Right, because if there was an agent risking his career to say something like that, he’d totally be going on MSNBC to do it.
Well, no shit. You expect an active FBI employee to just go on the record and trash his boss?
There have been many reports, for weeks now, of internal dissent in FBI; e.g.
True or not? I dunno. But there clearly has been smoke for awhile.
I agree. Of course, I also doubt that 106+ people looking at the same evidence all agreed that there WASN’T a prosecutable case.
It did not state that. There’s a huge world of difference between saying they “appear to be pertinent” but that they don’t yet know if they’re “significant”–which suggests that they’ve seen the content but haven’t had a chance to determine if it’s classified or that they haven’t reviewed the full context yet–and admitting that they have literally not seen the content of them.
It appears that they don’t even know if they are, in fact, “pertinent,” in any meaningful sense of the word.
First, it’s the NY Post. Second, it quotes only retired agents who were not involved in the investigation in any way.
He stated explicitly that they had only “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent” have not reviewed them yet and were taking the steps to able to.
Since then it has been made explicit that they only got the court approval to view them themselves over this week end.
If they did not “appear to be pertinent” then there would have been no reason for them to be allowed to look at them. They “appear to be pertinent” (which includes in an exculpatory manner" by virtue that the metadata suggests that some might be work-related.
I don’t know why we’re arguing over what the letter says. It’s short. I don’t think your interpretation, that it conveyed that the FBI hadn’t seen the content, is fair or reasonable. Obviously, YMMV.
What we now know is that the FBI actually had the cache for a while before Comey was briefed, which is why the letter references when he learned of them and not when the FBI learned of them.
If you define “pertinent” to stretch beyond legal relevance, then yes. That meaning is not what the letter implied on its face, especially given the context of writing such a letter when he did. (They can get a warrant by alleging facts that suggest that relevant evidence might be found there–they needn’t know in advance that it is pertinent, as Comey’s letter suggested they knew.)
I would make a theoretical distinction between the FBI having not yet reviewed the content of the emails and the FBI not yet having info on what the emails contain. Another investigative body is reported to have found this device. It is just possible that a rival investigative agency has viewed some of the emails and found something untoward. Yes, I know this is speculation but speculation is what we are left with until more facts come out.
What about Huma Abedin’s role in this? She claimed to have told the FBI of all devices she used. If she lied about this then finding any emails on this undisclosed device would be a significant development in itself. If she simply misremembered, or had emails automatically transferred simultaneously to this and other devices then it’s possibly no big deal. Once again it’s all about intent. If these emails are all duplicates then there was probably no intent to deceive. If the emails include codes for the nuclear button or the current hiding place of the real Osama Bin Laden them im going to assume Comey has his intent.
This is a good explanation of what happened. The child porn scan of the drive searches the entire drive. Dumping everything that might be useful. Images, videos, email addresses and so on. The agents see Clinton and state Dept addresses. They couldn’t go farther with the warrant they had for the Weiner investigation.
They got the new warrant today to begin investigating the Clinton material on the drive.
DSeid, I’m not sure I trust the WSJ’s take on the course of events. For example, they assert, based on anonymous sources, that the metadata on the emails “suggests” that the messages might have come from Clinton’s private server.
OTOH, Newsweek spoke a different anonymous source who said otherwise -
Given that Comey straight up said that he couldn’t know the significance of these emails, and given that if the emails were known to have come from Clinton’s private server, the significance would have been obvious, I’m not sure that the WSJ is really reliable.
There’s no contradiction there, since Huma had an email address on the clintonmail server.
The one good reason I can come up with Comey releasing when he did was that he was worried they would find something, and he would look bad for waiting until after the election to say anything.
He could have written a similar letter for that reason without launching this shitstorm by explaining that they had not viewed the emails yet, and therefore did not yet know if they were work-related or if they were even new to them. Instead, by saying they appear to be pertinent and may be significant–and not clearly explaining why he felt compelled to write the letter 11 days before the election–he suggested they had more than they really did.
I went through your first article, and counted three disgruntled FBI agents. None of those three currently work for the FBI. There are over 35,000 people currently working for the FBI; one presumes there are a few other retired agents.
Given a pool of 35,000 left-leaning elderly white ladies from Arkansas, I’m sure I could find at least three willing to talk shit about Clinton. That wouldn’t constitute “smoke.”
The sample we’re pulling from here is YUGE. There’s no reason whatsoever to think those three former employees are significant.
The only smoke here is being blown by Donald Trump up our collective asses.
Oh–and given how much hay was made out of so few people in that article, it’s worth noting that the article is written by Paul Sperry, the modern mind behind such classics as The Muslim Mafia (published by World Net Daily) and Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington.
There’s a reason why it’s a good idea to turn toward reliable news sources. Ya can’t believe everything you read on the Intarwebs.
As for the second article, Joe DiGenova, the main source, has been after the Clintons literally for decades, spouting untruth after untruth. Kerry Picket, the author, doesn’t have an unvarnished record of honesty herself.
Careful with what you believe!
I’m struggling to imagine that anything he wrote differently would have resulted in a significantly different response from the various parties. It’s gotten to be that “e-mail” is like “Bengazi”. It’s evokes a Pavlovian response depending on one’s political leanings. The right wing snarls, the left wing rolls its eyes, and the media is just dying for something, anything to write about.
I actually think the fact that there is essentially no “there” there in the letter he did write, that this whole thing is dying down on its own. As long as Comey, contrary to what some have suggested here, doesn’t saying anything else between now and the election. Even this rabid media can only report so much of nothing before they move on to something else.
I agree that any letter would have been chum for the Great White Grope, which is a good reason not to write one just to cover your ass. But he still could have written it in a more responsible way.
There’s another story making the rounds. It involves Jacob Chaffetz, famous most recently for his remarkable flip-a-thon about Trump, YES!..oh, Hell no and finally vote for but not endorse. Here’s a version from Daily Kos:
What if Chaffetz was tipped off? Maybe that’s the cause of his backflipped “endorsement”. Maybe Comey finds out and realizes that the beans will be out of the bag and the cat will be spilled. So he gets there first with his own statement, to keep some sort of control of the situation.
Don’t think keeping it from the Dem members matters all that much, not like they wouldn’t find out. Just sticking a thumb in their eye. I have a fair to middlin’ impression of Kos, but its just a story as far as they are concerned as well, so, whateverness.
Trump and his people have been lying their faces off for two days about this. How its proof positive of criminal intent, behavior, and aftermath. No shades of grey, no “alleged”, just flat. And they cashed his credibility to hold it up, Il Douche’s spokesgit, Chubby Chinless with a Goatee, said what a lot of other said, that Comey wouldn’t have said anything at all unless the new evidence was rock solid smoking gub.
I don’t see how he can just ignore that. But this guy ain’t who I thought he was, anyway, so who fucking knows.
I think that’s only partly true. It’s true to the extent that what the Orange One says, and his acolytes believe, has no connection to reality whatsoever. This is the guy who had proof positive that Obama was born in Kenya, who proclaimed that the world “wouldn’t believe” what his investigators in Hawaii were finding to support that thesis, and then later claimed that he personally was responsible for clearing up the whole thing and proving that Obama was born in Hawaii after all. The Donald: Master sleuth, righter of wrongs, public hero! In his own mind, that is. In reality he’s a conniving con man and his followers are gullible idiots, and it’s just that simple.
That said, if Comey had worded the letter responsibly, any attempt to spin it as a looming indictment of Hillary could have been exposed as absurd and completely unwarranted by a straightforward reading of the words. Instead, he left it so vague that literally any interpretation was possible. That was just grossly irresponsible.
Exactly.
As this appears to be falling apart, the next interesting question is how Andrew Douche Cray responds. He could just change nothing at all, he’s already pretending that the FBI has evidence that is totally going to crush Hillary, Its not likely that a definitive announcement will be made before the election. So he can keep on spouting the same crapola regardless. Why should he care?
'Course, that’s a sensible and reasonable approach. What he’ll actually do?