So they found more emails, did they?

Apparently from the Anthony Weiner investigation.

That’s the thing with emails. Scrubbing your own server doesn’t quite do it because you also sent the emails to someone else, and they sent them to you.

What they actually say I don’t think we know yet….

Maybe this is the thing?

Mrs Clinton was supposed to have handed over all evidence relating to her use of a private email server – something she instigated in 2009, when she was appointed secretary of state. The Weiner investigation shows she did not.

Apparently 1,000 emails on the Weiner related laptop….

36 thoughts on “So they found more emails, did they?”

  1. SBML,

    But unlike Watergate the thing being covered up in the first place was pretty horrendous. People have gone to jail for much, much less. But when you’re a Clinton, you get a free pass.

  2. I remember that supercilious cunt John Band loftily informing us that the email story wasn’t a thing. It’s the biggest political scandal of the modern era, not least because the FBI is part of the conspiracy. Watergate was small beer, and it was very thoroughly investigated.

  3. It was surely already known, or so strongly suspected as makes no difference, that she had not made full disclosure.

    I think the trouble with her corruption is her ability to rope in everyone around her. If and when the balloon finally goes up, there’ll be no limit to the prosecutorial bloodletting that follows.

    Remember those Hollywood conspiracy movies in the 70s, after Watergate? Consider the national trauma they represent. This time round, Hollywood’s more or less in on it. Whether she wins or loses this is going to be messy.

    And if he wins, there’ll be an endless succession of girls saying he pinched their bums.

  4. Whether it “gets” her directly or not it is another nail. The bitch is Teflon coated in axle grease but her chances are vanishing by the day. Widespread and well-deserved doubts about the honesty of the election are growing by the hour.

    There is more to come from Wikileaks still and O’Keefe.

  5. Can there really be any voters left ten days from the election who (a) are still undecided, and (b) weren’t put off by the old email allegations but will be put off by these new ones?

    At this stage in the campaign it’s just noise.

  6. Andrew M: Yes is the answer to both questions.

    Plus –if she is left only with the die-hard morons and left-stooges she won’t win. There aren’t enough of them.

    Elements of the elite have allowed this. Make no mistake. Even the scum at the top don’t want nuclear war cos a mad bitch got in. Eating a tin of peaches in your bunker means you are still elite–esp if everybody outside is dead or heading that way fast. But it isn’t a patch on millions and taking your latest mistress to dinner and theatre in the world’s great cities.

  7. According to the FBI, Clinton staff deleted the E-mails after being ordered not to do so:

    “The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015″ — three weeks after the subpoena. The campaign now says it only learned when the emails were deleted from the FBI report.”

    http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/the-fbi-files-on-clintons-emails/

    Why is this not a huge problem?

  8. Actually we already knew from the information that the FBI has already released that Clinton withheld a large number of State Department related eMails. there were, for example, over 1,000 between HRC (and staff I believe) and General Petreaus, at the time either head of CENTCOM (US Army central command) or head of the CIA. They were not, by any definition, private.

    HRC swore on oath before federal judge pursuant to the FOI case that she had released all relevant work related emails. She lied and we have absolute proof of that; so that’s perjury for a start. Deleting the emails now proved to be not private after they were under subpoena; that’s Obstruction (or better, perversion) of the course of justice.

    There are crimes of an open and shut nature that carry significant potential jail terms that could be brought against Hillary Clinton right now – if there was anyone in Washington willing to do so. But the DO (no J in that any more) just won’t, and nor is anyone going to a point a special prosecutor or empanel a grand jury.

    Face it, she’s untouchable and above the law and will probably still win this election. Washington really is that crooked now.

  9. They could release an email showing her organising a hit on someone and it wouldn’t make any difference. As said above, she’s untouchable. In fact, any Democrat presidential candidate is.

    Because public opinion doesn’t matter any more. If the media sit on a story, and the State institutions ignore it or refuse to handle it, nothing happens.

  10. Public voting still matters. Esp when the public is on to vote rigging.

    The elite has at least elements in it who regard her as more dangerous than him. He will be coming in naïve and she is an experienced crook–none moreso–who is also certifiable. She is determine to have her evil way and once in there is no way they can stop or control her. A bitch who has been personally behind countless killings won’t even be easy to off Kennedy style. If she gets in then war is on the cards. The Russians are preparing already.

  11. Mr X,
    In the 2000 election, Bush Jr vs Gore, there were two relatively unknown and bland candidates. I can understand indecision then. This time we have two incredibly polarising candidates. Anyone who still claims to be undecided is either lying or doesn’t intend to vote.

  12. “The American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately.” [Hillary Clinton]

    It’s interesting that someone who is being investigated is acting as if someone else is the target.

  13. Comey disgraced the FBI. Shook Americans’ faith in their government.

    The FBI had direct evidence of a thousand crimes. Comey waffled.

    Now the FBI acts like “Whoa, we found evidence of a crime!” They already had that. So something else is going on here. My guess: internal revolution in the FBI, the mass of agents/staff are incensed that their leader destroyed their reputation, and this is an attempt to restore it. Comey acted to protect himself from the Democrats, but now he is facing his own people.

  14. Of course CHF.

    All HRC wants, all she’s ever wanted, is to fight for women and other disadvantaged groups, and to promote America. Oh, and the world, and all the people in it.

    Her record of selfless public service over 80 years shows this clearly.

  15. This would have been squelched if elements at least within the elite didn’t want her stopped. If she is on her way out physically and has Parkinsons –which affects the mind– her having the button is just too dangerous.

  16. Mr Ecks said:
    “Plus –if she is left only with the die-hard morons and left-stooges she won’t win. There aren’t enough of them.”

    Don’t forget the race hustlers.

  17. Maybe Comey has concluded that Clinton is going to lose the election anyway, and is looking for a way to move the FBI (i.e. himself) away from what was an obvious whitewash.

  18. Bloke in North Dorset

    Could be some interesting firsts and a record coming up:

    1st female POTUS
    1st female POTUS to be impeached
    Fastest impeachment of POTUS, male or female

    Maybe the Dems have worked out this is the only way to avoid having Clinton there and we should really be looking at Paine as POTUS for most of the next 4 years?

  19. Perhaps Huma Abedin will now receive MSM scrutiny. So far she has had a free pass on her strong links to the Muslim Brotherhood and a dodgy jihad funding charity. I can’t work out how she ever got security clearance starting when she was Hellary’s intern about the same time Bill was exploiting Monica. I suspect her marriage to Weiner was some sort of pro forma cover.

  20. I think the only reason it makes sense for the FBI to do this, is that it believes this new batch of emails may contain Info relevant to Clinton’s “intent” to break the law. Remember, Director Comey said “lack of intent” was the reason He stopped the original investigation without an indictment, and without summoning a grand jury.

    If there is nothing relevant to Clinton’s intent in this new batch of undisclosed email, how is it different from the earlier batches of undisclosed emails?

  21. It’s all balls of course. The FBI could have had those e-mails whenever it wanted just by asking the NSA for them. Or, I dare say, asking GCHQ, Mossad, or their equivalents in China, Russia, and God knows where else.

    Maybe it’s decided to make them public on realising how hopelessly blackmailable a Prez Hillary would be. If so, the FBI must have an unusually low institutional IQ.

  22. BiND, also:

    1st POTUS to be impeached while married to a previous POTUS that was impeached.

    Don’t forget, Bill was impeached by the House of Representatives: that impeachment was just not ratified by the Senate.

  23. Not quite. Impeachment is the decision to send to trial in the Senate. The trial then takes place and decides guilt or not. Thus impeachment is more like the Reps deciding there is a case to answer….

  24. A poster at Karl Denningers site suggested that the reason this has come out is two fold, firstly that James Comey took the Hillary email investigation on personally within his office, and this resulted in the normal cross exchange of information between related investigations not happening. Thus the investigation into Weiner’s sexting a 15 yo was not made apparent to those dealing with Hillary, which it should have, as the people involved are connected, Weiner being Huma Abidin’s husband, and her working for Hillary. Thus Comey was not aware there might be more devices with relevant emails discovered (and the cynic would say thus not able to hide them or explain them away for Hillary). Comey’s investigation was concluded, move along nothing to see here, but Weiners wasn’t and that has now thrown up new emails related to Hilary. Which can’t suddenly be made to disappear.

    And secondly that there is a rebellion within the FBI against Comey’s actions on Hillary and he is facing a revolt from within and can’t hold back the tide this time – his position is too precarious. It wouldn’t be too far fetched to imagine that he’s been told ‘Re-open the investigation in the light of this new evidence, or the evidence gets leaked to the press’ by those opposed to his whitewashing of Hillary.

    One has to wonder if he’s a bit worried about Trump winning – his head could be on the block too if Trump wins and instigates an investigation into Hillary’s affairs. Perhaps this is his ‘Stay out of jail’ card.

  25. If trump wins what are the odds that Obama pardons her as the outgoing president.
    The BBC is still using no case to answer etc relating to the earlier decision rather than the truth that there was no one politically prepared to prosecute her.
    Scott’s Adams did a blog recently on how people answer when accused, guilty people tend to attack the source which is in line with the Clinton response

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151933602961/lie-detection-and-scandals

  26. My guess would also be an internal revolt.

    One of the things I was surprised the FBI took lightly was Clinton’s behaviour after the exoneration. Comey basically said to Clinton “by the skin of your teeth you’ve escaped jail, but by fuck you’ve been a piece of work”, which I expect most of the FBI thought was way too generous but were probably just about persuaded of the political expediency of it.

    Then Clinton went up and down the country saying “Hey, the FBI said I did nothing wrong, I’m as clean as a whistle.” She was misquoting Comey almost as soon as he’d closed his mouth, and I thought at the time this made him and the FBI look completely foolish. I suspect there has been some kind of internal revolt connected to this.

  27. @dearieme, October 29, 2016 at 12:54 pm
    “It’s all balls of course. The FBI could have had those e-mails whenever it wanted just by asking the NSA for them. Or, I dare say, asking GCHQ, Mossad, or their equivalents in China, Russia, and God knows where else.”

    +1

    iirc the former head of NSA publicly stated NSA had the >30,000 deleted emails and FBI did not ask for them.
    .

  28. re: dearieme
    Right. NSA is by law technically not allowed to look at US citizen’s email. GCHQ is absolutely not bound by that limit. Of course, NSA is not bound to not look at UK citizen’s email either.

  29. Bigfire

    NSA is not bound to not look at UK citizen’s email either.

    The UK are lucky, as GCHQ are also not stopped from looking at anything in the UK either..;)

  30. BigFire,
    ” NSA is by law technically not allowed to look at US citizen’s email.”

    Not looking at and not processing are not mutually exclusive.
    .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *