We were all waiting. Especially after Comey’s non-revelation about Clinton’s emails (which weren’t actually hers). Back around the last debate, after the “Grab 'em by the pussy” video, people (including me) were confidently predicting there would be a new story about some scandalous behavior by Trump every week until the election.
“Someone has to have caught him saying the N-word on tape!” we all said. “Someone must be able to find a woman who’s abortion he paid for!”
But nothing. Nada.
Sure, there was the video of Trump trying to humiliate a woman by kissing her on stage, but even here that doesn’t seem to have gotten much traction.
Is it just that nothing he did would actually surprise anyone now, and there is always a risk of rebound if it looks like Clinton is playing dirty? Has he really been that careful his whole life not to say racist slurs on camera (even though he said plenty of blatantly racist stuff on the record)? Has he really been that careful with birth control, despite being a very public philanderer who openly cheated on his various wives?
Cite? I’ve seen several people claim that none of the emails on Weiner’s laptop were from or to HRC, or some variation of that, but I haven’t seen any actual evidence that suggests that. Where is everyone getting this from? Or is it just a bit of ignorance that Dopers have collectively chosen to wallow in?
There’s no actual evidence of anything at this point. There is a poorly worded letter to Republican committee leaders saying “We might know something about someone doing something, but we don’t know.” Since it’s been portrayed by some to mean Hillary Clinton is the greatest criminal in US Presidential candidate history with such little justification, is it not possible that there’s actually nothing there?
As to Giuliani “knowing” this was coming - he’s full of shit. If there’s any shred of integrity left in the FBI, that windbag isn’t getting any actual information. On that note, I still think Comey hasn’t acted maliciously, just incredibly ignorantly. He’s made a variety of missteps on this entire investigation by trying to play it safe AND be transparent at the same time, while forgetting what climate he’s working in.
I have to admit that I don’t know where I picked up the disputed fact. In looking into the matter, it appears that Comey’s letter provided no details whatsoever on the emails, other than that they “appear to be pertinent to the investigation” of Clinton’s server. Anonymous sources cited by the NY Times apparently provided the information that the emails were found in the Wiener investigation, that they were on Wiener’s laptop, and that they belonged to Abedin (a Clinton aide and Wiener’s estranged wife).
At first, I read this last statement as meaning they were sent between Abedin and Wiener, although I suppose it is possible that before they separated Abedin was using Wiener’s computer to send and receive emails with Clinton.
So far, AFAICT, no one has actually claimed that to be the case. Some have suggested it is unclear. Others have implied none of the emails are to or from Clinton, but I think that is only based on the absence of evidence.
I’m going to stand by my (largely rhetorical) statement in the OP, but I admit the evidence in favor of it is weak, and I stand prepared to [del]move the goalposts[/del] [del]walk it back carefully and change the subject[/del] retract it if it becomes necessary.
There has also been at lest one report that some were to Clinton from Abedin, but non confirmed from Clinton, but I can’t remember where I read that, and the Newsweek article linked said that while that computer had been used to send Clinton from Huma, those emails were not being examined.
I don’t know how reliable either of these is, but people who say they aren’t to or from her aren’t “collectively wallowing in ignorance” - they’re repeating what news outlets have reported.
I used to listen to the Howard Stern show back in the day, and Trump was a frequent guest who always said raunchy things. But sadly Howard Stern is refusing to release the tapes. But I’m with you OP, surely there is more out there. Where the hell are they??
Thanks, Tzigone. That article has much more detail than I had found.
I appreciate the call for the cite, though. I wasn’t practicing good epistemological hygiene by repeating something without knowing the source. Fortunately, I tend to pick secondary (or tertiary) sources like the SDMB, where false statements rarely go unchallenged, and so can be relied upon without too much checking. but that’s only because people like HurricaneDitka do what he did in keeping us all honest.
Clinton e-mails is a specific. There may be any number of things on that laptop, my current understanding is that it goes back all the way to the beginnings of Weiners political efforts. It likely has a whole bunch of different things. It may have evidence that Ms Clinton was on Team Sarah and Ms Abedin, Team Angelina. There may be some juicy gossip. There may be recipes. Because there is a bunch of room for things to be in.
But to claim that a specific thing must be there, just because there is so much room for it to be there…that does not follow. In the words of the great political thinker, Sportin’ Life, it ain’t necessarily so.
You don’t need evidence that something is not in the big black bag. You need evidence that something is.
