The Players
Anthony Weiner, former congressman
Huma Abedin, personal aide to Hillary Clinton
FBI director James Comey.
(Sorry Donald, Hillary Clinton doesn't appear in this play).
The Facts
• On October 28, FBI director James Comey sends a letter to Republican legislators stating that ‘potential new evidence was discovered related to Hillary Clinton’s handling of her personal email when she was Secretary of State.’
• None of these new emails were to or from Clinton and has virtually nothing to do with any actions taken by Clinton. They were not withheld during the investigation, nor suggest she did anything illegal.
• The FBI did not “reopen” the case. Such investigations are never actually closed, and it is common for law enforcement to discover new information that needs to be examined.
• The Bureau is seeking to determine whether these newly discovered emails involved classified material. • The new inquiry has to do with former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who sent sexual text messages from a laptop that he shared with his wife, Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide.
• This new evidence relates to how Abedin managed her emails. She had four email accounts:
a) One unclassified State Department account, which she used for work-related records.
b) One on the clintonemail.com domain, which she only used for issues related to the Secretary’s personal affairs.
c) A third on Yahoo
d) A fourth one linked to her husband’s account, which she used to support his activities when he was running for Congress.
Hard copies of emails
Clinton preferred to read documents on paper, so emails were often printed out and provided to her. Since the government network technology made it cumbersome to print documents, Abedin transferred emails from her unclassified State Department account to either her Yahoo account or her account on Clinton’s server and printed from there.
What is being investigated
It is not clear whether she ever transferred official emails to the account she used for her husband’s campaign. This procedure for printing documents is how the newly discovered emails ended up on the laptop shared by Abedin and her husband. Were any of the documents transferred to the shared computer classified? That would be deemed a criminal offense, if Abedin had intended to disclose the contents. If the documents were not classified, no crime was committed.
Proof of Clinton’s Innocenc Clinton could not have known what device her aide was using to transmit electronic information to her unless Abedin specifically told her.
Ulterior Motive?
Why did Comey feel the need to send a letter to the Congressional committee if he already testified in September that ‘his agents would examine any new evidence that emerged’? Repeating that point was unnecessary unless Comey is trying to influence the elections.
Donald Trump’s statement that ‘Clinton is engaged in corruption on a scale we have never seen before’ doesn’t hold water. Clinton had no way of knowing from which machine the printed emails came from.
Logic tells me that it is Abedin, not Clinton, who is investigated. None of this is directly linked to Clinton. She is not implicated in any potential wrongdoing. Source: Hillary Clinton’s emails: The real Reason the FBI is reviewing more of them leave comment here
Source: Hillary Clinton’s emails: The real Reason the FBI is reviewing more of them
5 comments:
Your bias leading to untruth shows already by the 12th word of your the piece. This saves the reader from reading any further
Personally I consider biased writing a legitimate genre but it should be presented as such
Best
Dear Frank,
Actually, that article was written by Madeleine and not me, although I agree with it.
We always appreciate your comments,
Yes
I saw your piece on the following day explaining about the division of labor on your many election articles.
My quick note to you was kind of a meta reflection on partisan writing.
As I say, I have no trouble with partisan writing. I myself think it is a legitimate genre. But I do think partisan writers should be careful not to help the cause of their inevitable critics.
For example, I thought it perfectly legitimate for you to write that Hillary is a modern day Joan of Arc (a WILDLY partisan statement). But I thought it was not legitimate to write that Comey gave his letter to Republicans. The Comey statement might seem quiet and inconsequential, but because it is false it renders the remainder of the article not worth reading.
On the other hand you could lead off by saying I think Hillary is literally a God, and Comey is a form of evil spirit, and this would not discredit your article. Calling Hillary a modern day Joan of Arc, does not have factual falsehood in it. So it is legitimate for a partisan to write such a thing. You could write, I firmly believe that Hillary is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, and it would not harm your article at all.
Anyway
I wish you good luck for the realization of your political desires and passions
Thanks for writing to say hi
Many blessings.
Hi,
1- Comey notified Congress to get the jump on FBI informants leaked the information out during the least days of the campaign, and thereby try to destroy Hillary's campaign.
2 - Comey did a lousy job of preparing the letter to Congress, for two reasons: One: Haste makes waste and Two, since he couldn't trust his own employees, he hand no constructive input on the wording of the letter.
The most crucial mistake by Comey, is that he did not use a heading, such as:
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
INFORMATION HEREIN NOT EVIDENCE OR CONCLUSION
Comey should have stated: We have found a computer with more emails. The computer belonged to an aide of Clinton. We do not know what emails are in the computer. They maybe the same ones we have already investigated. We are obligated to review (not investigate) the emails found to determine if they are new or emails we have seen before. Until, our review is completed, I would caution everyone to withhold judgement or any conclusions until our review is complete. When the review is completed, we will inform you of the results. Since we have a Presidential campaign, no one should conclude any wrongdoing until our review is complete.
With a Heading such as above, Comey could have controlled the release.
Thanks for the info.
Hi Sam,
You are generous to the FBI.
There is now evidence surfacing that the dumping of several files damaging to Hillary Clinton (not just the Weiner case, but also, for example, a questionable pardon by her husband Bill nearly 2 decades ago) is a deliberate effort to throw the election to Trump. Things are becoming surreal in this election: The FBI, the Russian government and Trump working together? Wow!
But I appreciate your calm and mature comment.
Thanks,
Tom
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!