# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![ganthet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de0a6/32.png) [@ganthet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ganthet)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/301 "2016-10-30T06:35:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Here’s a hypothesis: > > So they need a warrant to make it official. And the warrant has to be publicly requested for fear the Justice Department will deny it for political reasons. Except judges and magistrates sign warrants, not anyone within the DOJ itself. > [@](#): > > None of this makes sense unless agents know something big is there. Even if we assume rogue agents who want to beat Clinton, they need a warrant to access the information legally and then leak it to the press. Criminality is irrelevant in that case, because the intent would be to sway voters. If it looks bad enough, it has the desired effect. If FBI agents read any of the emails without a warrant and then lied either explicitly or implicitly in their reports, stating that they waited for legal authorization to do so, then they’ve likely fatally compromised their own investigation and caused Comey to directly lie to Congress. If there are some agents who will do anything to try to take down Hillary with an “ends justify the means” mentality, then there are likely other agents who will do the right thing and report such illegal activity. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/302 "2016-10-30T06:48:58Z")
That would depend on who saw the emails. If a cop knows there are illegal guns in a house and he finds out by sneaking up to the window, he can very easily get away with justifying a warrant for other reasons without revealing that he knows for a fact the guns are there because he saw them. One you know who is guilty, it’s a lot easier to work backwards building evidence. Plus it’s very easy to inadvertently look at emails inadvertently while accessing Weiner’s devices. I don’t know the law well enough to know if that’s kosher, but I do know of some SCOTUS cases where police acquired evidence technically ilegally, but it was allowed because there was no bad faith. So an FBI agent could just say, “Hey, I saw this REALLY incriminating Abedin email on Weiner’s phone while I was browsing through his emails that I did have authorization to go through, but I need my i’s dotted so can I get a warrant to take a deeper look?” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/303 "2016-10-30T06:51:42Z")
> [@ganthet](#): > > If FBI agents read any of the emails without a warrant and then lied either explicitly or implicitly in their reports, stating that they waited for legal authorization to do so, then they’ve likely fatally compromised their own investigation and caused Comey to directly lie to Congress. If there are some agents who will do anything to try to take down Hillary with an “ends justify the means” mentality, then there are likely other agents who will do the right thing and report such illegal activity. Oh, I would expect that to happen, but I do think that right now there a lot of plausible deniability going around. I do think it is plausible that Comey was not into it, but was manipulated. So if someone will come forward to report the shenanigans, I think that those reporting will realize the chicanery that took place, but later. Of course, that is what the Republicans and rogue agents in my hypothetical are counting on also. So far though, it is beginning to look like many on the mainstream media are beginning to notice the underpants gnomes “profit” premise that the FBI was actually relying on here. ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/304 "2016-10-30T06:53:06Z")
Why does it have to be any more than it is? Comey updating the Congress on potential new information to supplement the original investigation? He said in his letter he didn’t know if anything of significance would be revealed. I’m really just trying to help soften the blow for you guys when nothing comes of this. You sound super excited about some unsubstantiated potential. Don’t set yourself up for another heartbreak… Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/305 "2016-10-30T06:57:29Z")
It’s hard to see Comey reopening the investigation because of Abedin emails whose content he is not aware of. Something else is going on. I do think it’s possible Comey’s been manipulated, but I think it would take more than “We think there might be some emails, reopen the investigation.” That would never work for any other case. “Hey, we found a tape dated 1972, let’s reopen the Nixon case before we’ve even heard what’s on it”. Unless of course the case has to be officially reopened to get a warrant? Any experts here can shed light on that? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/306 "2016-10-30T07:16:26Z")
Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, believes the emails on Weiner/Abedin’s laptop are a “bombshell”, otherwise Comey would never have sent the letter to Congress. To wit: > [@](#): > > We don’t know what this means yet except that it’s a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. Bernstein also stated that the email issue has always been the biggest threat to Clinton’s candidacy and that her handling of the email issue has been “indefensible”. > [@](#): > > …the e-mails have always been the greatest threat to her candidacy for president, that her conduct in regard to the e-mails is really indefensible… [Cite](http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/10/29/carl-bernstein-fbi-wouldnt-go-back-to-look-at-these-clinton-emails-if-there-wasnt-a-bombshell-n2238228) As Hillary’s own aides have noted, she really does have terrible instincts: > [@](#): > > “We’ve taken on a lot of water that won’t be easy to pump out of the boat,” Podesta wrote to Tanden in September 2015, at a time when Clinton’s campaign feared that Vice President Biden was about to enter the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. “Most of that has to do with terrible decisions made pre-campaign, but a lot has to do with her instincts.” > > Tanden responded, **“Almost no one knows better [than] me that her instincts can be terrible.”** [bolding mine] ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/307 "2016-10-30T07:23:06Z")
Isn’t that just another way of saying her judgment is terrible? And wow, even Carl Bernstein has joined the vast right wing conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/308 "2016-10-30T07:25:47Z")
The case has not been “re-opened.” Read the letter. The FBI is taking the steps to be able to see them in order to see if they contain anything that might possibly be significant. That is all. Yes, as he _knew_ it would be, that is misunderstood by many as “re-opening” the case or making a “new allegation” (and spun hard as such by the partisans who he knew would) but neither of those is the case. My guess is that the phrase “appears to be pertinent” is the standard that he needs to meet to allow the Justice Dept to let the FBI review it. If Justice found a tape labelled 1972 in the course of their unrelated investigation they could not give it to the FBI without the FBI giving some justifiable reason why they had good reason to look to see if the tape was relevant to one of their specific cases, be it Nixon or some other. ---
**Author:** ![ganthet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de0a6/32.png) [@ganthet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ganthet)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/309 "2016-10-30T07:34:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That would depend on who saw the emails. If a cop knows there are illegal guns in a house and he finds out by sneaking up to the window, he can very easily get away with justifying a warrant for other reasons without revealing that he knows for a fact the guns are there because he saw them. One you know who is guilty, it’s a lot easier to work backwards building evidence. That’s a terrifying mentality for a law enforcement agent to have when they do not already have clear evidence that a particular target or suspect has potentially commited a crime. Law enforcement is allowed to use things seen in plain view, such as through a window or open door, to use in support of a search warrant affidavit that they submit to a judge. That analogy starts to break down when it is applied to computers. > [@](#): > > Plus it’s very easy to inadvertently look at emails inadvertently while accessing Weiner’s devices. I don’t know the law well enough to know if that’s kosher, but I do know of some SCOTUS cases where police acquired evidence technically ilegally, but it was allowed because there was no bad faith. So an FBI agent could just say, “Hey, I saw this REALLY incriminating Abedin email on Weiner’s phone while I was browsing through his emails that I did have authorization to go through, but I need my i’s dotted so can I get a warrant to take a deeper look?” There is the doctrine of inevitable discovery which can absolve innocent or unintentional mistakes, but what you were describing before was nearly the exact example of bad faith - some law enforcement official knowingly and deliberately looking at potential evidence via a warrantless search while intending to get a warrant later to legitimize it. But search warrants, particularly when involving computers, are tailored to be specific and particular. If they were investgating Weiner’s misconduct, that in and of itself would gve them no legal justification for opening emails sent from Abedin. While Abedin and Weiner may have used the same computer, it seems unlikely they would use the exact same email account, particularly if Abedin-related emails involved State Dept. work. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/310 "2016-10-30T07:36:31Z")
Yeah, but we’re assuming that FBI agents don’t take the same shortcuts cops do sometimes. ---
**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 30, 2016, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/311 "2016-10-30T11:29:29Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Yeah, but we’re assuming that FBI agents don’t take the same shortcuts cops do sometimes. Yeah, I don’t know where people get this idea that the FBI is full of buzz-cut Joe Friday straight-shooters. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/312 "2016-10-30T11:30:50Z")
I’m sure most of them are, but if Fox is right that many career agents didn’t like Comey’s decision to not charge Clinton… Anger combined with rationalizations combined with a very high stakes election can make people do things they shouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/313 "2016-10-30T12:01:08Z")
I don’t buy that Comey is trying to influence the election, but he may just be sick of the criticism from Republicans and might have thought that this would be a way to protect himself from further criticism. He could have worded it in a much more neutral and cautious way, that wouldn’t have left as much uncertainty, as [Josh Marshall](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/comey-s-judgment-looks-far-worse-on-day-two) has suggested: > [@](#): > > In the course of the investigation of Anthony Weiner, investigators discovered a new batch of emails from Clinton aide Huma Abedin. We do not yet know whether any of those emails contain classified information or whether some or all are in fact duplicates of emails the FBI already obtained and scrutinized during its investigation of Secretary Clinton’s private email server. At present we have no reason to believe these newly discovered emails would change the decision reached in July. However, based on the recommendations of investigators, I have decided that we will review these emails from on the Weiner/Abedin computer to ascertain the answers to both of those questions. Out of an abundance of caution, I have taken the step to inform Congress of this new development. ---
**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 30, 2016, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/314 "2016-10-30T12:29:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t buy that Comey is trying to influence the election, but he may just be sick of the criticism from Republicans and might have thought that this would be a way to protect himself from further criticism. He could have worded it in a much more neutral and cautious way, that wouldn’t have left as much uncertainty, as [Josh Marshall](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/comey-s-judgment-looks-far-worse-on-day-two) has suggested: Yeah he really should have said something like that. It’s not like he wouldn’t know that the way he did it leaves it spinnable in only one direction. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/315 "2016-10-30T13:04:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t buy that Comey is trying to influence the election, but he may just be sick of the criticism from Republicans and might have thought that this would be a way to protect himself from further criticism. He could have worded it in a much more neutral and cautious way, that wouldn’t have left as much uncertainty, as [Josh Marshall](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/comey-s-judgment-looks-far-worse-on-day-two) has suggested: I’m inclined to agree. I think that he’s basically a man of integrity, I think he’s smart enough to be thoroughly covering his ass, but I also think that the wording of the statement can only be interpreted as Comey either being not too bright or being flagrantly partisan. Anyone of even moderate intelligence could have predicted the shitstorm this would cause, and far more detail could have been provided to mitigate that shitstorm, like in the example given. Comey himself has now become a news story, and surely not in a way he could possibly have wanted. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/316 "2016-10-30T13:16:37Z")
Whatever comes in the next few days and weeks, my only hope is that we come to a consensus on whether or not this constitutes a “re-opening” of the investigation, which— thanks largely to the tenacious examination and debate on this very message board— I understand to be a question that is not only fascinating beyond measure, but also of paramount importance. ---
**Author:** ![Tzigone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Tzigone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tzigone)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/317 "2016-10-30T13:30:14Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s a terrifying mentality for a law enforcement agent to have when they do not already have clear evidence that a particular target or suspect has potentially commited a crime. Law enforcement is allowed to use things seen in plain view, such as through a window or open door, to use in support of a search warrant affidavit that they submit to a judge. That analogy starts to break down when it is applied to computers. I agree it’s terrifying, but it’s all too often true. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/318 "2016-10-30T14:00:27Z")
> [@aag3981](#): > > Or, they don’t know what’s in the emails (as Comet said) but feel obligated to report a new development in a very publicized investigation (as Comet said). Why read into anything that isn’t there? Because if people weren’t reading things into it, the thread would be one page long and every interview on the CNN would be people saying “I dunno either.” ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/319 "2016-10-30T14:18:45Z")
> [@ThisIsTheEnd](#): > > Yeah he really should have said something like that. It’s not like he wouldn’t know that the way he did it leaves it spinnable in only one direction. Richard Painter has an [Op-Ed](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0) in NYT today that suggests that Comey violated “the Hatch Act, which bars the use of an official position to influence an election”. Of note, this may be a violation even if he was not with intent to influence the election (and he certainly was with knowledge that it could and that how he phrased it would be, in his own words, “misunderstood” by the American people, who it was his intent to inform. > [@Richard Painter](#): > > … an official doesn’t need to have a specific intent — or desire — to influence an election to be in violation of the Hatch Act or government ethics rules. The rules are violated if it is obvious that the official’s actions could influence the election, there is no other good reason for taking those actions, and the official is acting under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election. > > Absent extraordinary circumstances that might justify it, a public communication about a pending F.B.I. investigation involving a candidate for public office that is made on the eve of an election is thus very likely to be a violation of the Hatch Act and a misuse of an official position. Serious questions also arise under lawyers’ professional conduct rules that require prosecutors to avoid excessive publicity and unnecessary statements that could cause public condemnation even of people who have been accused of a crime, not to mention people like Mrs. Clinton, who have never been charged with a crime. > > This is no trivial matter. We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway. That is an abuse of power. Allowing such a precedent to stand will invite more, and even worse, abuses of power in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/320 "2016-10-30T14:49:17Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Whatever comes in the next few days and weeks, my only hope is that we come to a consensus on whether or not this constitutes a “re-opening” of the investigation, which— thanks largely to the tenacious examination and debate on this very message board— I understand to be a question that is not only fascinating beyond measure, but also of paramount importance. Not a re-opening. Not a re-opening. YOU’RE the re-opening! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950.md?page=17)