# 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:** 27
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/521 "2016-10-31T17:49:44Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Answered above. OH! Then you should call Comey and explain to him that he misinterpreted your straight reading of the law! I’m sure he’ll be delighted to hear from you! I’m sure he’s been hoping that someone would come along and explain the law to him. If only he’d known to ask you first, he would totally been able to charge Hillary last summer. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/522 "2016-10-31T17:50:18Z")
**CarnalK** is correct. To be excruciatingly technical, gross negligence _is_ a form of intent. It’s just lower than the intent standard they employ as a matter of prosecutorial discretion (but that is not required of them under the law). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/523 "2016-10-31T17:56:32Z")
The key paragraphs from Comey: > [@](#): > > Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. > > [. . .] > > Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. > > In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/524 "2016-10-31T17:58:46Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > OH! Then you should call Comey and explain to him that he misinterpreted your straight reading of the law! I’m sure he’ll be delighted to hear from you! How utterly bizarre. I was quoting HIS explanation of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/525 "2016-10-31T17:59:16Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > **CarnalK** is correct. > > To be excruciatingly technical, gross negligence _is_ a form of intent. It’s just lower than the intent standard they employ as a matter of prosecutorial discretion (but that is not required of them under the law). CarnalK said that Hillary broke a law that doesn’t require intent. While gross negligence might be a _form_ of intent, I’m not seeing how that’s relevant. If Hillary broke a law that doesn’t require intent, it shouldn’t make a difference if negligence is intent or not. Also - wouldn’t Hillary have to be convicted of gross negligence for that to apply? It’s not just a matter of teh Prosecutor’s (or in this case, Director Comey’s) personal opinion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/526 "2016-10-31T17:59:16Z")
Maybe Comey was being sarcastic? Republican humor can often be difficult to detect. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/527 "2016-10-31T18:07:51Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > CarnalK said that Hillary broke a law that doesn’t require intent. While gross negligence might be a _form_ of intent, I’m not seeing how that’s relevant. > > If Hillary broke a law that doesn’t require intent, it shouldn’t make a difference if negligence is intent or not. > > Also - wouldn’t Hillary have to be convicted of gross negligence for that to apply? It’s not just a matter of teh Prosecutor’s (or in this case, Director Comey’s) personal opinion. You’re just a little confused. The standard of intent required by the statute is gross negligence. A prosecutor would have to prove that the person was not only less careful than a reasonable person, but was nearly reckless. But, for a variety of reasons, the DOJ has never enforced the law against people who were merely grossly negligent, and has instead required a higher standard of intent. Part of what is confusing here is that sometimes “intent” means “the required level of criminal mens rea” and sometimes it means “purposeful action.” When Comey says she didn’t action with intent, he means the latter. With this in mind, two propositions can both be true: (1) Hillary violated the statute by being grossly negligent with respect to the classified information; and (2) Comey chose not to bring a prosecution because she lacked the requisite level of intent for him to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/528 "2016-10-31T18:11:03Z")
I see. Thank you for your explanation. ---
**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 31, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/529 "2016-10-31T18:33:27Z")
I’m wondering about the deletion of 30,000 emails plus provable lies such as Clinton’s not knowing the significance of “C” for classified when she’d been shown to have used it that way herself. Why do these not constitute tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice and perjury? And if so why wete they ignored by the FBI in making its determination not to bring charges? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/530 "2016-10-31T18:38:26Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I’m wondering about the deletion of 30,000 emails plus provable lies such as Clinton’s not knowing the significance of “C” for classified when she’d been shown to have used it that way herself. Why do these not constitute tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice and perjury? And if so why wete they ignored by the FBI in making its determination not to bring charges? Intentionally deleting relevant emails and lying about the significance of “C” would indeed constitute the kind of conduct that would be relevant to bringing charges. What you’re confused about isn’t the law or the relevance, but the basic facts. The things you assert to be “provable lies” aren’t, in fact, provable (or aren’t lies). ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/531 "2016-10-31T18:46:19Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I’m wondering about the deletion of 30,000 emails plus provable lies such as Clinton’s not knowing the significance of “C” for classified when she’d been shown to have used it that way herself. It’s almost as if these things haven’t been explained hundreds of times already. 1. The deleted emails were personal emails which she was not required to provide under FOIA. For example, I just deleted the email notifying me that there had been an update to this thread. Oh noes! 2. The (c) is required to be in the header of the email. For the emails she received, it was not in the header of the email, it was buried in the body of the email where it was easy to overlook or misinterpret. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/532 "2016-10-31T18:46:26Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > It would make for fun trivia someday: “Which president was known for paranoid secrecy, being buddies with Kissinger and receiving a presidential pardon?” Trick question! That describes two presidents! Or, for the other guy: “Which president was known for paranoia, conspiracy theories, bigotry, and keeping an enemies list” ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/533 "2016-10-31T18:52:15Z")
It seems like investigating related emails on other devices could be a never-ending investigation. Could the FBI get search warrants for other people who sent or received emails? For example, if on the Clinton server they see she emailed Colin Powell, could the FBI get warrants for Powell’s phones, laptops, etc. What’s the difference between getting a warrant for Weiner’s laptop used by Abedin and Powell’s? It should be obvious that they both are likely to have emails related to Clinton’s server. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/534 "2016-10-31T18:54:46Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > Or, for the other guy: “Which president was known for paranoia, conspiracy theories, bigotry, and keeping an enemies list” Kinda lame, dude. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/535 "2016-10-31T18:54:52Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Even if they are not classified they may still be sensitive. And she may have had these emails on her laptop while working for Clinton in the State Department\* but the fact that they are still on her laptop while in the private sector bothers me for some reason I can’t put my finger on. > > And now that I think about it, yeah it is related to the server issue. What sort of security does her laptop have? But again we don’t know that there is anything even remotely sensitive on there. It might be emails about the scheduling of political events, plane tickets, and Brownie recipes. Even if sensitive emails were copied over to an unsecured laptop, that would seem to be Abadin’s fault rather than Clinton’s. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/536 "2016-10-31T18:56:34Z")
Julian Sanchez has a great (long-ish) [take](https://www.justsecurity.org/34012/server-bewitch-shortly/) on the emails that sums up what I’ve been arguing for a while now. Worth a read. Agree or disagree, you’re likely to come away from that article more educated, even if you’ve followed this all pretty closely. ---
**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 31, 2016, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/537 "2016-10-31T19:08:00Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Comey hasn’t even read the emails yet – he just got a warrant for them. How is he supposed to comment on something which he hasn’t even read? Several posts here and many different media commentaries have illustrated _ **exactly** _ how the same information could have been framed in a much less ominous fashion that would have been far less subject to misinterpretation by partisan interests. > [@asahi](#): > > Look do I think Comey’s motives are pure and altruistic? No, but he’s in a tight position. Democrats were singing his praises about his fairness and objectivity over the summer but now he’s a partisan hack. I’ve said from the beginning that he was in a tight position, and was covering his ass. I’m happy to apply my favorite guideline of life here – “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” – which explains so much of the world. There’s no persuasive evidence that he was motivated by partisan interests, though he might have been – we just don’t know. What we do know is that if he wasn’t being partisan, then he was extraordinarily stupid and naive in how he did this, and the effect is the same. And given the gravity of the situation I’d say his motivations should be examined, and a clarification of his original blundered statement should be demanded not just by Hillary, but by the Justice Department. > [@asahi](#): > > We wouldn’t be talking about this if Clinton had used better judgment in setting up her server and had Abedin used better judgment in her choice of men. Lord knows you’re right. No one could have predicted that the Magnificent Dick Texter would become the center of the presidential campaign in its waning days! ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/538 "2016-10-31T19:16:11Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > I"ve already voted for her, but if, down the road, she ends up being charged with and convicted of … something, I won’t object to that. There are mechanisms in place to deal with such thing. It’s certainly not enough to justify a Trump Presidency. one of the more simple, straightforward responses to the Trump trolls of “how can you vote for a woman satan?” nicely done. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/539 "2016-10-31T19:23:16Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Julian Sanchez has a great (long-ish) [take](https://www.justsecurity.org/34012/server-bewitch-shortly/) on the emails that sums up what I’ve been arguing for a while now. Worth a read. > > Agree or disagree, you’re likely to come away from that article more educated, even if you’ve followed this all pretty closely. I would certainly quibble with one point he makes early: > [@](#): > > That it was Clinton’s own server, as opposed to a Gmail account, makes no difference. The Clintons chose the level of security for their server. They could have afforded a much higher level both in initial setup and ongoing monitoring. I think a reasonable person could understand the Secretary of State was obliged to have a much a higher level than they went with. ---
**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 31, 2016, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/540 "2016-10-31T19:31:27Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Julian Sanchez has a great (long-ish) [take](https://www.justsecurity.org/34012/server-bewitch-shortly/) on the emails that sums up what I’ve been arguing for a while now. Worth a read. > > Agree or disagree, you’re likely to come away from that article more educated, even if you’ve followed this all pretty closely. Yes, that was helpful. What are your thoughts on Comey being charged under the Hatch Act? I just can’t see it. I can see him resigning, but not being investigated-- to politically volatile with little upside. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950.md?page=28)