23 ms·

FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Probe Less Than Two Weeks Before Vote

202 points by uptown 10y ago

danenania 10y ago
Ok, so Hillary Clinton was and continues to be a corrupt, deceitful, and self-interested operator. She's doubtlessly done all kinds of both borderline and outright illegal things throughout her career. No big surprise here. If elected, she will continue to work the highly imperfect system we've got in lots of shady and questionable ways. But please, let's get real. For all her numerous faults, her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society. Honestly, I hate to say this, but we are past the point of laws here and the fairy tale than ANY sufficiently powerful person will be held accountable for their misdeeds. I've never been one to buy the two-party lesser of evils narrative, but we are really and truly at the edge of the cliff right now. Do we let righteous indignation push us over the edge? Or do we live to fight another day?
- deelowe 10y ago
  Would be nice if she were prosecuted so that we can move on with a better candidate.
  - danenania 10y ago
    A week before the election? No. Taking Clinton down, as much as she may deserve it, means the country takes a huge leap toward fascism. It's simple as that.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      I find it interesting that you think prosecuting someone for committing a crime would result in fascism, so your solution is to absolve her of the crimes she committed.
      - abootstrapper 10y ago
        As far as we can tell, she has not committed any crimes. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
        tylerwhipple 10y ago
        Just like Trump with the alleged sexual assaults right? No one brings those up....
        languagewars 10y ago
        He raped his ex wife then did whatever else and ran a bunch of scams. She gave out what she believed to be classified data in a system she clearly understands. Yet even if neither understands their crimes are crimes they are responsible for them under US law. If you want to fix US law and/or the election system then arrest them both. Then something has to be fixed or the system has to run with no inaugurated president. The system functioning with no president is an even better reform in my book.
- dman 10y ago
  If we let people get away with illegal activity because it is politically convenient we will not have rule of law anymore.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  This type of comment tends to get down voted on HN, as is already happening. FWIW I agree with you, but the dispassionate rationalists among us will argue that equally applying the rule of law is more important that preventing a potentially dangerous demagogue from taking power. Of course, theres no way that the a trial could occur, let alone an investigation be completed, before the election at this point, so that argument doesn't really apply IMO. If HRC loses because of this, it will simply have been a trial by public opinion, not the rule of law. Others could also argue that, despite his statements that have shown utter contempt for and ignorance of American law, history and political norms, he doesn't actually have a track record in one direction or another and is just saying those things to elicit support from his base. We can only hope...
- return0 10y ago
  I wonder to what percentage US people feel they are threatened by a crazy president. I am under the impression that US has the most impressive checks and balances and nobody is above the laws&constitution (and this act by the FBI seems to prove it).
- swissoak 10y ago
  >her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society Let me get this straight. Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting our democratic process. She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people responsible for running the voting process. She's sponsored by people who own the voting machines. And not to mention that she has inarguably done highly illegal things with her private email server and got off without charges, showing the injustice of our two-tier criminal justice system. edit: removed argument I rescind and check out this recording of Hillary that came out today: http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/ http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-cl... "That troubled me deeply. I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And...if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win." And Trump is the one threatening our democracy?
  - pfraze 10y ago
    Oh, stop. I don't like Hillary, but Trump says he'll contest a loss. That's what actual subversion of the process looks like. Everything you're bringing up is politics. > Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Getting elected is a process of building key supporters, including within your own party. > We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs All candidates do, and use some level of indirection to stay within the regulation. The regulation is toothless for campaign finance reform, so why get worked up about it. > She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her Outgoing presidents always campaign on behalf of their party's nominee.
    - luxuryballs 10y ago
      He didn't say he would contest a loss, he said he wouldn't make a decision until the election actually took place. How anyone expects someone to predict the future is beyond me and the logic of the question shows that it was totally a trap so they could write sensational news headlines.
- vectorpush 10y ago
  I agree with you, but I think she needs to be indicted if the e-mails prove her to be culpable. Ideally she will win the election, and if the e-mails prove damning she will be indicted and hopefully impeached and forced to resign, leaving Tim Kaine to finish off her term, which IMO would be the best case scenario for the country.
  - williadc 10y ago
    Impeachment doesn't mean she will be forced to resign. Look at what happened with Bill Clinton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    - vectorpush 10y ago
      I understand that, that's why I said "impeached AND forced to resign" :)
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        If the Senate convicts, the impeached individual is removed from office, they don't need to resign (and I guess won't save face by doing it once they are impeached).
  - heurist 10y ago
    That's pretty presumptive. The last FBI investigation into her emails went a year and found nothing. Given that she's been running for president the last decade or two and republicans will pounce on her over any little misstep, do you really think she'd intentionally do something that could ruin her chances of winning or staying president? Remember that intention is important in law...
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      >The last FBI investigation into her emails went a year and found nothing. Incorrect, they found no one who was "willing to prosecute"
- downandout 10y ago
  >Honestly, I hate to say this, but we are past the point of laws here In one breath, you express concern about the end of democracy, and in the next you disregard one of the vanguards of American government as if it's nothing. If we are indeed "past the point of laws here," then democracy has already ended.
- languagewars 10y ago
  I think a bipartisan effort to arrest both of them before the election is the logical way forward. I want a system where criminals are afraid to run for office.
- harshreality 10y ago
  When your argument against Trump is a "FEAR UP" campaign without any substantive support or details, you've lost the argument. Trump supporters are not going to be frightened by your hyperbolic claims, and on the Hillary side you're talking into an echo chamber. It's easy to refute two gross generalizations you made: Enforcing immigration policy, even pausing immigration in certain cases, is not "closing" open society. It's recognizing that there's a dark side to allowing arbitrary numbers of immigrants and refugees bypassing the normal immigration process, and it's taking a step back and figuring out in advance, rationally, what policy we want to enforce, rather than not enforcing any meaningful policy and getting stuck with the results down the road. The free speech threat from regulating big (and maybe not-so-big) media is troublesome, I agree. However, it's accepted, even more on the far left than on the far right, that pretty much all media, advertising, and entertainment is propaganda. What happens if we continue to fail to recognize this propaganda as a threat to the kind of democracy we hopefully want—a democracy built on rational inquiry, rather than one built on the crest of emotion, on propaganda-fueled mass hysteria? You want democracy? This is what Hillary's "democracy" looks (sounds) like: http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/ http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-cl... (direct soundcloud link https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 )
- freehunter 10y ago
  Nothing Trump has said or done in any way improves the suitability of Clinton for president. If Trump did get elected, maybe it would shock the nation into actually caring about who they pick as their nominee?
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    > If Trump did get elected, maybe it would shock the nation into actually caring about who they pick as their nominee? I've wondered about this but I don't think it would happen. Every single person but 3 that I know who is voting for Hillary or Trump is doing so with the upmost conviction that the candidate completely and entirely represents their values as belonging to the respective parties. It's as if the individual parties have become a religion. And sure I know a few people who will vote for either party that represents their values and goals the most (I am one of them) but for every 1 person I know like that I know dozens of others who are as tied to their political party as their religion. Yes this is all anecdotal. I have nothing else to go on. But now that he's the nominee I think more people than we might expect are going to fully support him.
  - brandon272 10y ago
    I think people severely overestimate how a Trump presidency would play out in terms of "shocking" the system. And in the meantime, a Trump administration could do plenty of damage that have ripple effects on society for decades to come. (See: Supreme Court nominees)
    - douche 10y ago
      > (See: Supreme Court nominees) The flip side of that is that there are pretty close to the same number of people that think a Clinton administration could do plenty of damage that would have ripple effects on society for decades to come. I'm uneasy about judicial activism, in either direction. I wish that conservatism, of the Chestertonian, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" variety, was a requirement for such an august long-tenured position.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      ...a Trump administration could do plenty of damage that have ripple effects on society for decades to come. (See: Supreme Court nominees) Didn't we get a list of these? In order, Trump will nominate his sister, Rudy Giuliani, and Chris Christie. He won't get more than three nominations, and Rudy can't end all civil rights for criminal defendants forever all by himself.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  Please a democratically elected presidential candidate from a major party getting elected cannot be a threat against democracy, it IS democracy. Democracy is not getting the leader you want, it is not getting the best leader and it isn't pretty - it is a way to guarantee legitimacy by getting the leader most people vote for, no more, no less.
tylerwhipple 10y ago
What happens if they find her guilty after she is elected?
- Waterluvian 10y ago
  Impeachment and VP becomes president? Or personal pardon!
  - criddell 10y ago
    That's what I was wondering too. Can't she just pardon herself?
    - Impl0x 10y ago
      Presidential pardons don't apply to impeachments, I believe.
    - phd514 10y ago
      Possibly, but pardons don't apply to impeachment, so she could still be removed as President.
      - sp332 10y ago
        Bill Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        I think even our partisan, dysfunctional congress would still impeach and remove a president that choose to pardon themselves and not step down.
        sp332 10y ago
        I only meant that they could "impeach" her over something but she could still be in office.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
That was a very strange article with all the near-wishful "igniting speculation about a Clinton defeat" stuff. The whole emails issue has been inside baseball, politics-wise. Insiders and pundits love yelling about it but average voters either don't care (the vast majority) or have already assumed she's guilty/not guilty and priced that into their vote. Reopening the investigation is not going to change the election outcome.
- eli 10y ago
  I've heard many people cite emails as the main reason they are not voting for her. I assume most of them actually would never have voted for her anyway, but it's a real issue.
  - acdha 10y ago
    Those statements are always hard to trust, however, since you don't know how many of them are people who may not feeling comfortable stating their true beliefs in that forum or don't really care but are trying to encourage people they believe would vote for the other side not to vote at all. I would bet that we're seeing a lot of that this year because there are many Republicans who don't like a Democrat winning but also aren't keen to have their personal reputation tarred by support for their party's candidate. If, say, you feel there is an immigration problem it's much easier to say something about email servers rather than trying to defend Trump's positions on the issue or defend yourself against charges of racism.
  - JohnTHaller 10y ago
    The majority of them have no idea what they're talking about if you ask them "what about the emails?" and are just parroting a talking point. Even if she was fully cleared and they were made aware of the fact that Republicans have done the same thing, it would not change their minds.
    - philk10 10y ago
      Exactly - I had an argument with one who kept parroting that she had 3 servers but only said 1 when asked by the FBI, when I asked if they knew what an email server was they had no clue
techthroway443 10y ago
And absolutely nothing will come of it just like the first time around.
- williamle8300 10y ago
  One can always hope, my friend.
danvoell 10y ago
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails" - Sounds very happenstance. What are the odds something coincidental happened two weeks before the election?
- pwg 10y ago
  What is the probability that "an unrelated case" is political speak for "wikileaks"?
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Given the sheer number of cases and the government's prior willingness to name and shame Wikileaks, I'd expect that probability to be low without further evidence (high uncertainty remains).
    - mordocai 10y ago
      Would the FBI want to admit to the committee that wikileaks had data they didn't unless they had to though?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Pete Williams, NBC's reporter that has sources at the Department of Justice, is reporting that it isn't about wikileaks or emails that Clinton sent. http://www.vox.com/2016/10/28/13458382/fbi-hillary-clinton http://www.vox.com/2016/10/28/13458382/fbi-hillary-clinton
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Going by https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/792082223461695488 https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/792082223461695488 You start to wonder what Huma Abedin might have said to her husband.
- insickness 10y ago
  Assange has been releasing thousands of Podesta's emails in dribs and drabs every day. The Justice Department just released a lot of new information as well.
Alex3917 10y ago
The real question is whether this is because of the KimDotCom tweet, or whether it's related to something in the Podesta emails or otherwise.
- MattSteelblade 10y ago
  KimDotCom tweet for reference https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/791364506425315328 https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/791364506425315328
- trendia 10y ago
  It would be rather funny if America's justice system is so inefficient that one agency would have all of the evidence necessary for an investigation and another would fail to at least ask for it.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    It's not like the FBI is institutionally clamoring to disqualify Clinton and ensure Trump's victory
  - ls66 10y ago
    Career government officials are not likely to be activist about investigations. As with Clinton's denials, which are very passive and "I didn't know" or didn't question something, one can cover oneself very well by simply not offering anything or refusing to ask for something. Sins of omission are much harder to prosecute.
  - swissoak 10y ago
    Except this is exactly what happened last time. They had concrete evidence, they essentially said what she did was illegal, it would have been a slam-dunk case, but regardless said they didn't recommend prosecuting because they didn't think it was feasible.
hackuser 10y ago
To say the obvious: There is great risk of the FBI and/or Comey trying to influence the outcome of the election. Earlier, when Comey said Clinton had been "extremely careless", it seemed to overstep his bounds: He played judge and jury, and convicted her without trial. To do this two weeks before the election raises very serious questions about the U.S.'s most fundamental institutions, rule of law, and democracy. Every Democratic leader is subject to endless investigation and deligitimization. EDIT: This is not a partisan concern. Everyone needs these institutions, democracy and the rule of law.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  I don't think you watched Comey's presentation. He said that Clinton should not be prosecuted (ie. no conviction).
  - caminante 10y ago
    Also, it was the DOJ that signed off on granting immunity to key actors. The FBI's actions didn't go unchecked.
  - swissoak 10y ago
    He said he doesn't recommend prosecution because he didn't believe there was a reasonable prosecutor that would do it. It's a huge load of horse shit. Hillary got off because she's well connected, not because there wasn't a case.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      "We are expressing to Justice, our view, that no charges are appropriate in this case." - Comey
- ethanbond 10y ago
  You know, minus the whole lack of a charge, trial, conviction, punishment, or even official reprimand. Besides that it's exactly as if Comey convicted her without trial. /s
woodruffw 10y ago
I find Comey's decision to disclose this new investigation less than 2 weeks from election day extremely perplexing. By all means, perform your investigation, but to announce it immediately before what's arguably one of the most important elections in modern US history? If I were a paranoid man, I'd say that this looks like an attempt by an unelected official to prejudice voters.
- patrickmay 10y ago
  He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If there is a smoking gun in the newly discovered emails and he said nothing until after the election, he would be accused of manipulating it in that way.
  - blowski 10y ago
    I totally agree. I desperately want Clinton to win, and I think she'll make a great president. Those who believe her victory must be an illuminati conspiracy should be given as little ammunition as possible.
  - woodruffw 10y ago
    That may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that HRC (or Trump, for that matter) should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. As it currently stands, an indictment hasn't even been recommended. Under such circumstances, the exposure of a search for a smoking gun is suspect.
    - __abc 10y ago
      It's tough and I don't think it's so black and white, and ultimately depends on "exactly" what they found. Waiting until after seems wrong, and I say this as someone who as it stands is voting for HRC. I honestly don't view this as influence, and more covering his ass, which has me nervous for HRC.
      - woodruffw 10y ago
sp332 10y ago
Here is the actual letter. Note the FBI does not say they are "re-opening" anything. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv3vbcHXgAAMdPE.jpg:orig https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv3vbcHXgAAMdPE.jpg:orig
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  It seems pretty clear. They are going to investigate those new emails. Hence, reopening the investigation. Where am I wrong?
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    I was under the impression that there's some operational distinction between looking at and evaluating some information, and declaring a formal, targeted investigation as "open". But its probably too fine a distinction for the general public to be bothered about. It's a bad look vs a worse look.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      Perhaps, I think the key takeaway for Americans is the "Not Guilty" that Americans seemed to believe was the case in regards to these emails (It was really "Nobody would prosecute") may not be so. Perhaps it would have been better to admit fault and deal with this outright in the beginning, rather than attempting to manipulate the process[0]. [0]http://observer.com/2016/07/exclusive-security-source-details-bill-clinton-maneuver-to-meet-loretta-lynch/ http://observer.com/2016/07/exclusive-security-source-detail...
  - sp332 10y ago
    It says they're going to look at whether the emails are relevant. That means they don't know if the emails are even relevant yet.
    - williamle8300 10y ago
      When you reference a past case against new evidence that's usually called re-opening a case.
ljnelson 10y ago
Note that nowhere is the word "reopen" used in the original source materials.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
As much as I would like this to be true, I think that's a pretty biased interpretation of his letter. My reading would be this: "We found some new emails. They're relevant, but we don't know if they're important. We're looking into it." What I find interesting is the timing of this letter and, possibly, the fact that he wrote it at all. But we can't judge the significance of those without knowing if this is standard procedure. For all we know, he may regularly send letters that say things like "I spelled a word wrong on page 875 of our report. Agents are looking into correcting it and resubmitting the report." Or this type of letter could be highly unusual, especially days before a presidential election. Either way, he had to know Chaffetz would be shouting this from the top of a mountain...
- o0-0o 10y ago
  Methinks that Comey is factoring in a Trump win, and that the 33,000 deleted emails are coming out before election day.
- burkaman 10y ago
  It sounds like he only sent the letter because of his testimony, and his testimony was highly unusual, so the letter must be too.
- koolba 10y ago
  > What I find interesting is the timing of this letter and, possibly, the fact that he wrote it at all. But we can't judge the significance of those without knowing if this is standard procedure. For all we know, he may regularly send letters that say things like "I spelled a word wrong on page 875 of our report. Agents are looking into correcting it and resubmitting the report." > Or this type of letter could be highly unusual, especially days before a presidential election. I can't imagine Comey sending that letter out this close to the election without having something actionable. He knows full well the impact that even the allegation that something is there would have.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    > I can't imagine Comey sending that letter out this close to the election without having something actionable. He knows full well the impact that even the allegation that something is there would have. He apparently was legally required to because he previously testified that everything had been looked out. There is now more to look at. This was a savvy move by Rep Chaffetz, not a strategy by Comey (Chaffetz is also who characterized it as being re-opened, Comey said no such thing).
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
As a third-party voter I really don't want to get into a discussion about the major candidates. But as a hacker I am interested in how the political system operates. So let's speculate that a candidate is elected to office and then is indicted on a felony. What happens? Obviously anybody can be elected president, so there's no legal problem. But Congress also is charged with certifying electors. Would they certify electors for a candidate that had legal issues? If they did, the candidate could just pardon themselves once in office. It brings up some weird issues.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  Interesting question regarding certifying electors. I sure don't know. Wouldn't be surprised if Trump supporting Representatives tries to hold up that process though, were HRC to be found guilty between winning and the certification. I can't imagine the timeline of a trial would allow that to happen though. Regarding the self-pardoning, as discussed elsewhere, it wouldn't really matter, she could still be impeached. Impeachment is extra-judicial.
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    I believe what we're discovering is that once a major party picks you, you really can't be tried for any crime. You could be charged. If you lost the election you could be tried. But I'm not seeing how the state could effectively conduct a criminal court case of a major candidate. This leads me to believe that Congress really has to decide. Beats me whether they should decide before or after the person is sworn in. (Of course this is just speculating about a generic case.)
alva 10y ago
If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear Bite it US Gov
dmode 10y ago
Oooh, so much last minute drama. Great for television.
- qznc 10y ago
  I agree, season 58 is certainly a very entertaining one.
tunesmith 10y ago
Throughout this whole thing, I can't get past one thing - her using her own server was no big secret when it was happening.
- todd8 10y ago
  Where did you learn that? I'm actually not disputing what you are saying I just didn't know. I understand that her email address wasn't a .gov address, but it could still (depending on the DNS MX record) identify a government controlled server. Couldn't it?
- knodi123 10y ago
  Obama said otherwise. He said he learned about it in the news reports at the same time as everyone else.
  - douche 10y ago
    Which some of these emails has revealed was bullshit
    - williamle8300 10y ago
      I believe you're referring to this: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077 Podesta is on record saying that "we need to clean this up" when this discrepancy surfaced.
    - knodi123 10y ago
      No it didn't. Unless I'm the only person who doesn't check the domain of every email that arrives in his inbox. Obama is not Sherlock Holmes, and he can be unaware of something, even if there is evidence he could possibly have seen. You need a little more evidence than that to call somebody a liar.
hooph00p 10y ago
I'm disappointed to see this sort of hysteria and conspiracy theorizing in a HN comment section.
- yolesaber 10y ago
  "we need to clean this up" ~ Podesta https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077
  - hooph00p 10y ago
    I am not being baited into an argument about this.
    - yolesaber 10y ago
      Have fun in the FEMA camps, shill
      - sctb 10y ago
        Baseless, uncivil accusations of shillage are not what we need on Hacker News. Please don't post like this.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Political people say "clean this up" about anything they don't want in the media. Anything. Everything. (I know this because I over consume political news media and they have adopted it as a term; it's really horrifying, they talk about the campaigns attempting to manipulate them instead of doing real analysis)
    - yolesaber 10y ago
      I work in public policy. You realize what they said they had to clean up right? The president lied on television about his knowledge of the servers.
thecrow1213 10y ago
Oh my god everyone here is splitting hairs like the rest of the goddamn internet. The FBI is looking at more Clinton emails. That sounds shady and bad for Clinton no matter how you swing it.
- yolesaber 10y ago
  When you have Podesta saying "we need to clean this up" you know you're in trouble, esp since that email leaked... https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077
- return0 10y ago
  I believe she herself knows how bad it is because she's avoiding to immediately address the issue, while speaking publicly an hour later.
- drewrv 10y ago
  She could hire someone to walk her dog and 40% of the country would consider it scandalous and criminal.
  - gragas 10y ago
    You're dramatically downplaying the things HRC has been implicated in. It's almost as if you've already made up your mind that she's not guilty of anything.
    - drewrv 10y ago
      33 congressional hearings and $7 million were spent on the whole Benghazi thing, and what did it prove? Obviously she should have supported the ambassador better but hindsight is 20/20. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/house-select-committee-benghazi-report http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/house-select-committe... Then there's the accusation that she rigged the primary, despite the fact that she had nothing to do with that. It was on the DNC. Or there was the "scandal" about how her staff was smashing cell phones. It's a legit and basically mundane data security procedure. https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-phones-better/ https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-pho... People scream scandal at her over mundane stuff or stuff she has nothing to do with all the time. It's absurd.
dmode 10y ago
The big problem with this announcement is that the letter only says "we found some emails and we are reviewing". But in news cycle it will get translated to a guilty verdict and possibly influence election outcome. Shouldn't they have reviewed the emails to see if there is classified information before sending out a letter like this ? Comey surely knew that this letter will be a big deal.
- skeptic2718 10y ago
  Does it matter if it had classified information or not when a high ranking state official is using a personal private email server to bypass the official one?
  - dmode 10y ago
    Using a private email server was the norm at state department. Collin Powell used a private server and explained the benefits of it to Hillary Clinton. The only reason this bubbled up top was due to the Bengazhi situation. Otherwise, there would not even be an investigation on this.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      IMO just because it was the norm does not mean it's acceptable
    - poliwut 10y ago
      To provide some clarity about Powell: 1. He used a personal, private email address--note a personal, private email server. 2. This was the norm to use a private address, yes. However, policies changed after Powell left and no longer permitted this kind of behavior. 3. Clinton and her staff blatantly ignored these policies and took it a step further by using her own personal, private email server. 4. Powell only used the email address to handle non-classified material. Clinton handled classified material on her email server.
    - douche 10y ago
      well, you can get away with anything as long as you don't get caught doing it...
return0 10y ago
I wonder if there is a way to make this thread NOT be flagged to extinction. Perhaps talk only about the technicalities behind this, or compare to distant history.
downandout 10y ago
Unless an indictment comes down before Election Day, I think it's probably too late for this to have any material impact. Most likely Clinton voters aren't actually Clinton voters - they are anti-Trump voters. An indictment prior to the election would change things, but that will not happen. Clinton has almost no chance of losing. Once she wins, she will then either short circuit the investigation by forcing Comey and anyone else associated with it to resign, or she will actually be indicted and then she will pardon herself. For the record I believe that both of the candidates are despicable human beings and either one will make the worst President I have ever had in my lifetime, but we are almost certainly stuck with Clinton for at least the next four years.
- swissoak 10y ago
  I think the more likely situation is that Obama pardons her some time after election day.
  - arzt 10y ago
    Is their a historical precedent for something like this? (ie sitting president pardons incoming president?)
    - swissoak 10y ago
      I don't believe so, but we have plenty of shitty precedents with Obama's 8 years.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      Not quite. There is precedent for the new president pardoning the outgoing president, though - Ford pardoned Nixon for anything and everything Nixon had done that was illegal during his term in office. That closed the book on Watergate, but it arguably cost Ford the election to Carter.
  - chris11 10y ago
    Yeah, I don't think that will happen. First, the previous report found no wrongdoing. Second, I'm sure Hillary will say that she did not break the law (which is so far supported by the FBI investiagtion unless these new emails change things). And third, Clinton's accuser's don't always care about how accurate their accusations are and Obama's pardon will just give them evidence that they were right. I don't see a pardon needed or useful.
hourislate 10y ago
What I don't understand is how in the world does stuff like this happen (Private Email Server). Isn't there anyone handling security for these people? Just like the CIA assigns people to guard the President and the folks around him, why in the world are there not Cyber Security Experts over seeing communications and making sure that everything these folks do follows a certain protocol. They are not allowed to drive cars and the CIA makes sure they don't. So why are they not monitored to make sure their communications are secure and there is no risk to the nations information.
zellyn 10y ago
This was the most interesting thing I've read recently about the emails: https://plus.google.com/+AndreasSchou/posts/66GZj3y6dWn https://plus.google.com/+AndreasSchou/posts/66GZj3y6dWn
kyrre 10y ago
SHUT IT DOWN!
abootstrapper 10y ago
Everyone shouting "lock her up" doesn't know exactly what they're "locking her up" for, except for something vaguely relate to emails and the fact they don't like her. Oh, also, they've already decided she's guilty of "emails." Either the FBI says "Clinton is guilty of emails" or the system is rigged.
- marshray 10y ago
  Here are some potential charges I could imagine: 1. She used her official position as Secretary of State representing the United States to solicit $150M++ of dollars in foreign donations for her personal 501c3. Imagine how this worked. Picture the scene at a US Embassy social function in some small corrupt country: "Oh sure El Presidente, I'd be happy to look into what's holding up your USAID payments. Sayyy, Bill would love to come and deliver a speech for you. By the way, his going rate is $500,000." Having our Secretary of State asking foreign dignitaries for payments on-the-side irreparably damages our country's reputation in the world. This is some of the most egregious and blatant corruption we have ever seen in a public official. 3. She made copies of government information, which any reasonable person would agree qualifies as some level of classification, to a personal server in her home that was not authorized to store such information (and as a result the Russians stole it). 2. She conducted government business using an unauthorized private server, and did so specifically for the purpose of concealing her actions and correspondence from both internal and official oversight. 4. She set up some type of shadow internal review process to squash entirely legitimate FOIA requests that might reflect poorly on her department or herself. Routinely, little people are vigorously prosecuted for far, far less. America explicitly rejects having a double standard for royalty, why shouldn't she be subject to the same rules?
Delmania 10y ago
Comey was legally obligated to tell Congress this as his office had told Congress that it was finished reviewing the evidence. In this election of course, Trump supporters will look at this as a sign of hillary's crookedness, and HRC supporters will look at this as a way to sway the election. Also, the emails in question are not from Clinton and were never withheld in the original investigation. They appear to come from the devices of Anthony Weinar and his ex-wife. Also, as more than one person has reported, the case was never closed.
douche 10y ago
This reminds me more and more of Julius Caesar and other Roman Republican officials having to stay on the treadmill of the cursus honorum to maintain legal immunity and avoid corruption charges committed while in office.
tmaly 10y ago
I read the quotes from Comey, I would not characterize this as being reopened at all. I am not sure why he did this, the timing is suspect. Its pure speculation, but perhaps he is hedging his odds of keeping his job?

202 points by uptown 10y ago

Ok, so Hillary Clinton was and continues to be a corrupt, deceitful, and self-interested operator. She's doubtlessly done all kinds of both borderline and outright illegal things throughout her career. No big surprise here. If elected, she will continue to work the highly imperfect system we've got in lots of shady and questionable ways. But please, let's get real. For all her numerous faults, her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society. Honestly, I hate to say this, but we are past the point of laws here and the fairy tale than ANY sufficiently powerful person will be held accountable for their misdeeds. I've never been one to buy the two-party lesser of evils narrative, but we are really and truly at the edge of the cliff right now. Do we let righteous indignation push us over the edge? Or do we live to fight another day?

deelowe 10y ago
Would be nice if she were prosecuted so that we can move on with a better candidate.
- danenania 10y ago
  A week before the election? No. Taking Clinton down, as much as she may deserve it, means the country takes a huge leap toward fascism. It's simple as that.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    I find it interesting that you think prosecuting someone for committing a crime would result in fascism, so your solution is to absolve her of the crimes she committed.
    - abootstrapper 10y ago
      As far as we can tell, she has not committed any crimes. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
      - tylerwhipple 10y ago
        Just like Trump with the alleged sexual assaults right? No one brings those up....
        languagewars 10y ago
        He raped his ex wife then did whatever else and ran a bunch of scams. She gave out what she believed to be classified data in a system she clearly understands. Yet even if neither understands their crimes are crimes they are responsible for them under US law. If you want to fix US law and/or the election system then arrest them both. Then something has to be fixed or the system has to run with no inaugurated president. The system functioning with no president is an even better reform in my book.
dman 10y ago
If we let people get away with illegal activity because it is politically convenient we will not have rule of law anymore.
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
This type of comment tends to get down voted on HN, as is already happening. FWIW I agree with you, but the dispassionate rationalists among us will argue that equally applying the rule of law is more important that preventing a potentially dangerous demagogue from taking power. Of course, theres no way that the a trial could occur, let alone an investigation be completed, before the election at this point, so that argument doesn't really apply IMO. If HRC loses because of this, it will simply have been a trial by public opinion, not the rule of law. Others could also argue that, despite his statements that have shown utter contempt for and ignorance of American law, history and political norms, he doesn't actually have a track record in one direction or another and is just saying those things to elicit support from his base. We can only hope...
return0 10y ago
I wonder to what percentage US people feel they are threatened by a crazy president. I am under the impression that US has the most impressive checks and balances and nobody is above the laws&constitution (and this act by the FBI seems to prove it).
swissoak 10y ago
>her opponent represents the very real specter of the end of democracy and the closing of our free society Let me get this straight. Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting our democratic process. She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people responsible for running the voting process. She's sponsored by people who own the voting machines. And not to mention that she has inarguably done highly illegal things with her private email server and got off without charges, showing the injustice of our two-tier criminal justice system. edit: removed argument I rescind and check out this recording of Hillary that came out today: http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/ http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-cl... "That troubled me deeply. I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And...if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win." And Trump is the one threatening our democracy?
- pfraze 10y ago
  Oh, stop. I don't like Hillary, but Trump says he'll contest a loss. That's what actual subversion of the process looks like. Everything you're bringing up is politics. > Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Getting elected is a process of building key supporters, including within your own party. > We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs All candidates do, and use some level of indirection to stay within the regulation. The regulation is toothless for campaign finance reform, so why get worked up about it. > She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her Outgoing presidents always campaign on behalf of their party's nominee.
  - luxuryballs 10y ago
    He didn't say he would contest a loss, he said he wouldn't make a decision until the election actually took place. How anyone expects someone to predict the future is beyond me and the logic of the question shows that it was totally a trap so they could write sensational news headlines.
vectorpush 10y ago
I agree with you, but I think she needs to be indicted if the e-mails prove her to be culpable. Ideally she will win the election, and if the e-mails prove damning she will be indicted and hopefully impeached and forced to resign, leaving Tim Kaine to finish off her term, which IMO would be the best case scenario for the country.
- williadc 10y ago
  Impeachment doesn't mean she will be forced to resign. Look at what happened with Bill Clinton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
  - vectorpush 10y ago
    I understand that, that's why I said "impeached AND forced to resign" :)
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      If the Senate convicts, the impeached individual is removed from office, they don't need to resign (and I guess won't save face by doing it once they are impeached).
- heurist 10y ago
  That's pretty presumptive. The last FBI investigation into her emails went a year and found nothing. Given that she's been running for president the last decade or two and republicans will pounce on her over any little misstep, do you really think she'd intentionally do something that could ruin her chances of winning or staying president? Remember that intention is important in law...
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    >The last FBI investigation into her emails went a year and found nothing. Incorrect, they found no one who was "willing to prosecute"
downandout 10y ago
>Honestly, I hate to say this, but we are past the point of laws here In one breath, you express concern about the end of democracy, and in the next you disregard one of the vanguards of American government as if it's nothing. If we are indeed "past the point of laws here," then democracy has already ended.
languagewars 10y ago
I think a bipartisan effort to arrest both of them before the election is the logical way forward. I want a system where criminals are afraid to run for office.
harshreality 10y ago
When your argument against Trump is a "FEAR UP" campaign without any substantive support or details, you've lost the argument. Trump supporters are not going to be frightened by your hyperbolic claims, and on the Hillary side you're talking into an echo chamber. It's easy to refute two gross generalizations you made: Enforcing immigration policy, even pausing immigration in certain cases, is not "closing" open society. It's recognizing that there's a dark side to allowing arbitrary numbers of immigrants and refugees bypassing the normal immigration process, and it's taking a step back and figuring out in advance, rationally, what policy we want to enforce, rather than not enforcing any meaningful policy and getting stuck with the results down the road. The free speech threat from regulating big (and maybe not-so-big) media is troublesome, I agree. However, it's accepted, even more on the far left than on the far right, that pretty much all media, advertising, and entertainment is propaganda. What happens if we continue to fail to recognize this propaganda as a threat to the kind of democracy we hopefully want—a democracy built on rational inquiry, rather than one built on the crest of emotion, on propaganda-fueled mass hysteria? You want democracy? This is what Hillary's "democracy" looks (sounds) like: http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/ http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-cl... (direct soundcloud link https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 )
freehunter 10y ago
Nothing Trump has said or done in any way improves the suitability of Clinton for president. If Trump did get elected, maybe it would shock the nation into actually caring about who they pick as their nominee?
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > If Trump did get elected, maybe it would shock the nation into actually caring about who they pick as their nominee? I've wondered about this but I don't think it would happen. Every single person but 3 that I know who is voting for Hillary or Trump is doing so with the upmost conviction that the candidate completely and entirely represents their values as belonging to the respective parties. It's as if the individual parties have become a religion. And sure I know a few people who will vote for either party that represents their values and goals the most (I am one of them) but for every 1 person I know like that I know dozens of others who are as tied to their political party as their religion. Yes this is all anecdotal. I have nothing else to go on. But now that he's the nominee I think more people than we might expect are going to fully support him.
- brandon272 10y ago
  I think people severely overestimate how a Trump presidency would play out in terms of "shocking" the system. And in the meantime, a Trump administration could do plenty of damage that have ripple effects on society for decades to come. (See: Supreme Court nominees)
  - douche 10y ago
    > (See: Supreme Court nominees) The flip side of that is that there are pretty close to the same number of people that think a Clinton administration could do plenty of damage that would have ripple effects on society for decades to come. I'm uneasy about judicial activism, in either direction. I wish that conservatism, of the Chestertonian, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" variety, was a requirement for such an august long-tenured position.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    ...a Trump administration could do plenty of damage that have ripple effects on society for decades to come. (See: Supreme Court nominees) Didn't we get a list of these? In order, Trump will nominate his sister, Rudy Giuliani, and Chris Christie. He won't get more than three nominations, and Rudy can't end all civil rights for criminal defendants forever all by himself.
tomjen3 10y ago
Please a democratically elected presidential candidate from a major party getting elected cannot be a threat against democracy, it IS democracy. Democracy is not getting the leader you want, it is not getting the best leader and it isn't pretty - it is a way to guarantee legitimacy by getting the leader most people vote for, no more, no less.

tylerwhipple 10y ago

What happens if they find her guilty after she is elected?

Waterluvian 10y ago
Impeachment and VP becomes president? Or personal pardon!
- criddell 10y ago
  That's what I was wondering too. Can't she just pardon herself?
  - Impl0x 10y ago
    Presidential pardons don't apply to impeachments, I believe.
  - phd514 10y ago
    Possibly, but pardons don't apply to impeachment, so she could still be removed as President.
    - sp332 10y ago
      Bill Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        I think even our partisan, dysfunctional congress would still impeach and remove a president that choose to pardon themselves and not step down.
        sp332 10y ago
        I only meant that they could "impeach" her over something but she could still be in office.

mzw_mzw 10y ago

That was a very strange article with all the near-wishful "igniting speculation about a Clinton defeat" stuff. The whole emails issue has been inside baseball, politics-wise. Insiders and pundits love yelling about it but average voters either don't care (the vast majority) or have already assumed she's guilty/not guilty and priced that into their vote. Reopening the investigation is not going to change the election outcome.

eli 10y ago
I've heard many people cite emails as the main reason they are not voting for her. I assume most of them actually would never have voted for her anyway, but it's a real issue.
- acdha 10y ago
  Those statements are always hard to trust, however, since you don't know how many of them are people who may not feeling comfortable stating their true beliefs in that forum or don't really care but are trying to encourage people they believe would vote for the other side not to vote at all. I would bet that we're seeing a lot of that this year because there are many Republicans who don't like a Democrat winning but also aren't keen to have their personal reputation tarred by support for their party's candidate. If, say, you feel there is an immigration problem it's much easier to say something about email servers rather than trying to defend Trump's positions on the issue or defend yourself against charges of racism.
- JohnTHaller 10y ago
  The majority of them have no idea what they're talking about if you ask them "what about the emails?" and are just parroting a talking point. Even if she was fully cleared and they were made aware of the fact that Republicans have done the same thing, it would not change their minds.
  - philk10 10y ago
    Exactly - I had an argument with one who kept parroting that she had 3 servers but only said 1 when asked by the FBI, when I asked if they knew what an email server was they had no clue

techthroway443 10y ago

And absolutely nothing will come of it just like the first time around.

williamle8300 10y ago
One can always hope, my friend.

danvoell 10y ago

"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails" - Sounds very happenstance. What are the odds something coincidental happened two weeks before the election?

pwg 10y ago
What is the probability that "an unrelated case" is political speak for "wikileaks"?
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Given the sheer number of cases and the government's prior willingness to name and shame Wikileaks, I'd expect that probability to be low without further evidence (high uncertainty remains).
  - mordocai 10y ago
    Would the FBI want to admit to the committee that wikileaks had data they didn't unless they had to though?
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Pete Williams, NBC's reporter that has sources at the Department of Justice, is reporting that it isn't about wikileaks or emails that Clinton sent. http://www.vox.com/2016/10/28/13458382/fbi-hillary-clinton http://www.vox.com/2016/10/28/13458382/fbi-hillary-clinton
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Going by https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/792082223461695488 https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/792082223461695488 You start to wonder what Huma Abedin might have said to her husband.
insickness 10y ago
Assange has been releasing thousands of Podesta's emails in dribs and drabs every day. The Justice Department just released a lot of new information as well.

Alex3917 10y ago

The real question is whether this is because of the KimDotCom tweet, or whether it's related to something in the Podesta emails or otherwise.

MattSteelblade 10y ago
KimDotCom tweet for reference https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/791364506425315328 https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/791364506425315328
trendia 10y ago
It would be rather funny if America's justice system is so inefficient that one agency would have all of the evidence necessary for an investigation and another would fail to at least ask for it.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  It's not like the FBI is institutionally clamoring to disqualify Clinton and ensure Trump's victory
- ls66 10y ago
  Career government officials are not likely to be activist about investigations. As with Clinton's denials, which are very passive and "I didn't know" or didn't question something, one can cover oneself very well by simply not offering anything or refusing to ask for something. Sins of omission are much harder to prosecute.
- swissoak 10y ago
  Except this is exactly what happened last time. They had concrete evidence, they essentially said what she did was illegal, it would have been a slam-dunk case, but regardless said they didn't recommend prosecuting because they didn't think it was feasible.

hackuser 10y ago

To say the obvious: There is great risk of the FBI and/or Comey trying to influence the outcome of the election. Earlier, when Comey said Clinton had been "extremely careless", it seemed to overstep his bounds: He played judge and jury, and convicted her without trial. To do this two weeks before the election raises very serious questions about the U.S.'s most fundamental institutions, rule of law, and democracy. Every Democratic leader is subject to endless investigation and deligitimization. EDIT: This is not a partisan concern. Everyone needs these institutions, democracy and the rule of law.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
I don't think you watched Comey's presentation. He said that Clinton should not be prosecuted (ie. no conviction).
- caminante 10y ago
  Also, it was the DOJ that signed off on granting immunity to key actors. The FBI's actions didn't go unchecked.
- swissoak 10y ago
  He said he doesn't recommend prosecution because he didn't believe there was a reasonable prosecutor that would do it. It's a huge load of horse shit. Hillary got off because she's well connected, not because there wasn't a case.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    "We are expressing to Justice, our view, that no charges are appropriate in this case." - Comey
ethanbond 10y ago
You know, minus the whole lack of a charge, trial, conviction, punishment, or even official reprimand. Besides that it's exactly as if Comey convicted her without trial. /s

woodruffw 10y ago

I find Comey's decision to disclose this new investigation less than 2 weeks from election day extremely perplexing. By all means, perform your investigation, but to announce it immediately before what's arguably one of the most important elections in modern US history? If I were a paranoid man, I'd say that this looks like an attempt by an unelected official to prejudice voters.

patrickmay 10y ago
He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If there is a smoking gun in the newly discovered emails and he said nothing until after the election, he would be accused of manipulating it in that way.
- blowski 10y ago
  I totally agree. I desperately want Clinton to win, and I think she'll make a great president. Those who believe her victory must be an illuminati conspiracy should be given as little ammunition as possible.
- woodruffw 10y ago
  That may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that HRC (or Trump, for that matter) should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. As it currently stands, an indictment hasn't even been recommended. Under such circumstances, the exposure of a search for a smoking gun is suspect.
  - __abc 10y ago
    It's tough and I don't think it's so black and white, and ultimately depends on "exactly" what they found. Waiting until after seems wrong, and I say this as someone who as it stands is voting for HRC. I honestly don't view this as influence, and more covering his ass, which has me nervous for HRC.
    - woodruffw 10y ago

sp332 10y ago

Here is the actual letter. Note the FBI does not say they are "re-opening" anything. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv3vbcHXgAAMdPE.jpg:orig https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv3vbcHXgAAMdPE.jpg:orig

cmdrfred 10y ago
It seems pretty clear. They are going to investigate those new emails. Hence, reopening the investigation. Where am I wrong?
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  I was under the impression that there's some operational distinction between looking at and evaluating some information, and declaring a formal, targeted investigation as "open". But its probably too fine a distinction for the general public to be bothered about. It's a bad look vs a worse look.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Perhaps, I think the key takeaway for Americans is the "Not Guilty" that Americans seemed to believe was the case in regards to these emails (It was really "Nobody would prosecute") may not be so. Perhaps it would have been better to admit fault and deal with this outright in the beginning, rather than attempting to manipulate the process[0]. [0]http://observer.com/2016/07/exclusive-security-source-details-bill-clinton-maneuver-to-meet-loretta-lynch/ http://observer.com/2016/07/exclusive-security-source-detail...
- sp332 10y ago
  It says they're going to look at whether the emails are relevant. That means they don't know if the emails are even relevant yet.
  - williamle8300 10y ago
    When you reference a past case against new evidence that's usually called re-opening a case.

ljnelson 10y ago

Note that nowhere is the word "reopen" used in the original source materials.

gthtjtkt 10y ago

As much as I would like this to be true, I think that's a pretty biased interpretation of his letter. My reading would be this: "We found some new emails. They're relevant, but we don't know if they're important. We're looking into it." What I find interesting is the timing of this letter and, possibly, the fact that he wrote it at all. But we can't judge the significance of those without knowing if this is standard procedure. For all we know, he may regularly send letters that say things like "I spelled a word wrong on page 875 of our report. Agents are looking into correcting it and resubmitting the report." Or this type of letter could be highly unusual, especially days before a presidential election. Either way, he had to know Chaffetz would be shouting this from the top of a mountain...

o0-0o 10y ago
Methinks that Comey is factoring in a Trump win, and that the 33,000 deleted emails are coming out before election day.
burkaman 10y ago
It sounds like he only sent the letter because of his testimony, and his testimony was highly unusual, so the letter must be too.
koolba 10y ago
> What I find interesting is the timing of this letter and, possibly, the fact that he wrote it at all. But we can't judge the significance of those without knowing if this is standard procedure. For all we know, he may regularly send letters that say things like "I spelled a word wrong on page 875 of our report. Agents are looking into correcting it and resubmitting the report." > Or this type of letter could be highly unusual, especially days before a presidential election. I can't imagine Comey sending that letter out this close to the election without having something actionable. He knows full well the impact that even the allegation that something is there would have.
- jonknee 10y ago
  > I can't imagine Comey sending that letter out this close to the election without having something actionable. He knows full well the impact that even the allegation that something is there would have. He apparently was legally required to because he previously testified that everything had been looked out. There is now more to look at. This was a savvy move by Rep Chaffetz, not a strategy by Comey (Chaffetz is also who characterized it as being re-opened, Comey said no such thing).

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

As a third-party voter I really don't want to get into a discussion about the major candidates. But as a hacker I am interested in how the political system operates. So let's speculate that a candidate is elected to office and then is indicted on a felony. What happens? Obviously anybody can be elected president, so there's no legal problem. But Congress also is charged with certifying electors. Would they certify electors for a candidate that had legal issues? If they did, the candidate could just pardon themselves once in office. It brings up some weird issues.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
Interesting question regarding certifying electors. I sure don't know. Wouldn't be surprised if Trump supporting Representatives tries to hold up that process though, were HRC to be found guilty between winning and the certification. I can't imagine the timeline of a trial would allow that to happen though. Regarding the self-pardoning, as discussed elsewhere, it wouldn't really matter, she could still be impeached. Impeachment is extra-judicial.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  I believe what we're discovering is that once a major party picks you, you really can't be tried for any crime. You could be charged. If you lost the election you could be tried. But I'm not seeing how the state could effectively conduct a criminal court case of a major candidate. This leads me to believe that Congress really has to decide. Beats me whether they should decide before or after the person is sworn in. (Of course this is just speculating about a generic case.)

alva 10y ago

If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear Bite it US Gov

dmode 10y ago

Oooh, so much last minute drama. Great for television.

qznc 10y ago
I agree, season 58 is certainly a very entertaining one.

tunesmith 10y ago

Throughout this whole thing, I can't get past one thing - her using her own server was no big secret when it was happening.

todd8 10y ago
Where did you learn that? I'm actually not disputing what you are saying I just didn't know. I understand that her email address wasn't a .gov address, but it could still (depending on the DNS MX record) identify a government controlled server. Couldn't it?
knodi123 10y ago
Obama said otherwise. He said he learned about it in the news reports at the same time as everyone else.
- douche 10y ago
  Which some of these emails has revealed was bullshit
  - williamle8300 10y ago
    I believe you're referring to this: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077 Podesta is on record saying that "we need to clean this up" when this discrepancy surfaced.
  - knodi123 10y ago
    No it didn't. Unless I'm the only person who doesn't check the domain of every email that arrives in his inbox. Obama is not Sherlock Holmes, and he can be unaware of something, even if there is evidence he could possibly have seen. You need a little more evidence than that to call somebody a liar.

hooph00p 10y ago

I'm disappointed to see this sort of hysteria and conspiracy theorizing in a HN comment section.

yolesaber 10y ago
"we need to clean this up" ~ Podesta https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077
- hooph00p 10y ago
  I am not being baited into an argument about this.
  - yolesaber 10y ago
    Have fun in the FEMA camps, shill
    - sctb 10y ago
      Baseless, uncivil accusations of shillage are not what we need on Hacker News. Please don't post like this.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Political people say "clean this up" about anything they don't want in the media. Anything. Everything. (I know this because I over consume political news media and they have adopted it as a term; it's really horrifying, they talk about the campaigns attempting to manipulate them instead of doing real analysis)
  - yolesaber 10y ago
    I work in public policy. You realize what they said they had to clean up right? The president lied on television about his knowledge of the servers.

thecrow1213 10y ago

Oh my god everyone here is splitting hairs like the rest of the goddamn internet. The FBI is looking at more Clinton emails. That sounds shady and bad for Clinton no matter how you swing it.

yolesaber 10y ago
When you have Podesta saying "we need to clean this up" you know you're in trouble, esp since that email leaked... https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077
return0 10y ago
I believe she herself knows how bad it is because she's avoiding to immediately address the issue, while speaking publicly an hour later.
drewrv 10y ago
She could hire someone to walk her dog and 40% of the country would consider it scandalous and criminal.
- gragas 10y ago
  You're dramatically downplaying the things HRC has been implicated in. It's almost as if you've already made up your mind that she's not guilty of anything.
  - drewrv 10y ago
    33 congressional hearings and $7 million were spent on the whole Benghazi thing, and what did it prove? Obviously she should have supported the ambassador better but hindsight is 20/20. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/house-select-committee-benghazi-report http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/house-select-committe... Then there's the accusation that she rigged the primary, despite the fact that she had nothing to do with that. It was on the DNC. Or there was the "scandal" about how her staff was smashing cell phones. It's a legit and basically mundane data security procedure. https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-phones-better/ https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-pho... People scream scandal at her over mundane stuff or stuff she has nothing to do with all the time. It's absurd.

dmode 10y ago

The big problem with this announcement is that the letter only says "we found some emails and we are reviewing". But in news cycle it will get translated to a guilty verdict and possibly influence election outcome. Shouldn't they have reviewed the emails to see if there is classified information before sending out a letter like this ? Comey surely knew that this letter will be a big deal.

skeptic2718 10y ago
Does it matter if it had classified information or not when a high ranking state official is using a personal private email server to bypass the official one?
- dmode 10y ago
  Using a private email server was the norm at state department. Collin Powell used a private server and explained the benefits of it to Hillary Clinton. The only reason this bubbled up top was due to the Bengazhi situation. Otherwise, there would not even be an investigation on this.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    IMO just because it was the norm does not mean it's acceptable
  - poliwut 10y ago
    To provide some clarity about Powell: 1. He used a personal, private email address--note a personal, private email server. 2. This was the norm to use a private address, yes. However, policies changed after Powell left and no longer permitted this kind of behavior. 3. Clinton and her staff blatantly ignored these policies and took it a step further by using her own personal, private email server. 4. Powell only used the email address to handle non-classified material. Clinton handled classified material on her email server.
  - douche 10y ago
    well, you can get away with anything as long as you don't get caught doing it...

return0 10y ago

I wonder if there is a way to make this thread NOT be flagged to extinction. Perhaps talk only about the technicalities behind this, or compare to distant history.

downandout 10y ago

Unless an indictment comes down before Election Day, I think it's probably too late for this to have any material impact. Most likely Clinton voters aren't actually Clinton voters - they are anti-Trump voters. An indictment prior to the election would change things, but that will not happen. Clinton has almost no chance of losing. Once she wins, she will then either short circuit the investigation by forcing Comey and anyone else associated with it to resign, or she will actually be indicted and then she will pardon herself. For the record I believe that both of the candidates are despicable human beings and either one will make the worst President I have ever had in my lifetime, but we are almost certainly stuck with Clinton for at least the next four years.

swissoak 10y ago
I think the more likely situation is that Obama pardons her some time after election day.
- arzt 10y ago
  Is their a historical precedent for something like this? (ie sitting president pardons incoming president?)
  - swissoak 10y ago
    I don't believe so, but we have plenty of shitty precedents with Obama's 8 years.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Not quite. There is precedent for the new president pardoning the outgoing president, though - Ford pardoned Nixon for anything and everything Nixon had done that was illegal during his term in office. That closed the book on Watergate, but it arguably cost Ford the election to Carter.
- chris11 10y ago
  Yeah, I don't think that will happen. First, the previous report found no wrongdoing. Second, I'm sure Hillary will say that she did not break the law (which is so far supported by the FBI investiagtion unless these new emails change things). And third, Clinton's accuser's don't always care about how accurate their accusations are and Obama's pardon will just give them evidence that they were right. I don't see a pardon needed or useful.

hourislate 10y ago

What I don't understand is how in the world does stuff like this happen (Private Email Server). Isn't there anyone handling security for these people? Just like the CIA assigns people to guard the President and the folks around him, why in the world are there not Cyber Security Experts over seeing communications and making sure that everything these folks do follows a certain protocol. They are not allowed to drive cars and the CIA makes sure they don't. So why are they not monitored to make sure their communications are secure and there is no risk to the nations information.

zellyn 10y ago

This was the most interesting thing I've read recently about the emails: https://plus.google.com/+AndreasSchou/posts/66GZj3y6dWn https://plus.google.com/+AndreasSchou/posts/66GZj3y6dWn

kyrre 10y ago

SHUT IT DOWN!

abootstrapper 10y ago

Everyone shouting "lock her up" doesn't know exactly what they're "locking her up" for, except for something vaguely relate to emails and the fact they don't like her. Oh, also, they've already decided she's guilty of "emails." Either the FBI says "Clinton is guilty of emails" or the system is rigged.

marshray 10y ago
Here are some potential charges I could imagine: 1. She used her official position as Secretary of State representing the United States to solicit $150M++ of dollars in foreign donations for her personal 501c3. Imagine how this worked. Picture the scene at a US Embassy social function in some small corrupt country: "Oh sure El Presidente, I'd be happy to look into what's holding up your USAID payments. Sayyy, Bill would love to come and deliver a speech for you. By the way, his going rate is $500,000." Having our Secretary of State asking foreign dignitaries for payments on-the-side irreparably damages our country's reputation in the world. This is some of the most egregious and blatant corruption we have ever seen in a public official. 3. She made copies of government information, which any reasonable person would agree qualifies as some level of classification, to a personal server in her home that was not authorized to store such information (and as a result the Russians stole it). 2. She conducted government business using an unauthorized private server, and did so specifically for the purpose of concealing her actions and correspondence from both internal and official oversight. 4. She set up some type of shadow internal review process to squash entirely legitimate FOIA requests that might reflect poorly on her department or herself. Routinely, little people are vigorously prosecuted for far, far less. America explicitly rejects having a double standard for royalty, why shouldn't she be subject to the same rules?

Delmania 10y ago

Comey was legally obligated to tell Congress this as his office had told Congress that it was finished reviewing the evidence. In this election of course, Trump supporters will look at this as a sign of hillary's crookedness, and HRC supporters will look at this as a way to sway the election. Also, the emails in question are not from Clinton and were never withheld in the original investigation. They appear to come from the devices of Anthony Weinar and his ex-wife. Also, as more than one person has reported, the case was never closed.

douche 10y ago

This reminds me more and more of Julius Caesar and other Roman Republican officials having to stay on the treadmill of the cursus honorum to maintain legal immunity and avoid corruption charges committed while in office.

tmaly 10y ago

I read the quotes from Comey, I would not characterize this as being reopened at all. I am not sure why he did this, the timing is suspect. Its pure speculation, but perhaps he is hedging his odds of keeping his job?