9 ms·

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

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).
  - koolba 10y ago
    > (Chaffetz is also who characterized it as being re-opened, Comey said no such thing). I think there's a technical correctness to that. The FBI won't look into anything if there isn't an open investigation. So it'd have to be re-opened for them to look into it.
    - jonknee 10y ago
      Technically it had never been closed in the first place, so if you want to be technical Chaffetz is still full of shit. https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/792065775658012677 https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/792065775658012677 https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/792063653919031296 https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/792063653919031296
      - koolba 10y ago
        > Technically it had never been closed in the first place, so if you want to be technical Chaffetz is still full of shit. I'll give you the point on being technically correct (and Chaffetz being full of...) but counter that by that logic she's been under FBI investigation this whole time.
        yourapostasy 10y ago
        > ...but counter that by that logic she's been under FBI investigation this whole time. Interesting. Has there ever been a Fortune 500 board of directors in a CEO selection process under way with a CEO candidate personally under FBI investigation say, "oh, that's okay, you're still one of our two top choices"? If not, it is a peculiar juxtaposition. While an investigation most assuredly does not pass the "guilty until proven innocent" bar, CEO's have been summarily fired by boards or left for the good of the company simply for being personally under FBI investigation. For the political geeks/wonks among us, can you please explain to this layperson how Clinton's situation differs?
Natsu 10y ago
Eh, I dunno. A ton of things have turned up in the Podesta emails (as well as the FBI docs) that are seriously damaging. And then it turned out there are DKIM signatures, which are valid, which rebut the claims of 'tampering' some had floated. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33821 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33821 "But if the objective is to connect emails-Benghazi and conflate the two in voters’ minds (which consultants feel is an imperative here), I’m not sure we know whether we can credibly do that" https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077#efmAABABT https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077#efmAABABT Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23327 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23327 Reluctant to go there. Makes it seem like she consciously went to the home server for security reasons which would fall apart under scrutiny. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545 Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I seems like they will. https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-04-of-04/view https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-... "[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by [Kennedy], Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the e-mail's classification in exchange for a 'quid pro quo,'" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24353#efmAAMABcBJGBON https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24353#efmAAMABc... Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region. (Sounds like classified info...) https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6185 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6185 Someone here just got a tip that the State Department may be planning to release her Benghazi emails tomorrow or Monday. (Leaking info...) https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22335 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22335 Finally, just for humor value, it looks like Podesta got might have gotten hacked by using p@ssw0rd as his password.
downandout 10y ago
So on the timing....there's an interesting backstory here. James Comey was a lifelong Republican until this year [1]. He appears to be a Republican in the "never Trump" camp. Prior to the public disclosure of Comey's recommendation that Clinton not be prosecuted, Loretta Lynch publicly stated that she would try to appear impartial by going with whatever the FBI recommended. This effectively put Comey - a "never Trump" man - in the position of appointing the next President of the United States. If he had elected to recommend prosecution, Trump was the guaranteed winner. If he didn't, most realized that Clinton would beat Trump. Perhaps this "reopening" is more the result of an attack of conscience than of the significance of any new information. It's possible that this is a halfhearted attempt to do what many legal experts considered to be the right thing in the first place. [1] http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/what-party-is-james-comey-registered-as-225223 http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/...
- xenadu02 10y ago
  Which legal experts? The relevant laws are clear as to what happens. It is the CIO responsible for the individual department who is required to regulate the use of IT resources. It would have been their responsibility to tell Clinton specifically that she wasn't allowed to use the server then cite her if she continued. That didn't happen so she's completely in the clear. The law even allows the CIO leeway to allow things contrary to policy under certain conditions (though I don't think that was done in this case). The law doesn't provide for felony prosecution for using personal IT resources, no matter how much some people want that to be true for politically convenient reasons. The same people crying about Clinton would reject the charges out of hand if it were their favored political candidate. In the end she didn't do anything morally wrong which is why this whole email thing has been one big nothing-burger. Everyone has had to fight corporate IT's outdated and stupid policies at one time or another and almost all of us have subverted those policies to get our jobs done. The only reason we even know about this is because she disclosed it. Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice both used private email servers. So did the entire Bush administration. When confronted with requests for the data they just nuked it from orbit and no one gave a shit. Suddenly it's a huge scandal! The crime of the century! Trump has violated tax law by using is "charitable" foundation as a piggy bank. I'm not calling for an investigation and prosecution of him because that's banana republic territory.
flycaliguy 10y ago
My armchair prediction is that this is a pro-Clinton move. It will be used as an event that can absorb a lot of the confusing and harmful information spreading from the leaks. It will then be clearly refuted in a tidy 6 o'clock news bite next week. The goal will be to give average voters a sense of closure that will also encompass the negative buzz around the wikileaked emails.

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).
- koolba 10y ago
  > (Chaffetz is also who characterized it as being re-opened, Comey said no such thing). I think there's a technical correctness to that. The FBI won't look into anything if there isn't an open investigation. So it'd have to be re-opened for them to look into it.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    Technically it had never been closed in the first place, so if you want to be technical Chaffetz is still full of shit. https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/792065775658012677 https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/792065775658012677 https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/792063653919031296 https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/792063653919031296
    - koolba 10y ago
      > Technically it had never been closed in the first place, so if you want to be technical Chaffetz is still full of shit. I'll give you the point on being technically correct (and Chaffetz being full of...) but counter that by that logic she's been under FBI investigation this whole time.
      - yourapostasy 10y ago
        > ...but counter that by that logic she's been under FBI investigation this whole time. Interesting. Has there ever been a Fortune 500 board of directors in a CEO selection process under way with a CEO candidate personally under FBI investigation say, "oh, that's okay, you're still one of our two top choices"? If not, it is a peculiar juxtaposition. While an investigation most assuredly does not pass the "guilty until proven innocent" bar, CEO's have been summarily fired by boards or left for the good of the company simply for being personally under FBI investigation. For the political geeks/wonks among us, can you please explain to this layperson how Clinton's situation differs?

Natsu 10y ago

Eh, I dunno. A ton of things have turned up in the Podesta emails (as well as the FBI docs) that are seriously damaging. And then it turned out there are DKIM signatures, which are valid, which rebut the claims of 'tampering' some had floated. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33821 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33821 "But if the objective is to connect emails-Benghazi and conflate the two in voters’ minds (which consultants feel is an imperative here), I’m not sure we know whether we can credibly do that" https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077#efmAABABT https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077#efmAABABT Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23327 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/23327 Reluctant to go there. Makes it seem like she consciously went to the home server for security reasons which would fall apart under scrutiny. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545 Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I seems like they will. https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-04-of-04/view https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-... "[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by [Kennedy], Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the e-mail's classification in exchange for a 'quid pro quo,'" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24353#efmAAMABcBJGBON https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24353#efmAAMABc... Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region. (Sounds like classified info...) https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6185 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6185 Someone here just got a tip that the State Department may be planning to release her Benghazi emails tomorrow or Monday. (Leaking info...) https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22335 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22335 Finally, just for humor value, it looks like Podesta got might have gotten hacked by using p@ssw0rd as his password.

downandout 10y ago

So on the timing....there's an interesting backstory here. James Comey was a lifelong Republican until this year [1]. He appears to be a Republican in the "never Trump" camp. Prior to the public disclosure of Comey's recommendation that Clinton not be prosecuted, Loretta Lynch publicly stated that she would try to appear impartial by going with whatever the FBI recommended. This effectively put Comey - a "never Trump" man - in the position of appointing the next President of the United States. If he had elected to recommend prosecution, Trump was the guaranteed winner. If he didn't, most realized that Clinton would beat Trump. Perhaps this "reopening" is more the result of an attack of conscience than of the significance of any new information. It's possible that this is a halfhearted attempt to do what many legal experts considered to be the right thing in the first place. [1] http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/what-party-is-james-comey-registered-as-225223 http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/...

xenadu02 10y ago
Which legal experts? The relevant laws are clear as to what happens. It is the CIO responsible for the individual department who is required to regulate the use of IT resources. It would have been their responsibility to tell Clinton specifically that she wasn't allowed to use the server then cite her if she continued. That didn't happen so she's completely in the clear. The law even allows the CIO leeway to allow things contrary to policy under certain conditions (though I don't think that was done in this case). The law doesn't provide for felony prosecution for using personal IT resources, no matter how much some people want that to be true for politically convenient reasons. The same people crying about Clinton would reject the charges out of hand if it were their favored political candidate. In the end she didn't do anything morally wrong which is why this whole email thing has been one big nothing-burger. Everyone has had to fight corporate IT's outdated and stupid policies at one time or another and almost all of us have subverted those policies to get our jobs done. The only reason we even know about this is because she disclosed it. Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice both used private email servers. So did the entire Bush administration. When confronted with requests for the data they just nuked it from orbit and no one gave a shit. Suddenly it's a huge scandal! The crime of the century! Trump has violated tax law by using is "charitable" foundation as a piggy bank. I'm not calling for an investigation and prosecution of him because that's banana republic territory.

flycaliguy 10y ago

My armchair prediction is that this is a pro-Clinton move. It will be used as an event that can absorb a lot of the confusing and harmful information spreading from the leaks. It will then be clearly refuted in a tidy 6 o'clock news bite next week. The goal will be to give average voters a sense of closure that will also encompass the negative buzz around the wikileaked emails.