Jump to content

Hillary's Emails on Weiner's Laptop


Airbrush
 Share

Recommended Posts

Recently FBI Director Comey announced they found Clinton email's on Weiner's laptop, that were between Hillary and her aid, Weiner's x wife, Huma. He said something like they haven't found anything bad yet, but they are going to continue their investigation into Hillary's emails. I also heard that the FBI had known this for weeks. Do you think that Comey's team did a quick survey of the emails over the past few weeks, and either found something significant, or found nothing, and Comey decided that he would be damned either way, so he decided the lesser of evils would be to announce 11 days before the election, they were investigating the new emails and haven't found anything bad yet. But Comey, as a reasonable man, would probably not want Trump as president. Even though he and his team could not find anything very bad among the emails, he would announce in the next few days that they did a cursory examination of the emails and found nothing significant, yet, which would help his candidate?

 

Or do you think Comey will make no more comments before the election?

 

I just saw a Fox News story that the hacking of the DNC was not done by the Russians, but by disgruntled NSA agents.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really have not paid attention to this but I would think the FBI have very carefully not looked at the emails yet - they had a warrant to investigate the laptop for emails from Weiner about his sexual approaches to a minor case, they did not have a warrant to look at emails from Abedin. American evidential law is complex (and far more stringent than English) but I know that in cases like this the investigators must be very careful not to potentially poison ( and render inadmissible) any evidence then find whilst they are overstretching a warrant for a different matter.

 

BTW - Why is it Hillary and Huma but Comey and Weiner? Little women don't deserve enough respect to be called by their surname?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always use the name Hillary so as not to confuse her with Bill. I'm afraid I don't remember Huma last name, and I don't know Comey's first name. Weiner's last name sounds descriptive.

 

The FBI had the emails for weeks but are only now getting a warrant to review them. Is there not a way for Comey's team to get a hundred technicians busy doing a cursory exam, working 14 hours per day, of all the emails that may take only a few days? Then he can announce that they did a limited scope audit of the emails and still have not located any smoking guns. Don't you think this is a high priority project?

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that they looked at the email metadata from the discovered emails to and from HRC's private server. They can look at the metadata without a warrant.

 

If their is classified data on that computer heads should roll. I doubt Anthony Weiner has a security clearance. Even if he does, intelligence is on a need to know basis. He would have no need to know. I don't think the American public would be too happy about a pervert like Anthony Weiner having a laptop containing classified information. Who knows, maybe it just has love letters between Huma and Hillary on it. No legal problem there. If there is more however, Hillary better be able to remember what she told the FBI she couldn't remember.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the phrase "e-mails on a laptop". Aren't e-mails stored on servers and only accessed from personal computers when a user logs into their account? And 650,000 e-mails!? What provider service allows that measure of storage? Please advise... :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....But Comey, as a reasonable man, would probably not want Trump as president. Even though he and his team could not find anything very bad among the emails, he would announce in the next few days that they did a cursory examination of the emails and found nothing significant, yet, which would help his candidate?

 

Or do you think Comey will make no more comments before the election?....

Either way..

 

Trump:

Comey would not have said anything if he wasn't certain Hillary was guilty.

 

His inability to find the smoking gun yet is proof of how dangerous and cunning she is.

 

As in Guantanamo Bay, absence of proof is proof of guilt.

(I can't even attempt his style.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Comey, as a reasonable man, would probably not want Trump as president. Even though he and his team could not find anything very bad among the emails, he would announce in the next few days that they did a cursory examination of the emails and found nothing significant, yet, which would help his candidate?

Comey is a officer of the law. He will look for crimes. He was investigating Anthony Weiner for sex crimes with minors. That investigation requires him to look at every email on that laptop for sex crimes with minors looking for things like kiddie porn and who sent and received such information. From there they found emails related to the Clinton email scandal. Now they have to look at every email on that computer for classified information. 650,000 emails will take time to review. How do I know it will take time. Well look at how much time it takes the state department to clear emails related to FOIA act, court ordered email requests which need to be redacted prior to being made public. Why would this take less time?

 

I don't understand the phrase "e-mails on a laptop". Aren't e-mails stored on servers and only accessed from personal computers when a user logs into their account? And 650,000 e-mails!? What provider service allows that measure of storage? Please advise... :unsure:

Makes one think that someone archived their entire email account to their personal computer.

 

650,000/100/365= 17.8. 100 emails sent and received a day for 17.8 years. If the majority were from Weiner's account, then Anthony and Huma must have been a rather busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't understand the phrase "e-mails on a laptop". Aren't e-mails stored on servers and only accessed from personal computers when a user logs into their account? And 650,000 e-mails!? What provider service allows that measure of storage? Please advise... :unsure:

Makes one think that someone archived their entire email account to their personal computer.

 

650,000/100/365= 17.8. 100 emails sent and received a day for 17.8 years. If the majority were from Weiner's account, then Anthony and Huma must have been a rather busy.

 

That accounting is interesting as it brings another unreasonable attribute to the phrase "650,000 e-mails on a laptop". The only e-mail archiving I have ever used was to copy into a word processor, but in that case (unless the file is named "e-mail....") there is no knowing a word processing file contains an e-mail unless you open it, and yet a court order ostensibly was obtained to look at e-mails. WTF Moreover, the actual time to write the e-mails would surely be doubled in archiving them, oui/no?

 

So just to revisit, unless archived into files, e-mail is not stored on a personal computer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

650,000/100/365= 17.8. 100 emails sent and received a day for 17.8 years. If the majority were from Weiner's account, then Anthony and Huma must have been a rather busy.

 

So just to revisit, unless archived into files, e-mail is not stored on a personal computer?

I have around 30,000 non-archived emails on my computer and an uncounted number more in archives on my machine. If I didn't run it like that I would need to be online in order to read my emails.

 

I estimate I receive/send around sixty emails a day, but I am not running the State Department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have around 30,000 non-archived emails on my computer and an uncounted number more in archives on my machine. If I didn't run it like that I would need to be online in order to read my emails.

 

I estimate I receive/send around sixty emails a day, but I am not running the State Department.

Can you explain how you 'have' non-archived e-mail on your machine, as well as how you archive e-mails? Can I read my e-mails without being online and I just don't know it?

And as far as I have heard, there is no evidence these are state dept. e-mails, rather they are on a personal machine. Not that I doubt Carlos Danger may be prolific in his personal activity. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were emails on a Republican's computer, they'd be screaming from the rooftops how the government invades their rights and the victims of witch hunts.

 

This non-scandal is partisan politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Fox is already reporting how Republicans plan to impeach Hillary for her emails.

 

It never ends. The race to the bottom.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if not archived your client (e.g. Outlook, Thunderbird, Groupwise etc.) will sync your folders so that you can access them offline. If you archive your messages they usually get stored into a compressed file that you will have to open to access the emails again.

A hundred emails a day does not sound that much if your business relies on them. While I rarely get more than a hundred a day (of which rarely more than 60 are action items), a senior colleague of mine who has a large research network has often gotten more than 300 a day. Which is probably on the extreme end (and resulted in having to employ an assistant to sort and tag those mails).

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if not archived your client (e.g. Outlook, Thunderbird, Groupwise etc.) will sync your folders so that you can access them offline. If you archive your messages they usually get stored into a compressed file that you will have to open to access the emails again.

A hundred emails a day does not sound that much if your business relies on them. While I rarely get more than a hundred a day (of which rarely more than 60 are action items), a senior colleague of mine who has a large research network has often gotten more than 300 a day. Which is probably on the extreme end (and resulted in having to employ an assistant to sort and tag those mails).

Oh. Well I don't use a client so that may be my misunderstanding about "e-mails on a laptop".

 

On the political note, when little Donny is cunning, he is smart, but when Hil is cunning she is dangerous. I get it now. :P

Edited by Acme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the phrase "e-mails on a laptop". Aren't e-mails stored on servers and only accessed from personal computers when a user logs into their account? And 650,000 e-mails!? What provider service allows that measure of storage? Please advise... :unsure:

My server allows me to archive all my e-mails on my computer, and the server. I don't know how common that is, but that's how mine works.

 

650,000 suggests purposeful archiving. Why is speculation, but holding on to damning information to use as leverage seems plausible, if not likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This latest revelation broke Chris Matthews:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9eYU51D3Qg

 

This is glorious!


If it were emails on a Republican's computer, they'd be screaming from the rooftops how the government invades their rights and the victims of witch hunts.

 

This non-scandal is partisan politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Fox is already reporting how Republicans plan to impeach Hillary for her emails.

 

It never ends. The race to the bottom.

 

Please read this article all the way through:

 

 

A retired four-star general pleaded guilty in federal court Monday to lying to investigators who were examining leaks about a secret U.S. government hacking program directed at Iran’s nuclear program.

After pleading guilty before Judge Richard Leon in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., retired Gen. James Cartwright faces probation or up to six months in jail at his sentencing next year, though the judge could impose a stiffer sentence if he chooses.

Mr. Cartwright issued a written statement after his plea, saying he accepted “full responsibility” for making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about whether he’d communicated with journalists writing about the U.S. hacking program.

“It was wrong for me to mislead the FBI,” Mr. Cartwright said. “I knew I was not the source of the story and I didn’t want to be blamed for the leak. My only goal in talking to the reporters was to protect American interests and lives; I love my country and continue to this day to do everything I can to defend it.”

The criminal charge marks the latest instance of the Obama administration pursuing criminal charges against current or former government officials for allegedly talking to reporters about sensitive subjects.

Last year, retired Gen. David Petraeus pleaded guilty to mishandling classified information after he shared national security secrets with his biographer, with whom he had an extramarital affair.

In 2013, the administration came under criticism from First Amendment advocates for seizing reporters’ phone records as part of leak investigations. As a result, the Justice Department required greater oversight from senior officials involving such cases.

In the new case, Mr. Cartwright is accused of lying to investigators about conversations with two journalists, David Sanger of the New York Times and Daniel Klaidman, then working at Newsweek and now deputy editor of Yahoo News.

Mr. Sanger wrote articles and a book about a mysterious computer virus known as Stuxnet that disabled centrifuges in one of Iran’s nuclear facilities, hampering that country’s ability to advance toward a nuclear weapon. Researchers and reporters eventually traced Stuxnet to the U.S. government.

The Central Intelligence Agency, working in conjunction with the Idaho National Laboratory, the Israeli government, and other U.S. agencies, ran the classified U.S. cyberattack program aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to people familiar with the effort.

According to a court document, Mr. Cartwright in November 2012 “falsely told investigators that he was not the source of any of the quotes and statements’’ in Mr. Sanger’s book. “Cartwright also falsely told investigators that he didn't provide or confirm classified information to David Sanger,’’ the document adds.

A spokeswoman for the New York Times said Mr. Sanger’s reporting was based on sources in multiple countries.

“These investigations send a chilling message to all government employees that they should not speak to reporters. The inevitable result is that the American public is deprived of information that it needs to know,” the spokeswoman said.

Mr. Cartwright is also accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with Mr. Klaidman. According to officials, the general “had confirmed certain classified information’’ in an email to Mr. Klaidman.

The court documents don’t indicate which alleged discussions between Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Klaidman were part of the investigation, but in 2012 Mr. Klaidman wrote an article about U.S. efforts regarding the Iranian nuclear program.

Mr. Cartwright, 67 years old, served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 until 2011. In that role, he was seen as a close adviser to President Barack Obama.

 

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/retired-general-charged-with-lying-about-leaks-to-reporters-1476729375

 

This general was charged with misleading the FBI. Who pursued him? Barack Obama.

 

Hillary Clinton has mislead and lied to the FBI multiple times about her server! And what has happened? Absolutely nothing. Again Loretta Lynch was unwilling to declare charges against Clinton and she and Barack forced James Comey into a position where he would have to let the investigation go on national televison.

 

There are two standards being applied here and it will ultimately erode the American people's trust in the Justice system. But hey, Hillary has gotta win. Who cares about equal treatment under the law. Am I right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the phrase "e-mails on a laptop". Aren't e-mails stored on servers and only accessed from personal computers when a user logs into their account? And 650,000 e-mails!? What provider service allows that measure of storage? Please advise... :unsure:

 

 

Most email clients store a copy locally as well. (For speed.) How many and how long for is usually configurable (but I doubt many "normal" people ever look at those settings).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This latest revelation broke Chris Matthews:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9eYU51D3Qg

 

This is glorious!

 

 

Please read this article all the way through:

 

 

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/retired-general-charged-with-lying-about-leaks-to-reporters-1476729375

 

This general was charged with misleading the FBI. Who pursued him? Barack Obama.

 

Hillary Clinton has mislead and lied to the FBI multiple times about her server! And what has happened? Absolutely nothing. Again Loretta Lynch was unwilling to declare charges against Clinton and she and Barack forced James Comey into a position where he would have to let the investigation go on national televison.

 

There are two standards being applied here and it will ultimately erode the American people's trust in the Justice system. But hey, Hillary has gotta win. Who cares about equal treatment under the law. Am I right?

 

 

!

Moderator Note

I don't see how this is relevant to the current discussion.

 

If it's not about the emails on the laptop, take it somewhere else.

 

Do NOT make your plea here, if you are inclined to argue this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

650,000 is not such a large figure to become automatically suspicious - I have north of a million emails on my pc. I get hundreds a day most of which are automatically archived by Thunderbird rules - almost all of them will never be read but I need to have access to the information they contain, a small percentage will have the information stripped out of them by custom software, a smaller percentage will get automatically booted to someone else to deal with, and I read a few dozen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

650,000 is not such a large figure to become automatically suspicious - I have north of a million emails on my pc. I get hundreds a day most of which are automatically archived by Thunderbird rules - almost all of them will never be read but I need to have access to the information they contain, a small percentage will have the information stripped out of them by custom software, a smaller percentage will get automatically booted to someone else to deal with, and I read a few dozen

 

G. W. Bush lost 22 million emails from his private servers. He was a Republican, so that doesn't count... apparently.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

G. W. Bush lost 22 million emails from his private servers. He was a Republican, so that doesn't count... apparently.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

 

 

!

Moderator Note

I refer you to my previous modnote

 

OT posts from here on out will be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why Americans make such a fuss about the e-mail 'scandal', there are other things to worry about a H. Clinton presidency, but still nowhere near those of a D. Trump presidency.

 

Does anyone actually think politicians are careful with government and classified material ? I would think the military is, but they seem to get prosecuted while politicians usually don't.

We had the case in Canada of M. Bernier, leaving classified information the apartment of his 'girlfriend', who had ties to a biker gang. Made the news for a while, nothing much happened, now he's running for the Conservative leadership.

 

The FBI director was between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn't communicate to Congress the re-opening of the investigation, H. Clinton is elected and subsequently damning information is found, the FBI ends up with egg on their face for having done an incompetent investigation. If he does, he risks affecting the outcome of the election.

 

Something in those e-mail must have cought his eye, and allowed for the connection to H. Clinton. That, and any other available information concerning the content of the mail should be released immediately, along with any new info, right up to election day, if need be.

If its important to them, the people should have the information to make their decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something in those e-mail must have cought his eye, and allowed for the connection to H. Clinton.

 

Therefore she must be guilty?

 

The content of the emails is unknown. The only thing we know at this point, the FBI believes there are emails which may or may have not been reviewed in previous investigations. That's it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why Americans make such a fuss about the e-mail 'scandal', there are other things to worry about a H. Clinton presidency, but still nowhere near those of a D. Trump presidency.

 

Does anyone actually think politicians are careful with government and classified material ? I would think the military is, but they seem to get prosecuted while politicians usually don't.

We had the case in Canada of M. Bernier, leaving classified information the apartment of his 'girlfriend', who had ties to a biker gang. Made the news for a while, nothing much happened, now he's running for the Conservative leadership.

 

The FBI director was between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn't communicate to Congress the re-opening of the investigation, H. Clinton is elected and subsequently damning information is found, the FBI ends up with egg on their face for having done an incompetent investigation. If he does, he risks affecting the outcome of the election.

 

Something in those e-mail must have cought his eye, and allowed for the connection to H. Clinton. That, and any other available information concerning the content of the mail should be released immediately, along with any new info, right up to election day, if need be.

If its important to them, the people should have the information to make their decision.

His letter was stating that he was seeking a warrant that would allow him to read the emails in question to see whether they were relevant to anything.

 

At the time of the announcement, neither he nor anyone else in the FBI was actually allowed to read the emails and didn't know what was in them yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Therefore she must be guilty?

 

The content of the emails is unknown. The only thing we know at this point, the FBI believes there are emails which may or may have not been reviewed in previous investigations. That's it.

 

No, that's not it. The FBI found classified documents and information in previously reviewed emails. If these previously found classified documents and information were found on Weiner's laptop, that means that at least one person without clearance to receive that information was in possession of it. That's a crime, both for Weiner and those that made it possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.