Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Mrs. Carlos Danger

115 Comments

OK, discuss the latest FBI revelation here. I’ve no idea what to think.

[Saturday-morning update]

Oh, this is fun. The Dems are panicking:

The Democratic Coalition Against Trump filed a complaint with the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility on Friday against FBI Director James Comey for interfering in the Presidential election, following the FBI’s decision to open up an investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails this close to Election Day. Federal employees are forbidden from participating in political activities under the Hatch Act.

“It is absolutely absurd that FBI Director Comey would support Donald Trump like this with only 11 days to go before the election,” said Scott Dworkin, Senior Advisor to the Democratic Coalition Against Trump. “It is an obvious attack from a lifelong Republican who used to serve in the Bush White House, just to undermine her campaign. Comey needs to focus on stopping terrorists and protecting America, not investigating our soon to be President-Elect Hillary Clinton.”

As well they should be. She wasn’t “cruising to election.” Her poll numbers were plummeting even before Comey’s letter.

[Update mid-morning]

So the Justice Department isn’t happy. I’ll bet. I think that Comey is basically daring Obama to fire him. Which would be the modern-day equivalent of the Saturday Night Massacre.

[Update a few minutes later]

An idea so crazy it just might work!

[Update a few minutes later]

Do we want to put a criminal in the White House?

No. He can be impeached and removed. She can’t.

[Update a few minutes later]

Clinton insiders in anger and disbelief:

They said they were “dumbfounded” by the revelation that the new FBI review may have been spurred by a separate investigation into Anthony Weiner sending lewd texts to a minor. Weiner is separated from wife Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s closest aides.

And they worried that Clinton’s unconventional email arrangement had finally caught up to her and might imperil her presidential bid less than two weeks before Election Day.

“I’m livid, actually,” one Clinton surrogate told The Hill. “This has turned into malpractice. It’s an unforced error at this point. I have no idea what Comey is up to but the idea this email issue is popping back up again is outrageous. It never should have occurred in the first place. Someone somewhere should have told her no. And they didn’t and now we’re all paying the price.”

Another ally called the campaign’s mood something akin to “paralysis,” and blamed Weiner’s behavior for railroading the campaign.

One strategist said the developments would further cement the notion that Clinton has something to hide.

You don’t say. I wonder if/when they’ll get beyond anger and disbelief to bargaining, and acceptance?

[Update a few minutes later]

Yes:

ou need to put out there the real scandal: how did FBI not seize laptop used by Clinton’s top aide until now? Suggests DOJ obstructionism/hamstringing.

It may be that Comey was frustrated in his inability to do a proper investigation, and the discovery of the emails in the investigation of Weiner’s wiener was a joyous gift.

[Update mid-afternoon]

James Comey’s dereliction:

Apparently cognizant of the frivolousness of his constitutional claim, Comey concurrently relies on Justice Department tradition: Even if not invalid, 793(f) should not be applied, because the Justice Department nearly never applies it. This circular argument leads to the director’s astonishing conclusion that prosecuting Mrs. Clinton would amount to unequal protection of law: one punishing standard for her, a forgiving one for everyone else.

This is absurd. Mrs. Clinton’s case may be singular, but that is because of the breadth of its audaciousness. No official of such high rank has ever systematically conducted government business through unauthorized, unlawful channels, with the inexorable result that thousands of classified e-mails were generated and tens of thousands of government files — e-mails involving government business, whether or not classified — were destroyed (and even more had their destruction attempted). It is not invidious selective prosecution to subject an offense of unprecedented scope to prosecution under a perfectly fit statute, no matter how infrequently that statute has been used.

As someone once said, quantity has a quality all its own.

Just as significantly, several people have been prosecuted for gross negligence in mishandling classified information. The fact that these are military cases, not Justice Department prosecutions, does not nullify them, as Comey implies. In federal prosecutions, low-level U.S. officers were sent to prison and subjected to other penalties. Director Comey’s factitious distinguishing of these cases is meritless. They involve officials many rungs below Mrs. Clinton’s status who engaged in misconduct geometrically less serious in scope. So yes, there is a different standard of justice for Clinton, but it is laughable to suggest that she got the short end of that stick.

All this legal hocus-pocus was the cleanest way for the administration to effectuate a foregone conclusion: Mrs. Clinton was not going to be prosecuted. Perversely, the FBI’s year-long, forensically meticulous investigation was sold as an exoneration arrived at only after thorough review, rather than a measure of the prodigious amount of evidence against Clinton. The more one kicks the tires, though, the more one sees there was only one way this investigation would end.

Yes. And what happened yesterday doesn’t really mitigate it. The only way for him to have done the right thing was to resign, given how politicized this Justice Department is.

115 thoughts on “Mrs. Carlos Danger”

  1. I guess being a dirty cop doesn’t sit well with Comey. Ya know it’s tough finding good lackeys these days.

    1. I don’t think Comey had much to do with it. I suspect the folks investigating Carlos Danger found the information before Comey could bury it.

      2. How rich is it for Hillary to ask Comey to release information when he can’t by law but she can! It’s her info.

        1. Would you expect anything less? She’ll go around (or Jim for her) clucking about how transparent she is; and LIV will look up the spittle.

    1. And you Jim, you’re as ignorant as ever, still carrying Democrat water.

      Comey’s just trying to get on the right side of this scandal, he’d like to keep his job under President Trump.

      1. Trump is not going to be elected. But, given how corruptly Comey seems to have behaved with respect to the first investigation, this just doesn’t make sense. Since he didn’t recommend indictment, in the face of unassailable evidence of actual lawbreaking, why is he even bothering to start it up again? They can’t possibly find anything more damning than they already did, the media is not going to admit that whatever they find is illegal, and neither is she, so they’re not going to recommend criminal charges against a sitting president. It makes no sense.

        1. They are just cleaning up some loose ends. These devices will be destroyed by the FBI, just like the rest.

    2. Evidently you are so innocent of the ways of the world that the idea that Comey could have been blackmailed, bribed in either direction doesn’t register with you.

      1. But Ken, that is exactly what the Dems in this country do. Reach a definite conclusion without ANY facts.

      2. Well, if Comey were carrying water for Hillary, he certainly never would have opened up this can of worms. It makes no sense to me. What is he going to do, turn up still more evidence of her lawlessness and corruption but once again say no one would prosecute?

        1. I don’t hear this argument. Whatever happens will not happen before election day. Is there a single voter who will switch because of this announcement alone?
          Easier for me to believe that this is part of an internal struggle within the FBI. Maybe we’re seeing those semi-mythical individuals there who keep leaking that they’re going to go public unless the FBI does something. This may be the “something” that keeps them quiet but won’t change the election. Everyone’s happy: the Democrats running the show and the semi-mythical wimps who are allowing this to happen.

  4. Too early to know what to think……

    Comey said they were going to look and see if there was something worth investigating.

    Conjecture is easy:

    1. FBI agents got to Comey and forced him to recommend indictment

    2. Comey had an attack of conscience

    3. Comey is just doing the due dilligence given that Carlos Danger is involved and therefore came very close to Top Secret information.

    4. Wikileaks sent something to the FBI.

    not enough info.

  5. I heard someone suggest that none of the e-mails released by Wikileaks to date are messages sent by Clinton to Podesta, but one has to assume that they exist.

    IF the FBI has gotten them, and IF they are classified….she is done.

      1. I’m not sure about that. Many, if not most of the leaked emails are signed cryptographically with DomainKey or DKIM and are thus non-repudiable. Without access to Google’s private keys, the NSA couldn’t forge those emails in a million years, never mind anyone else.

        Of course, the US court system may not care about such details.

    2. How is she done? Maybe if such information had come out six months ago, but in another week she is going to be elected president, and then will be untouchable.

      1. Six months ago is time for this to all blow over. It might be too late for this to make a difference unless it leads to a grand jury.

      1. Yeah, I posted it on another thread a few days ago, but smelled a rat, so I went looking deeper. It’s part of his film supporting HRC called “Trumpland”, which you can be assured is not friendly to Trump. He’s made the rounds of “The View” and such to talk about it.

        I surmise he is channeling what he thinks is the typical Trump voter so the caricature can be dissected and held up to ridicule. That’s how he rolls.

  8. I suspect it’s not coincidental with the breaking news of a two days ago, that Clinton ally and operative (and head of allied superPac) Governor Terry McAuliffe gave $675,000 to the wife of the deputy director of the FBI, who then oversaw the Clinton investigation.

    Perhaps that was just too much of a stench of corruption, so they decided to cut their losses and follow the law?

  9. Baghdad Jim using the phrase “you’re carrying water for . . . ” just broke the arrow on the Irony Meter.

  10. Nothing is going to happen. Obama’s FBI isn’t going to unrig the “investigation”.

    If anything, the FBI will destroy everything they find so it can’t be used to impeach Hillary if she wins.

    Also, chance that Hillary lied in her 2 question press conference is 100% and the questions were scripted by the campaign and planted.

    1. The only part giving me hope is that the new evidence comes from the Weiner investigation. That and the Wikileaks of Huma acknowledging various things. If Huma has something showing she and Hillary knew they were mishandling classified data, and that was found by someone investigating Weiner; then it’s over.

      Other fantasies include Huma passing classified data. One theory is Huma sent stuff to Cheryl Mills thus incremenating both of them. Another theory is Huma passed info to her family in Saudi Arabia which would be clear cut treason. I don’t believe Huma is that stupid and that close to Hillary. Someone would have pointed that vulnerability out to Hillary.

      Still, It’s very satisfying that a sexual exploitation case involving a female minor may be bringing down Hillary. That’s poetry!

      1. Still, It’s very satisfying that a sexual exploitation case involving a female minor may be bringing down Hillary. That’s poetry!

        Lol, yup!

    2. One fine point: impeachment can only be applied to acts conducted while in office, not before. So there is no need for the FBI to destroy anything. Once HRC is in office, she can’t be touched for her past actions, for the fox WILL be guarding the henhouse.

      1. How do you figure impeachment is thus limited? The constitution says no such thing. It says impeachment can be for high crimes and for misdemeanors, no statute of limitations is mentioned.

      2. I don’t think that’s correct. She committed her high crimes and misdemeanors while in office, as Secretary of State. It shouldn’t matter that there was a gap.

      4. As I read the Constitution, the offense does not need to be committed while the subject is in public office, or even be a statutory offense. All that is needed is a sufficient number of Congress Critters to publicly agree the offense is serious enough to warrant the act and face the public with that position.

  11. According to CBS, the FBI found “thousands” of emails on a laptop that both Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner use.

    Now…just HOW stupid do you have to be at this late date in the campaign to let that just sit there all these months?

    1. just HOW stupid do you have to be

      Anthony Weiner. I point this out just to make sure the answer to the rhetorical question wasn’t missed somehow.

      Top. Men.

      3. The InstaPundit is reporting Weiner may be cooperating with the FBI as part of a plea deal. Perhaps he kept the stuff on his computer deliberately.

    2. How does this work?

      It used to be that you had local copies of all of your sent and received e-mails “on the client” in some humongous archive file with some strange extension. It was a personal crisis if that archive got corrupted, and it was an ongoing pain in the backside synchronizing your e-mail account between different computer you would use.

      But I thought these days we all are keeping our e-mails “in the cloud.” I thought we all gave up using Outlook or Outlook Express or Thunderbird a long time ago, what with that archive file and these stupid settings like POPZT and SMTB and BRCA and MRSA or whatever you had to make supplication to your resident neck beard to get right.

      No, you access your e-mail account through a Web browser. Once you have a network connection going and your browser up and running, you just visit the right Web page from any computer you use, at home or at the office, and away you go. So who keeps copies of e-mails on anything that isn’t a server?

      1. ” I thought we all gave up using Outlook or Outlook Express or Thunderbird a long time ago, ”

        Speak for yourself. 😉

        My emails don’t sit on some internet service provider disk (as far as I know – who knows if they violate the agreement) nor do I use the cloud for anything.

        1. Dude, if you are sending and receiving e-mail, you are using “the cloud” for something.

          People are saying that such is the mistake that Clinton and Company are making, that in their marginal computer literacy they thought that since they kept local copies that there were not other copies “out in the cloud.”

          1. Paul,

            I accounted for that possibility in my posting. For example the recipient of one of my emails may be using the cloud so my email is there.

            What I’m doing is not keeping my email on the ISP server. That’s all.

        2. I KNOW that my email information doesn’t, for the most part, sit on an ISP disk somewhere. Even the gmail account I use is swept periodically onto storage within the four walls of my humble castle. Other e-mail addresses I use sit on a Linux server not 10 feet from where I’m typing this, hardened against intrusion because I practice safe firewall, with diligent monitoring…not to mention blocking huge swaths of subnets with administrations who have proved they are not Good Net Citizens(tm). Some call that “balkinization” — I call it keeping the borders safe from ne’er-do-wells, even state players. Walls work. (Yes, I think back to the days when the National Science Foundation ran the backbone for the Internet, with strict rules and even stricter Bastard Operators From Hell [BOFH] enforcing them.)

    3. @ Gregg;

      There’s actually a very plausible explanation(other than stupidity) as to why Huma would have thousands of incriminating e-mails still in her possession.

      Insurance.

      Huma wanted an ace in the hole in case they started measuring her up for the role of designated scapegoat. So, the temptation would be large to, say, keep one of those 13 missing devices Clinton had, many of which were “lost”, others of which met untimely ends with a hammer.

      1. Yes. Who wouldn’t want a collection of thousands of emails that could be used to blackmail the President?

        Particularly if you don’t want to suddenly find yourself committing suicide.

      3. Az:

        Ok that’s quite plausible. However if you or I were going to do that, we’d put the laptop or disk drive in some safe deposit box in Podunk Idaho.

        We would NOT leave it laying around the house for Weiner to use for his perversions. We’d Give Weiner his own laptop for that.

        Wouldn’t we?

        1. Gregg, of course, you’re right.

          But let’s face it, in this case, we’re talking about people who are far too dense to realize such things.

          For example, I rather suspect that neither you or I would, upon learning that our e-mail server had been hacked, would attempt to remedy the situation via e-mailing everyone new passwords? Well, the DNC did that.
          http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/09/14/oops-dnc-continued-to-email-passwords-after-they-knew-theyd-been-hacked-n2217948

          And let’s not forget that Podesta was hacked because he fell for a common phishing scam.

          We’re not talking about people with a whit of common sense here. We’re talking about drooling idiots. 🙂

          1. “We’re not talking about people with a whit of common sense here. We’re talking about drooling idiots. ”

            I momentarily forgot 🙂

    4. It is pretty crazy that the FBI “investigation” didn’t find this device.

      What’s even crazier is that Democrats will still claim this whole scheme was the most secure way to do business. The best way to handle classified information is to have it on the computer of a guy who cybers little girls and totally isn’t a honeytrap target.

  12. Mobile devices have a habit of locally storing copies of emails from any account they are synced to. I’m not sure how it would work on the laptop, but the email client might store locally unless told to otherwise.

  13. This may be Comey’s way of warding off his own impeachment, and his loss of federal pension. Absolutely nothing will ever come of this, not ever. I’ve been saying that the entire time. But Comey wants to reclaim his creds by “reopening” a case that is doomed to be closed if Hillary wins, and sure to be pursued if the Donald wins. What a mother fucker.

  14. The idea that investigation into Anthony Weiner led to additional Clinton emails to or from Huma Abedin is plausible.

    It is worth recalling that the emails became a big deal due to a FOIA request stemming from Benghazi, which turned up that she was using a personal server to conduct government business outside of the historical record.

    If not for Project Veritas and Wikileaks hammering Clinton on an almost daily basis, the media could sweep it under the rug. “Scandal fatigue” and all that – the IRS scandal is over 1200 days old, remember Fast and Furious?

    But, scandal fatigue only works serially, not when multiple scandals break in parallel. Reports are already coming in of vote fraud, machines changing votes, dead people voting, James O’Keefe is dripping out one damning video after another. Wikileaks is promising something before Halloween that they say will get Hillary Clinton indicted. If they do have something, and it is something that the FBI should have found as part of their initial investigation of Clinton, they’d look like total incompetents – that is, unless they had reopened their investigation.

    1. Yeah, if this was only about e-mail, it would be TLDR.

      But involving a naughty former Member of Congress, with only two degrees of separation from the presidential candidate, who pronounces his name “Weener” when proper German phonology would otherwise render his name “Whiner”, it gives the story a certain “grabbing a person of the opposite gender by where it is inappropriate to touch without affirmative consent” spin to it.

      There is a “yuge” snicker factor to keep this story going.

    2. Don’t forget about Judicial Watch. Doing the job the press used to do, and will again should a Republican become President.

  15. “If they do have something, and it is something that the FBI should have found as part of their initial investigation of Clinton, they’d look like total incompetents – that is, unless they had reopened their investigation.”

    There’s a possibility.

    I winder how many emails the FBI has that Wikileaks also have? And which ones.

  16. Michael Goodwin has crafted the best opening line of any article in this horrid campaign:

    “It looks as if the gods finally got sick of her. ”

    Zeus knows I have……..

    But then I was sick if her in the campaign for Bill where she spat out [I paraphrase]: “What should I do? stay home baking cookies?”

    And he makes a very good point regarding one arrow in the Clinton Campaign’s quiver that they’ve used in countless elections (including the one for Senate against Lazio):

    “Desperate to stop the bleeding, she can play the victim card, as some on her team immediately did, but that reflex is not likely to work this time. As we learned from WikiLeaks, even her top staff thought a private server was crazy and a sign of what one called her “terrible” instincts.”

    Now WikiLeaks has claimed they have a MOAB that will end the Clinton chances of winning and that they will drop it sometime soon. Could it be that they have an email of Clinton discussing her private server? Admitting it was illegal but that she wanted it anyway? Or something equally destructive?

    1. “Now WikiLeaks has claimed they have a MOAB that will end the Clinton chances of winning and that they will drop it sometime soon. ”

      Dunno about Wikileaks, but Anonymous have been claiming for a while that they have a video of Bill Clinton raping a thirteen-year-old girl. Supposedly taken for blackmail purposes by a foreign intelligence agency.

    2. Project Veritas also claiming to have an “atomic bomb” but they tend to puff themselves up.

      Although, it strange that exposing the Democrat’s wetworks operation and bosses didn’t draw more coverage from the networks.

  17. The irony is rich….this coming from the Stonewall Queen herself:

    “We don’t know the facts, which is why we are calling on the FBI to release all the information that it has.”

    Ho ho ho that’s rich…that’s just so perfect……..

    1. “We don’t know the facts, which is why we are calling on the FBI to release all the information that it has.”

      Really? Are you serious? Is that what you are requesting? Is that what you are insisting upon because of the election? You have signed a release authorizing us to do this?

      OK, click! Thousands of raw e-mails have now been forwarded to CNN . . . that is all the information we have.

  18. In an interview, US Navy Admiral and CIA Director Bobby Inman described his policy regarding having gay persons working for him at the CIA.

    Back in the day, especially when there was a heavy burden of social stigma, it was thought that a gay CIA employee was a security risk from being a potential blackmail target. Director Inman would call such an employee to his office and order them, “OK, I have your mother on the phone. Tell her ‘who you are.’ Good, you cannot be blackmailed now; get back to work.”

    To rescue her bid to become the first woman President of the United States, Secretary Clinton needs to do something similarly dramatic. With mere days left in the campaign, she should appear on TV in prime time with her running mate standing nearby and announce, “OK Senator, tell the American people ‘who you are’.”

  19. The FBI is not a monolith. Perhaps there is internecine conflict. Maybe the Wiener investigators told Comey, we’re coming out with this, so make your plans accordingly.

    1. I agree. I think Comey is still a weasel. He might start acting differently when he sees the momentum shift, but I think the latest comes from people and processes that came into play with the investigation of sexual exploitation of a minor. Those agents and procedures worked inside the OODA loop of those who might try to derail the investigation. That’s the intent of that type of investigation.

      In fact, the raid and capture of critical computer and communication equipment is what should have occurred in the Hillary investigation, but never did.

  20. I haven’t seen Kaus level paranoia here.

    Yet.

    What if this whole Comey reopens the investigation thing is a scam to set up the pronouncement on 11/6 that the Queen is completely cleared, while conveniently and completely halting any discussion of the ongoing disclosures by wikileaks?

      1. I think it will be 11/3. Time for it to be talk of the water coolers on Friday 11/4 and make the recordings for the Sunday talk shows which then air on 11/6.

  21. I might have to get a small bottle of champagne for Election Night after all. Work is going to be like a funeral parlor if Trump wins.

    1. Whatever happens, this is already the best election ever. If a wiener picture email ends up sending the Clintons to jail, that will just be the icing on the cake.

      Future historians are going to have so much fun writing the history of the early 21st century.

  22. “It is absolutely absurd that FBI Director Comey would support Donald Trump like this with only 11 days to go before the election,” said Scott Dworkin, Senior Advisor to the Democratic Coalition Against Trump. “It is an obvious attack from a lifelong Republican who used to serve in the Bush White House, just to undermine her campaign.”

    But Comey was their Hero when he let her off!

  25. THIS is a prime example of how the MSM out and out lies in support of Hillary:

    Kurt Eichenwald, Newsweek:

    ” Abedin, who did not know Clinton used a private server for her emails, told the bureau in an April interview that she used the account on the clintonemail.com domain only for issues related to the Secretary’s personal affairs, such as communicating with her friends. ”

    This is a lie (the part about “Abedin, who did not know Clinton used a private server for her emails,”) because we have this:

    But then you have Paul Sperry, New York Post:

    “In her April interview with the FBI, Abedin incredulously maintained that she “did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge.” The clintonemail.com server was set up in the basement of the Clinton family residence in Chappaqua.”

    However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with computer skills built the new server system “at the recommendation of Huma Abedin,” who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the “fall (of) 2008.”

    Skeptical agents showed Abedin three separate email exchanges she had with an IT staffer regarding the operation of the private Clinton server during Clinton’s tenure at State. Abedin claimed she “did not recall” the email exchanges.

    So if you believe Abedin, she didn’t know the private clintonemail.com server that hosted her huma@clintonemail.com account even existed until she heard about it in the news. Comey was a believer; he didn’t even bother to call her back for further questioning. Case closed.

  26. How is it that it’s always somebody else’s fault, and never Clinton’s? Specifically, it’s always somebody’s fault that she’s getting caught, and never her fault that she broke the law in the first place?

  27. Another plausible explanation for Comey’s move:

    He can’t destroy the laptop if it was seized only on the basis of Weiner’s child sexting.

    But if he ties to to Hillary, then he can play the same immunity/agree to outrageous limitations on his actions/agree to destroy the evidence that he did before.

    He probably has enough to send Weiner to the slam where he’ll be traded for a pack of menthols on an hourly basis.

    But he can’t cover up what he has no control over.

    I don’t know this is true. Just brainstorming.

  28. One thing this does is eliminate the Clintonian/Orwellian excuse that they were hacked by the Russians.

    Rooshia had nuthin to do with this batch.

    1. I think they nothing to do with the previous batch. As you say, the notion always seemed Clintonian/Orwellian.

  29. “It may be that Comey was frustrated in his inability to do a proper investigation, and the discovery of the emails in the investigation of Weiner’s wiener was a joyous gift.”

    The more I read, the more I tend to agree. It may be that Comey was under more pressure than we know, but has figured out a way to restart this without constraints. I (temporarily) rescind my “motherf****r” appellation.

  30. “I wonder if/when they’ll get beyond anger and disbelief to bargaining, and acceptance?”

    When? Hopefully November 9.

    If? Probably never.

  32. Bret Baier asks an interesting question:

    Is Weiner using the emails to cop a plea?

    Interesting notion.

    Bret also tweets:

    “Loretta Lynch has refused to issue a warrant for the FBI to examine the data. Stay tuned for a another cover up”

    Gee what a surprise.

    1. Hrmmm…

      I may be wrong, but I’m not aware of any case where the authorities needed a warrant to look at something already lawfully (thanks to the sexting-with-minors case) in their possession. To make it admissible, yes, but to look?

      I’m not exactly shocked that Lynch would try to stonewall by denying a warrant. I do hope at least some in the media are keeping an eye on her physical whereabouts vis a vis those of Bill Clinton, as I strongly suspect Bill Clinton is feeling a sudden urge to rush to her for another covert discussion of “golf and grandkids”.

      BTW, multiple sources (still, take with a huge dose of salt) are reporting that Weiner is cooperating with the investigation.

    2. Loretta Lynch has refused to issue a warrant …

      While I don’t doubt she’s stonewalling like mad, “refusing to issue a warrent” isn’t part of it, because AG’s don’t get to do that. It takes a judge. “Refusing to give permission to seek a warrent”, maybe.

    3. Not that the DoJ has problems giving out immunity or deals like candy on Halloween; I see no reason to give Weiner a plea deal. What can he provide as testimony that would be; a) convincing to a jury with his record or b) something that would be more significant to an imminent crime that the hard evidence doesn’t prove better? If Weiner got a plea deal; it’s either the candy or better be because he has testimony and access to evidence that shows straight up treason. And if it regards treason, I would only imagine the evidence would speak for itself, so I would assume candy.

  33. Interesting if true.

    From the Daily Caller:

    DC Attorney: FBI Never Destroyed Laptops Of Clinton Aides

    “According to the agreement reached with the attorneys who handed over their laptops, the laptops were to be destroyed per the agreement after the testimony was given –the interviews were given – – by the attorneys. The bureau and the department agreed to that,” DiGenova said. “However the laptops contrary to published reports were not destroyed and the reason is the agents who are tasked with destroying them refused to do so. And by the way the laptops are at the FBI for inspection by Congress or federal courts.”

    1. the agents who are tasked with destroying them refused to do so.

      Perhaps they didn’t attend the training on how to destroy data and why. They are probably grossly incompetent, but that’s an administrative matter not a crime.

      1. What prevents them from destroying the devices but saving the data? When you try to game the rules the rules might game ya back.

      2. Or perhaps they =did= go to the training about destroying data, and recognize that the laptops in question are still evidence even if corrupted people at the top wish them destroyed.

    2. The laptops used to sift Hillary’s emails for destruction weren’t destroyed? Turns out there are a few good people at the FBI.

  35. According to ABC News this evening, The FBI got their warrant.

    Drudge is reporting that there were 650,000 emails on the device but as it’s a WSJ article I can’t read it to see how that figure was arrived at.

    1. One, two, three, four . . . (Would you keep things quiet in here, I just lost my concentration!)

      One, two, three, four, five . . .

    2. 650 thousand emails – that’s got to be all the email that passed through the server. Most of the emails I have seen through Wikileaks have been fairly short, so it’s probably only a couple of gigabytes.

      1. I’m guessing that no email went to or from Hillary without Huma cc’d. So that machine probably has all the emails that the Clinton gang thought had been safely deleted and bleachbitted.

Comments are closed.