump has the temperament or stability to
be President. I don't know why Trump would be better on foreign wars. But I
think foreign policy under a Trump presidency would be based entirely on
Trump's personal opinion.

Sure, tweets are inconsequential, and I think politics would be more
productive if disagreements focused on policy differences. But his words and
actions show that he's a really petty and shallow person. And he would be a
petty and shallow President. I don't think he really has many specific well
thought out plans he could actually implement.

------
Alex3917
The real question is whether this is because of the KimDotCom tweet, or
whether it's related to something in the Podesta emails or otherwise.

~~~
trendia
It would be rather funny if America's justice system is so inefficient that
one agency would have all of the evidence necessary for an investigation and
another would fail to at least _ask for it_.

~~~
ls66
Career government officials are not likely to be activist about
investigations. As with Clinton's denials, which are very passive and "I
didn't know" or didn't question something, one can cover oneself very well by
simply not offering anything or refusing to ask for something. Sins of
omission are much harder to prosecute.

------
tylerwhipple
What happens if they find her guilty after she is elected?

~~~
koolba
> What happens if they find her guilty after she is elected?

If it's before she takes office, Obama could pardon her. Would be a smear on
the end of his legacy but might a Nixon/Ford style situation to take the
personal hit and move the country forward.

If it's after she takes office, most likely impeachment or resignation. It'd
be very difficult govern as the chief executive if the country and world sees
you as a convicted criminal. Depending on how that plays out, Kaine would most
likely take over.

~~~
phd514
Obama pardoning Hillary would be very different than Ford's pardon of Nixon.
The latter allowed a disgraced politician who had resigned to leave Washington
without facing criminal prosecution. The former would allow a politician to
avoid prosecution and continue to take the office of President.

~~~
koolba
> Obama pardoning Hillary would be very different than Ford's pardon of Nixon.
> The latter allowed a disgraced politician who had resigned to leave
> Washington without facing criminal prosecution. The former would allow a
> politician to avoid prosecution and continue to take the office of
> President.

Based on my take of Obama as a person, I'm pretty sure he'd require her
stepping down as a condition of a pardon. Otherwise the public would question
her legitimacy for four years.

~~~
williamle8300
Nah. He'd let her stay probably. Obama would show up on Saturday Night Live
with Hillary and do something quirky. Boom. Nothing but net!

------
zellyn
This was the most interesting thing I've read recently about the emails:
[https://plus.google.com/+AndreasSchou/posts/66GZj3y6dWn](https://plus.google.com/+AndreasSchou/posts/66GZj3y6dWn)

------
dmode
The big problem with this announcement is that the letter only says "we found
some emails and we are reviewing". But in news cycle it will get translated to
a guilty verdict and possibly influence election outcome. Shouldn't they have
reviewed the emails to see if there is classified information before sending
out a letter like this ? Comey surely knew that this letter will be a big
deal.

~~~
skeptic2718
Does it matter if it had classified information or not when a high ranking
state official is using a personal private email server to bypass the official
one?

~~~
dmode
Using a private email server was the norm at state department. Collin Powell
used a private server and explained the benefits of it to Hillary Clinton. The
only reason this bubbled up top was due to the Bengazhi situation. Otherwise,
there would not even be an investigation on this.

~~~
poliwut
To provide some clarity about Powell:

1\. He used a personal, private email address--note a personal, private email
server.

2\. This was the norm to use a private address, yes. However, policies changed
after Powell left and no longer permitted this kind of behavior.

3\. Clinton and her staff blatantly ignored these policies and took it a step
further by using her own personal, private email server.

4\. Powell only used the email address to handle non-classified material.
Clinton handled classified material on her email server.

------
woodruffw
I find Comey's decision to _disclose_ this new investigation less than 2 weeks
from election day extremely perplexing.

By all means, perform your investigation, but to announce it immediately
before what's arguably one of the most important elections in modern US
history? If I were a paranoid man, I'd say that this looks like an attempt by
an unelected official to prejudice voters.

~~~
patrickmay
He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If there is a smoking gun in
the newly discovered emails and he said nothing until after the election, he
would be accused of manipulating it in that way.

~~~
woodruffw
That may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that HRC (or Trump, for that
matter) should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. As it currently
stands, an indictment hasn't even been _recommended_.

Under such circumstances, the exposure of a _search_ for a smoking gun is
suspect.

~~~
__abc
It's tough and I don't think it's so black and white, and ultimately depends
on "exactly" what they found.

Waiting until _after_ seems wrong, and I say this as someone who as it stands
is voting for HRC.

I honestly don't view this as influence, and more covering his ass, which has
me nervous for HRC.

~~~
woodruffw
If we _knew_ what they found, then I would agree.

Unfortunately, all we _do_ know is that they _might_ have found _something_
that _might_ be important enough to warrant an investigation that _might_
result in an indictment recommendation, &c, &c. With this in mind, it's more
than a little strange.

Unless I've misunderstood Comey's powers of discretion over FBI investigations
(which is entirely possible), he has little to no need to "cover his ass."

------
tunesmith
Throughout this whole thing, I can't get past one thing - her using her own
server was no big secret when it was happening.

~~~
knodi123
Obama said otherwise. He said he learned about it in the news reports at the
same time as everyone else.

~~~
douche
Which some of these emails has revealed was bullshit

~~~
williamle8300
I believe you're referring to this: [https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/31077](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077)

Podesta is on record saying that "we need to clean this up" when this
discrepancy surfaced.

------
hourislate
What I don't understand is how in the world does stuff like this happen
(Private Email Server). Isn't there anyone handling security for these people?
Just like the CIA assigns people to guard the President and the folks around
him, why in the world are there not Cyber Security Experts over seeing
communications and making sure that everything these folks do follows a
certain protocol.

They are not allowed to drive cars and the CIA makes sure they don't. So why
are they not monitored to make sure their communications are secure and there
is no risk to the nations information.

------
alva
If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

Bite it US Gov

------
ljnelson
Note that nowhere is the word "reopen" used in the original source materials.

------
DanielBMarkham
As a third-party voter I really don't want to get into a discussion about the
major candidates.

But as a hacker I am interested in how the political system operates. So let's
speculate that a candidate is elected to office and then is indicted on a
felony. What happens? Obviously anybody can be elected president, so there's
no legal problem. But Congress also is charged with certifying electors. Would
they certify electors for a candidate that had legal issues? If they did, the
candidate could just pardon themselves once in office.

It brings up some weird issues.

~~~
MaxfordAndSons
Interesting question regarding certifying electors. I sure don't know.
Wouldn't be surprised if Trump supporting Representatives tries to hold up
that process though, were HRC to be found guilty between winning and the
certification. I can't imagine the timeline of a trial would allow that to
happen though.

Regarding the self-pardoning, as discussed elsewhere, it wouldn't really
matter, she could still be impeached. Impeachment is extra-judicial.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I believe what we're discovering is that once a major party picks you, you
really can't be tried for any crime. You could be charged. If you lost the
election you could be tried. But I'm not seeing how the state could
effectively conduct a criminal court case of a major candidate.

This leads me to believe that Congress really has to decide. Beats me whether
they should decide before or after the person is sworn in.

(Of course this is just speculating about a generic case.)

------
Delmania
Comey was legally obligated to tell Congress this as his office had told
Congress that it was finished reviewing the evidence. In this election of
course, Trump supporters will look at this as a sign of hillary's crookedness,
and HRC supporters will look at this as a way to sway the election.

Also, the emails in question are not from Clinton and were never withheld in
the original investigation. They appear to come from the devices of Anthony
Weinar and his ex-wife.

Also, as more than one person has reported, the case was never closed.

------
techthroway443
And absolutely nothing will come of it just like the first time around.

~~~
williamle8300
One can always hope, my friend.

------
tmaly
I read the quotes from Comey, I would not characterize this as being reopened
at all.

I am not sure why he did this, the timing is suspect.

Its pure speculation, but perhaps he is hedging his odds of keeping his job?

------
douche
This reminds me more and more of Julius Caesar and other Roman Republican
officials having to stay on the treadmill of the _cursus honorum_ to maintain
legal immunity and avoid corruption charges committed while in office.

------
dmode
Oooh, so much last minute drama. Great for television.

~~~
qznc
I agree, season 58 is certainly a very entertaining one.

------
abootstrapper
Everyone shouting "lock her up" doesn't know exactly what they're "locking her
up" for, except for something vaguely relate to emails and the fact they don't
like her. Oh, also, they've already decided she's guilty of "emails." Either
the FBI says "Clinton is guilty of emails" or the system is rigged.

~~~
marshray
Here are some potential charges I could imagine:

1\. She used her official position as Secretary of State representing the
United States to solicit $150M++ of dollars in foreign donations for her
personal 501c3.

Imagine how this worked. Picture the scene at a US Embassy social function in
some small corrupt country: "Oh sure El Presidente, I'd be happy to look into
what's holding up your USAID payments. Sayyy, Bill would love to come and
deliver a speech for you. By the way, his going rate is $500,000."

Having our Secretary of State asking foreign dignitaries for payments on-the-
side irreparably damages our country's reputation in the world. This is some
of the most egregious and blatant corruption we have ever seen in a public
official.

3\. She made copies of government information, which any reasonable person
would agree qualifies as some level of classification, to a personal server in
her home that was not authorized to store such information (and as a result
the Russians stole it).

2\. She conducted government business using an unauthorized private server,
and did so _specifically for the purpose_ of concealing her actions and
correspondence from both internal and official oversight.

4\. She set up some type of shadow internal review process to squash entirely
legitimate FOIA requests that might reflect poorly on her department or
herself.

Routinely, little people are vigorously prosecuted for far, far less. America
explicitly rejects having a double standard for royalty, why shouldn't she be
subject to the same rules?

------
return0
I wonder if there is a way to make this thread NOT be flagged to extinction.
Perhaps talk only about the technicalities behind this, or compare to distant
history.

------
kyrre
SHUT IT DOWN!

------
hooph00p
I'm disappointed to see this sort of hysteria and conspiracy theorizing in a
HN comment section.

~~~
yolesaber
"we need to clean this up" ~ Podesta

[https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/31077](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077)

~~~
maxerickson
Political people say "clean this up" about anything they don't want in the
media. Anything. Everything.

(I know this because I over consume political news media and they have adopted
it as a term; it's really horrifying, they talk about the campaigns attempting
to manipulate them instead of doing real analysis)

~~~
yolesaber
I work in public policy. You realize what they said they had to clean up
right? The president lied on television about his knowledge of the servers.

~~~
heurist
Or addresses are hidden in his email client and he didn't take the time to
look.

