4 ms·
It seems pretty clear. They are going to investigate those new emails. Hence, reopening the investigation. Where am I wrong?
by 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 agoI 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 agoPerhaps, 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 agoIt 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 agoWhen you reference a past case against new evidence that's usually called re-opening a case.