# 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:** 35
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2016, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/681 "2016-11-02T23:42:12Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You don’t give me the impression of someone who is trying to learn that lesson. > > I said quite clearly that Comey said the “gross negligence” part of the law was iffy from the start and he was following 100 years of Justice Department precedent by not choosing to prosecute it now. I didn’t say anything that could be misinterpreted as “too much bother”. You just made it up. Ok, my apology isn’t accepted. Got it. I didn’t do a good job of boiling down several lengthy posts of yours to a few words on one particular point. You continue to insist that Comey believes that Clinton broke the letter of the law when he actually said no such thing. And there we are. ---
**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:** [November 2, 2016, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/682 "2016-11-02T23:58:44Z")
Yes, your nonpology is rejected. Could you point out which of my posts that was so lengthy that you had trouble with it? They all seem to be two or three short paragraphs outside of my first one on the subject that was only longish because I quoted a decent bit of Comey’s testimony. ---
**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:** [November 3, 2016, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/683 "2016-11-03T00:34:00Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Is it not also super-weird for the prosecutor (in this case the AG) to announce in advance that she will accept whatever the investigators recommend? ISTM he was obligated to make a statement explaining himself, because Lynch passed the buck on to him. And of course she passed the buck because of the super-weird circumstance of the target’s husband meeting with the prosecutor on a tarmac. Agree on all counts. Comey was put in a more awkward position by Lynch’s decision to semi-recuse herself, which was the result of her creating an appearance of impropriety. That’s part of why I think it’s hard to fault him for wanting to publicly explain things in July. My secret hope is that Americans will remember how dysfunctional both the FBI and DOJ have been the next time the one of them says “Trust us, we’re experts…” when it comes to encryption or surveillance. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/684 "2016-11-03T00:53:25Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > …Comey was put in a more awkward position by Lynch’s decision to semi-recuse herself, which was the result of her creating an appearance of impropriety… Said Comey? Lynch? Obama? **Parker**? Had the impression that Obama picked him because of his (erstwhile) reputation as a straight-shooter and a non-partisan conservative. I know the Meeting on the Tarmac was supposed to be a Big Hairy Ass Deal, but sez who? She says it wasn’t improper, he says it wasn’t, who says it was? What actual evidence do they offer? Mr President walks onto your plane, you are supposed to fend him off with a crucifix till he goes away? Would it be OK if Bill talks to Obama? Shit, even _Democrats_ can conspire better than that! So, OK, you got, you bring. ---
**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:** [November 3, 2016, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/685 "2016-11-03T01:37:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Said Comey? Lynch? Obama? **Parker**? Said Lynch: > [@](#): > > Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s personal email account, said Friday that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case. > > Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case would raise questions of a conflict of interest. But the meeting with Mr. Clinton, she acknowledged, had deepened those questions, and she said she now felt compelled to explain publicly her reasoning to try to put the concerns to rest [http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html) Richard Parker’s point wasn’t even remotely controversial. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/686 "2016-11-03T07:13:36Z")
> [@](#): > > …Though she insisted the 30-minute conversation was a purely social encounter, Ms. Lynch said, “I certainly wouldn’t do it again.”… So, you think he should accept her responsibility for being lied about? Because that’s what _she_ said. To coin a phrase. And of course she wouldn’t do it again, can you blame her? Now, of course, if you don’t believe her and are sure that dark skulduggery was afoot, I suppose that is your privilege. But if she _is_ telling the truth, then she bears no responsibilty, the people making shit up bear the responsibility. I see no actual reason why Clinton’s conversation with her should be regarded with dark suspicion, absent any actual proof of anything at all! So, no, she didn’t _create_ the appearance of impropriety, that shit was made up out of whole cloth! I suspect it might have involved people who expected political gain, but that’s just another of my wild ideas. Call it a hunch. Unless, of course, you have some actual evidence? Tell you what, I’ll shut up and let you bring it. Please proceed. PS: Why isn’t it possible that she “recused herself” because she thought he was the right man for the job? You know, the honest conservative who can be trusted. Probably won’t do _that_ again, either. ---
**Author:** ![Common\_Tater](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/common_tater/32/13846_2.png) [@Common\_Tater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Common_Tater)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/687 "2016-11-03T07:33:16Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I want to address this point, which you have made before and which others have already refuted, but it didn’t seem to take. > > I can have classified information in my head (I don’t, for the record). I might know that Agent X is currently in location Y. If I email that to someone using my gmail account, I have transmitted classified information over the open internet without having to take pictures of any computer screen or any documents. I hope this is totally clear to you. > > I haven’t seen the stuff that had the (C) label in it that was on Clinton’s laptop, but my impression is that it was just stuff typed by people, not documents scanned and attached or anything like that. > > Please respond and let me know whether you get this distinction. Thanks in advance. I have no idea what you’re on about. Is it your contention for example that top secret and higher documents reside on the internet? I’m telling you, this stuff has its own network. If you want to try and refute that, be my guest. Hint: It isn’t connected to the internet. Ever. Never the twain shall meet. Satellite imagery, was discovered for just one example, or the higher classified documents. The public has it in their mind that this is “email scandal”; it is not per se. These were unsecured computer servers used outside government control, storing government documents that somehow were illegally removed from the secure network, aka jumped the “air gap” and ended up golly knows where, current estimates hacked by at least five (5) foreign governments. One hopes madam secretary wasn’t too inconvenienced, as we are told the “private email server” was a matter of convenience. Sure. None of it is ever supposed to end up on a Yahoo! email account hosted on the internet, or thumbdrives, or somebodies husbands laptop. Period. Hope this helps. (It’s all so absurd I still can’t believe this happened. These people implicated are complete morons, and it’s even more bizarre that anyone would try to make excuses for it.) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/688 "2016-11-03T11:50:48Z")
Literally everyone participating in this thread knows that classified information isn’t hooked up to the internet. Everyone who has heard of this story knows that classified information doesn’t belong on privately owned laptops. I think the only issues with your posts are that you seem to be implying a conclusion that severa of us aren’t quite tracking. But more specifically, it sort of sounds like you think that the FBI discovered 650,000 classified emails. That is incorrect. Or maybe you are thinking that the FBI discovered 650,000 emails that relate to official State Department business. That is also incorrect. What the FBI discovered was 650,000 emails on a laptop, and to the best that anyone knows, the vast majority likely relate to Anthony Weiner, most likely a mix of persona and who knows maybe his own business/official communications over the last many years. There’s also the high likelihood that some of those emails belong to his wife, but we have no idea at this point how many emails those consist of, how many may be purely personal in nature, or if some relate to official State Department business. We especially don’t know if any official emails on this laptop are already in the hands of the FBI from other means, such as if they were taken off the infamous server already, or have been found in [state.gov](http://state.gov) archives. And way down the chain, there is no basis to conclude so far that there is any classified information on the laptop at all. But I think it is an extremely safe assumption to make that when this is all over and thoroughly investigated, there will be far, far more emails about Weiner’s affairs and dalliances among those 650,000 emails than there will be classified information. The only real question is whether the number of emails with classified information is zero - which is quite possible - or a very very small fraction of the total. (And I’m not dismissing at all the gravity of finding any classified information on someone’s home computer!) So, you do understand that we aren’t talking about 650,000 classified emails, right? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/689 "2016-11-03T12:00:17Z")
> [@Common\_Tater](#): > > None of it is ever supposed to end up on a Yahoo! email account hosted on the internet, or thumbdrives, or somebodies husbands laptop. Period. Hope this helps. Just wanted to repeat the point that previous Secretary of State Colin Powell has openly admitted to conducting state business over his personal AOL account. The aggregate amount of fucks Republicans have given about this remains at or near zero, for some strange reason. ---
**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:** [November 3, 2016, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/690 "2016-11-03T13:49:40Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > … Richard Parker’s point wasn’t even remotely controversial. The part that is controversial of the claim was this: > [@Richard Parker](#): > > … her creating an appearance of impropriety … WJ Clinton created that appearance, not her. It was minimally tone deaf of him if not out and out idiotic. But she did not create that circumstance and really had no control over it. She did have to deal with the appearance that it created in the most transparent and above board manner possible. Meanwhile yeah, there are some number, possibly thousands, of e-mails on that laptop that appear to be Abedin’s. Some of those may be emails that went through Clinton’s server. Of those some may be personal subject emails that the FBI have not seen because they were among the number deleted. Some may be emails that were work-related that the FBI have already reviewed. Both of those mays are IMHO probable. Next is the less probable: some may be work-related emails that went through Clinton’s server that have not been reviewed. \*The \*question is _if_ any of those do exist are any of any classification status and if any are would any be such that would change the determination previously made? Or if they exist do they comport with the evidence already found? ---
**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:** [November 3, 2016, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/691 "2016-11-03T14:09:25Z")
It’s arguable that Lynch had no choice but to accept Bill’s self invite but personally I think that’s absolving her a little too much. Regardless, I don’t think that was elucidator’s quibble since he asked “I know the Meeting on the Tarmac was supposed to be a Big Hairy Ass Deal, but sez who?”. Which is why I wasted my time pointing out that Lynch agreed it was a big enough deal to announce her semi-recusal. ---
**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:** [November 3, 2016, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/692 "2016-11-03T14:29:19Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > WJ Clinton created that appearance, not her. That’s ridiculous. She’s the Attorney General of the United States. If someone wants to have an inappropriate meeting with her, she almost certainly has the opportunity to say “no” before it happens. And if not, then the first thing out of her mouth in person is, “I’m sorry Mr. President, but I don’t think meeting this way at this time is appropriate. Please leave my plane.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/693 "2016-11-03T14:34:02Z")
And you know what’s even worse than that! That self-same scoundrel will probably point out again that you have no evidence that anything at all happened at that meeting. I mean, that’s just how that guy is! But you know what you can do! Just bring that rock-solid evidence! You know, like he asked you to! Boy, that’ll really stick it to him! ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/694 "2016-11-03T14:35:33Z")
> [@Common\_Tater](#): > > I have no idea what you’re on about. > > Is it your contention for example that top secret and higher documents reside on the internet? I’m telling you, this stuff has its own network. If you want to try and refute that, be my guest. > > Hint: It isn’t connected to the internet. Ever. Never the twain shall meet. Satellite imagery, was discovered for just one example, or the higher classified documents. The public has it in their mind that this is “email scandal”; it is not per se. These were unsecured computer servers used outside government control, storing government documents that somehow were illegally removed from the secure network, aka jumped the “air gap” and ended up golly knows where, current estimates hacked by at least five (5) foreign governments. One hopes madam secretary wasn’t too inconvenienced, as we are told the “private email server” was a matter of convenience. Sure. > > None of it is ever supposed to end up on a Yahoo! email account hosted on the internet, or thumbdrives, or somebodies husbands laptop. Period. Hope this helps. > > (It’s all so absurd I still can’t believe this happened. These people implicated are complete morons, and it’s even more bizarre that anyone would try to make excuses for it.) I would like a cite that the e-mails contained secret satellite imagery. From my searches, even the Washington Times (!) only said that the e-mail contained information obtained through the use of spy satellites. Your contention is that no top secret information could make it to the internet without people actively printing docs, scanning them, and attaching the scans to non-secure e-mails, as far as I can tell. Is that your contention? My contention is that top secret information can make it to the internet much more easily. For example, Joe looks at top secret satellite images showing North Korea moving troops. Then, he e-mails his friend on his Yahoo! account saying, “Holy Smokes, Kim Jong Un is moving troops!” The newspaper rightly reports that top secret satellite information was shared over the open internet. Bad! To be totally clear, I’m not saying Joe did the right thing sharing that top secret info over the non-secure internet. I’m saying that there’s many ways for secret info to make it to the internet without the kind of willful copying and scanning of documents you’re alleging. ---
**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:** [November 3, 2016, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/695 "2016-11-03T14:39:00Z")
> [@Common\_Tater](#): > > I have no idea what you’re on about. > > Is it your contention for example that top secret and higher documents reside on the internet? I’m telling you, this stuff has its own network. If you want to try and refute that, be my guest. > > Hint: It isn’t connected to the internet. Ever. Never the twain shall meet. Satellite imagery, was discovered for just one example, or the higher classified documents. The public has it in their mind that this is “email scandal”; it is not per se. These were unsecured computer servers used outside government control, storing government documents that somehow were illegally removed from the secure network, aka jumped the “air gap” and ended up golly knows where, current estimates hacked by at least five (5) foreign governments. One hopes madam secretary wasn’t too inconvenienced, as we are told the “private email server” was a matter of convenience. Sure. > > None of it is ever supposed to end up on a Yahoo! email account hosted on the internet, or thumbdrives, or somebodies husbands laptop. Period. Hope this helps. > > (It’s all so absurd I still can’t believe this happened. These people implicated are complete morons, and it’s even more bizarre that anyone would try to make excuses for it.) You’re still not getting it. Yes, classified info isn’t supposed to be on non-classified networks, but it still happens quite frequently, since people sometimes discuss things by email that they shouldn’t. Usually it’s by accident, and in my 15 years of military active duty and civilian experience, I’ve personally seen controlled or classified info mishandled in this exact way dozens or even hundreds of times, and not a single time was anyone prosecuted for it. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/696 "2016-11-03T14:39:45Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I would like a cite that the e-mails contained secret satellite imagery. From my searches, even the Washington Times (!) only said that the e-mail contained information obtained through the use of spy satellites… Trying to visualize a Weiner From Space. Now trying to erase that image… ---
**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:** [November 3, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/697 "2016-11-03T14:42:14Z")
**elucidator** : Saying that someone created an appearance of impropriety is not an assertion that there is evidence of impropriety. It is asserting only that the circumstances reasonably raise questions about impropriety and therefore the circumstances themselves should be avoided, even when they are entirely innocuous. It is this high standard that many in the judicial system hold themselves to because of the importance of respect for the impartiality of the system. Most of the time, recusal because of the appearance of impropriety does not involve any actual impropriety. I believe there was nothing improper in the case of Lynch’s meeting, though of course there’s no way to know for sure (which is the whole point). But she recognized, correctly, that the meeting heightened concerns about the impartiality of her decision, and that these concerns were reason enough to defer to Comey. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/698 "2016-11-03T14:43:00Z")
> [@](#): > > …I believe there was nothing improper in the case of Lynch’s meeting… The witness may step down, before he says anything that might damage my position. Here’s your hat… ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/699 "2016-11-03T15:30:20Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That’s ridiculous. She’s the Attorney General of the United States. If someone wants to have an inappropriate meeting with her, she almost certainly has the opportunity to say “no” before it happens. And if not, then the first thing out of her mouth in person is, “I’m sorry Mr. President, but I don’t think meeting this way at this time is appropriate. Please leave my plane.” She’s not kicking Bill Clinton out the plane! The message was sent when Bill got on the plane. ---
**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:** [November 3, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950/700 "2016-11-03T15:34:04Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > She’s not kicking Bill Clinton out the plane! The message was sent when Bill got on the plane. Huh? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-is-re-opening-investigation-into-clintons-email/769950.md?page=36)