# FBI is re-opening investigation into Clinton's email **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 28, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950 "2016-10-28T17:57:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/221 "2016-10-29T13:27:02Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > That’s his problem. If he’s got agents going behind his back then it’s on him to shut them down. Presumably, the FBI director is in a position to figure out who’s leaking info about their case and the juice to do something about it. > > If he gets heat because he’s not rushing to judgement, then it’s his job to take the heat, rather than hanging someone else out to dry. > > This idea that Comey just had to tell or it would be leaked - that’s true of every police case against every suspect. And the police decide for themselves when to release the info to their best advantage. > > And oh! what a coincidence! Comey released the info when it would be to Republicans best advantage! How about that. > > Federal Agents are born with the words, “No comment”, stamped on their tongue. It’s just ludicrous that Comey wants us to believe that this one time, against his hated foe, he’s just helpless to avoid picking up the megaphone. > > A simple search should tell if any of the emails were sent to or from Hillary’s infamous server. A simple search would also find words like “classified” or whatever that symbol was, I forget, that was in the middle of the text, that Hillary missed previously in a few emails. > > A basic comparison of the email subjects should suffice to show if the emails were copies of stuff that was already in their records. > > Ultimately, the emails would have to be examined by hand, of course, but even just waiting for the weekend while the computer nerds ran some basic research would have given him a working understanding about the significance of it all. > > Instead, he rushed ahead and dropped just enough tidbits to try and tip the scales. If you had been reading the news stories, you’d know that this is a different issue. It’s not about e-mails from or to HRC. And even if it were, it’s not a matter of a “simple search”. Some one (a human being) is going to have to read each and every email that is relevant (and there are thousands, according to news reports) to determine if there is something wrong. It was stupid of HRC to set up that server, and it was stupid of Huma to share her files with someone who routinely sends out dick picks to random women/girls. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/222 "2016-10-29T14:12:46Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > A simple search should tell if any of the emails were sent to or from Hillary’s infamous server. A simple search would also find words like “classified” or whatever that symbol was, I forget, that was in the middle of the text, that Hillary missed previously in a few emails. > > A basic comparison of the email subjects should suffice to show if the emails were copies of stuff that was already in their records. > > Ultimately, the emails would have to be examined by hand, of course, but even just waiting for the weekend while the computer nerds ran some basic research would have given him a working understanding about the significance of it all. > [@furt](#): > > What is the source of your expertise in these kinds of investigations? I can help with this as it’s my area of expertise. I handle email and other electronic collections for large scale litigation. No emails need to be viewed by hand; electronic review tools are extremely sophisticated these days. You give me 10,000 emails and within 30 minutes I can tell you if any are new, and even if they are new, whether they’re contained in the histories of other emails as well as identify those emails and tell you if anyone has looked at them yet as well as taken any actions (printing, saving, marking them as relevent, etc.). I can pull up the entire email conversation and tell you if there are any emails in the conversation that were not collected as well as point out other conversations that are similar in context. I can provide more detail regarding methods, but that’s the short of it. Merneith’s method would have worked, of course, but it would have been more labor intensive. The only explanation I could give would be that they just found the emails and were in the process of collecting them from whatever device or system from whence they came and haven’t had any opportunity to review them yet. Which would make it even more premature of him to say anything. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/223 "2016-10-29T14:27:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If you had been reading the news stories, you’d know that this is a different issue. It’s not about e-mails from or to HRC. And even if it were, it’s not a matter of a “simple search”. Some one (a human being) is going to have to read each and every email that is relevant (and there are thousands, according to news reports) to determine if there is something wrong. It was stupid of HRC to set up that server, and it was stupid of Huma to share her files with someone who routinely sends out dick picks to random women/girls. I’ve only read speculation and seen tweets regarding “sources.” I don’t think we can say anything this definitive at the time. Regardless, every email may eventually be looked at, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be prioritized. First you dump them into your existing database of Hillary emails, deduplicate against what you already have, thread the emails to determine which are contained in previous emails, keyword search everything for “SoS,” “clinton,” “hillary,” etc, then you date restrict it to her time as SoS. Those are the emails that need attention first. Once they’ve been reviewed, then you can say with reasonable amount of certainty that there is going to be nothing ground-breaking in the collection. After that, you do clean-up review to make sure you didn’t miss anything. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/224 "2016-10-29T14:34:33Z")
We even have tools to tell use if people are using code-words for something. For instance, in the Enron investigation they used code words such as “Raptor” and “Porcupine” to refer to off-balance-sheet vehicles. Using latent semantic indexing algorithms, we can identify suspicious words used in context with germane concepts. ---
**Author:** ![ThisIsTheEnd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thisistheend/32/4713_2.png) [@ThisIsTheEnd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisIsTheEnd)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/225 "2016-10-29T15:04:25Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > We even have tools to tell use if people are using code-words for something. For instance, in the Enron investigation they used code words such as “Raptor” and “Porcupine” to refer to off-balance-sheet vehicles. Using latent semantic indexing algorithms, we can identify suspicious words used in context with germane concepts. ABEDIN: PERMABONER just left the house, it’s OK to call. CLINTON: Nah, I’d rather stick to email. Did I tell you I heard from ORO today? ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/226 "2016-10-29T15:07:31Z")
> [@ThisIsTheEnd](#): > > ABEDIN: PERMABONER just left the house, it’s OK to call. > CLINTON: Nah, I’d rather stick to email. Did I tell you I heard from ORO today? Well, typically, punctuation isn’t indexed, so keyword expansion would come up with just “ORO” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/227 "2016-10-29T15:37:47Z")
> [@furt](#): > > _The whole situation is unprecedented_ – AFAIK, there has never been a presidential nominee under criminal investigation in the weeks & months prior to the election. A cabinet member setting up their own private IT system is unprecedented. The first investigation was unprecedented. The AG publically announcing she’d accept Comey’s recommendation was unprecedented. Faced with a novel situation, _anything_ Comey does in response will by definition be unprecedented. > > That’s a little bit like Trump complaining that no other candidate has been accused of serial groping. It’s unprecedented! I agree, the ‘precedent’ argument holds no water. I get that people who like Clinton are bummed out by this. But it IMO obviously was not tenable for Comey to try to hold this back till after the election. And I really doubt his knowledge of the new evidence is as vague as some people construe from the letter. Although nobody is going to prove themselves right about that pending detailed on-the-record, for attribution accounts of what he knew as of yesterday. Also in any organization, even ones as regimented as the FBI, a leader must know when they’ve exhausted their subordinates’ patience. Comey might know his staff had had enough after the jawboning he may have had to do to get them in line for him to truthfully testify to Congress that the whole team agreed on not recommending indictment of Clinton originally. He may have known as a leader he wasn’t going to prevent the original doubters from leaking if he tried to hold this back till after the election. IOW the two choices for people disappointed by this turn of events might be empty criticism of Comey for ‘unprecedented’ action in the event, or complaining about leaks from govt bureaucracies if he hadn’t. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/228 "2016-10-29T15:43:02Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > …Comey might know his staff had had enough after the jawboning he may have had to do to get them in line for him to truthfully testify to Congress that the whole team agreed on not recommending indictment of Clinton originally… Wait, what? Comey said his staff of investigators was unanimous in their conclusion, but you say they really weren’t, and he had to “jawbone” them to get them in line. From whence, pray, this rather astonishing bit of insight? Sez who? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/229 "2016-10-29T16:00:28Z")
**furt** > [@furt](#): > > If you think this is any kind of a routine case, I don’t know what to tell you. This is akin to asserting that Hoover could have shut down Deep Throat if he really wanted to. When a case is this big, things leak, and Washington bureaucracies are full of people with their own agendas. 1. Actually, so far, the case against Hillary has been a complete bust. Comparing this to Watergate - Nixon actually was guilty. Hillary, despite tens of millions of dollars and everyone’s best efforts, is not. And yet somehow the witch hunt is still ongoing. 2. If this case is unprecedented, it’s because the Republicans are throwing out all the rules of normal behavior. They’re not being forced into this, they just refuse to admit that they’re wrong and there is no case. > [@furt](#): > > Either Comey makes it public and everyone get the same info at the same time, or else an anti-Hillary FBI agent calls Fox News, who reports it, and then we get a day of liberal pundits attacking the report, and then the report is confirmed, and blah blah blah. Once he was informed on Thursday, it was just a matter of time. We already have a media circus. The idea that Comey had to release his nothing info in order to prevent a media circus is utterly exposed by the fact that he _caused_ a media circus. As for the other - maybe Comey should spend less time trying to sandbag the Democractic nominee and more time riding herd on his agents if can’t trust them to support his decision to wait a few days to develop more understanding before he goes public. > [@furt](#): > > Nonsense. He could have dropped it four days before the election, instead of eleven. He could have said she was “a target,” and made sure to use the word “criminal” in the letter. He could have implied it involved state secrets (even if it didn’t). He could have suggested there was perjury (even if there isn’t). If his goal was the intentional infliction of maximum political damage, he’s doing a poor job. > > That doesn’t mean he hasn’t screwed up; but this is your second baseless assertion of partisan motives on his part in just a few hours. My assertion of Comey’s partisanship is based on Comey’s actual behavior, first in editorializing his initial report in which he grudgingly agreed that there was no criminal case to be made and then in this rush to the public about new Clinton emails before he had any idea as to their significance. Comey’s actions are giving aid and comfort to Republicans by encouraging them to believe that she’s guilty of unnamed crimes and therefore should be locked up, as Trump says, or denied legitimate functions of her position, as Speaker Ryan says. And all this on the basis of some emails which Comey didn’t bother to examine for significance. Compared to his actions, Comey’s reputation for non-partisanship is worthless. > [@](#): > > What is the source of your expertise in these kinds of investigations? I’m an aging computer nerd who knows how to write the SQL queries to do those searches (I have no doubt Sinaptic’s skills are more up to date.) **Mr Quatro** > [@Mr\_Quatro](#): > > You don’t call the director of the FBI a dirty cop and get away with it, like Trump did and some of his other agents. > > Comey is just doing his job and his explanation is good enough for me … whatever this is he didn’t want it to become a circus after the election. It’s _already_ a god-damn circus and he deliberately chose to make it a circus \*before \*the election, when it can harm the outcome. And I note - that the person who called the Director of the FBI a dirty cop is the one who’s _benefiting_ here. **John Mace** > [@John\_Mace](#): > > If you had been reading the news stories, you’d know that this is a different issue. It’s not about e-mails from or to HRC. I know. I’ve posted cites to that effect. My objection here is that even though this is not about emails to or from Hillary, Comey still went out of his way to tie this to his previous investigation of Hillary, in the most vague and ambiguous way, without even taking the time to get a sense of the emails’ significance. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/230 "2016-10-29T16:05:43Z")
Maybe all Hillary has to do is threaten to sue the FBI. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/231 "2016-10-29T16:06:22Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Wait, what? Comey said his staff of investigators was unanimous in their conclusion, but you say they really weren’t, and he had to “jawbone” them to get them in line. From whence, pray, this rather astonishing bit of insight? Sez who? Articles in right leaning relatively major media outlets have said this. Which is why I said _may_, though you seem to have missed that. I know some people treat articles from ‘opposing’ media as 100% lies, but I don’t think that’s so likely most of the time, either side. And how far fetched it really is that some FBI staff would have a very negative view of Hillary Clinton? Not very it wouldn’t seem, though arguably they are the biased ones, despite their duty not to be. Such disgruntlement seems a better Occam’s Razor explanation of those articles than the right leaning outlets making them up. And my point is the possibility that Comey felt subordinates wouldn’t put up with keeping the new turn in the investigation secret till after the election. Besides my not saying I know this for a fact, I’m also not opining whether those FBI people _should_ feel that way, or should leak stuff. eg. From the NY Post, not RCP itself, mainly quoting for attribution retired FBI [FBI Agents Are Ready to Revolt Over the Cozy Clinton Probe | RealClearPolitics](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2016/10/07/fbi_agents_are_ready_to_revolt_over_the_cozy_clinton_probe_393027.html) Fox story was more focused on ‘unnamed sources’ still there. [FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider | Fox News](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/13/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/232 "2016-10-29T16:09:13Z")
So, then, its a firm “maybe, could be”. Got it. Solidly sourced by NY Post and Fox News. Even better. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/233 "2016-10-29T16:13:44Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, then, its a firm “maybe, could be”. Got it. Solidly sourced by NY Post and Fox News. Even better. The original post said "Comey might know his staff had had enough after the jawboning he may have had to do to get them in line for him to truthfully testify to Congress that the whole team agreed on not recommending indictment of Clinton originally. " If you’d just read it more carefully, you might have criticized me for using words might and may, but wouldn’t have had to get yourself all worked up responding as if I didn’t use those words, and now claiming that I’m saying these are solid facts because of the Post and Fox, which any reasonable person can see I did not claim. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/234 "2016-10-29T16:18:07Z")
Then I am content to let the matter rest in the hands of that “reasonable person”. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/235 "2016-10-29T16:26:43Z")
I’m very thankful that Comey had the courage to let the public know that significant new information has reopened the FBI investigation. Yes, it might put Hillary’s win in jeopardy. I personally think she’ll still squeak out a victory. But the public has the right to know the situation before casting a vote. Hillary will be going into office under a major cloud. A special independent prosecutor may have to handle this case. It’s going to be one hell of a mess and deeply disturbing to public confidence. It could even lead to impeachment if it’s proven Hillary lied to Congress. The public should have considered this back during the primaries. The email scandal was well reported. Two deeply flawed candidates were chosen. Now we have to face the consequences. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/236 "2016-10-29T16:36:52Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I’m very thankful that Comey had the courage to let the public know that significant new information has reopened this investigation. Sorry, I’m going to have to ask you to explain just what you think this ‘significant new information’ consists of, because no one, including the FBI Director himself, seems to be able to articulate what it is. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/237 "2016-10-29T16:38:50Z")
Its “potentially” significant. Same thing. Just like the gleam in a rooster’s eye is a chicken. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/238 "2016-10-29T16:41:51Z")
Still, he’s gonna have to say _something_. Maybe he has the weapons-grade _chutzpa_ to say he can’t comment on an ongoing investigation. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/239 "2016-10-29T16:49:20Z")
Reports indicate Huma used that laptop to print long emails for Hillary. There’s allegedly thousands of emails on that laptop. The FBI will need months to investigate what’s on there. I only print important emails at my job. Material I need to actually read closely and study. I’d guess Hillary has a similar work process. Most professionals find it easier to study paper documents. That’s how we were educated in school and college. I doubt that Huma was wasting time printing 3 line “how are you today?” Emails. Whatever is on that laptop will be material the Secretary of State needed to print and study. Are some of them classified? We don’t know yet. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/240 "2016-10-29T16:50:59Z")
> [@Grrr](#): > > > [@adaher](#): > > > > If they are still finding emails she never turned over, isn’t that damning enough? At the very least, we’re electing a President who thinks the FOIA is her enemy, and that’s not good. > > You haven’t been following along very closely have you? So **adaher** , were you just going to ignore this or did you care to acknowledge you weren’t paying attention? There is nothing to indicate this is about emails HRC didn’t turn over, unless of course you have some info no one else does. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950.md?page=13)