You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe
The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.
Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton’s work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among “tens of thousands” of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.
The 14,900 Clinton documents are nearly 50 percent more than the roughly 30,000 emails that Clinton’s lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.
Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, are negotiating a plan for the release of the emails in a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.
In a statement after a hearing at the U.S. district courthouse in Washington, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the group was pleased that Boasberg rejected the department’s proposal to begin releasing documents weekly on Oct. 14, ordering it instead to prioritize Clinton’s emails and to return to court Sept. 22 with a new plan.
“We’re pleased the court accelerated the State Department’s timing,” Fitton said. “We’re trying to work with the State Department here, but let’s be clear: They have slow-walked and stonewalled the release of these records. They’ve had many of them since July 25 ... and not one record has yet been released, and we don’t understand why that’s the case.”
In a statement, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the agency previously agreed voluntarily to hand over emails sent or received by Clinton in her official capacity as secretary from 2009 to 2013 but that tens of thousands of documents would have to be “carefully appraised at State” to separate official records from personal ones.
“State has not yet had the opportunity to complete a review of the documents to determine whether they are agency records or if they are duplicative of documents State has already produced through the Freedom of Information Act,” Toner said. “We cannot comment further as this matter is in ongoing litigation.”
Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in May 2015 after disclosures that Clinton had exclusively used a personal email server while secretary of state. Judicial Watch had sought all emails sent or received by Clinton at the State Department in a request made under the federal Freedom of Information Act, which covers the release of public records.
Monday’s hearing comes seven weeks after the Justice Department closed a criminal investigation without charges into the handling of classified material in Clinton’s email setup, which FBI Director James B. Comey called “extremely careless.”
Clinton, then secretary of state, hands off her mobile phone after arriving to meet with Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague. (J. Scott Applewhite/Pool photo via AP)
On Aug. 5, the FBI completed transferring what Comey said were several thousand previously undisclosed work-related Clinton emails that the FBI found in its investigation for the State Department to review and make public. Government lawyers until now had given no details about how many emails the FBI found or when the full set would be released. It is unclear how many documents might be attachments, duplicates or exempt from release for privacy or legal reasons.
Government lawyers disclosed last week that the FBI has turned over eight computer discs of information: one including emails and attachments that were sent directly to or from Clinton, or to or from her at some point in an email chain, and were not previously turned over by her lawyers; a second with classified documents; another with emails returned by Clinton; and five containing materials from other people retrieved by the FBI.
The 14,900 documents at issue now come from the first disc, Fitton said.
In announcing the FBI’s findings in July, Comey said investigators found no evidence that the emails it found “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Like many users, Clinton periodically deleted emails, or they were purged when devices were changed.
Clinton’s lawyers also may have deleted some of the emails as “personal,” Comey said, noting their review relied on header information and search terms, not a line-by-line reading as the FBI conducted.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
The poll that is out right now samples 50% more democrats than republicans. In a nation where the two groups are about equal and the GOP had stronger turnout in their primaries, does that seem reasonable?
This has already been explained in detail by Nate Silver. Go back and read the article.
In addition the GOP trotted out the same talking point in 2012 and got clobbered by Obama. If that isn't enough proof that this idea is inaccurate I don't know what else is.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
The fact you made this all about yourself says everything. Sorry, James, I won't play into his crap no mo.
He's the smartest guy he knows!!! He also knows a lot of very very VERY smart people, tough people, who all say he's an expert in his field. You can ask any of them.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Can I just say those naked Trump statues are completely stupid. I thought body shaming was bad? It's like when that female Trump supporter was assaulted by an entire group of Mexican protestors. She was spit on, cursed at and had flag poles and Mexican flags shoved in her face... On live TV ...and liberals said nothing. They were too busy reporting on Amber Heard.
I found that repugnant actually.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
polluxlm wrote:The poll that is out right now samples 50% more democrats than republicans. In a nation where the two groups are about equal and the GOP had stronger turnout in their primaries, does that seem reasonable?
This has already been explained in detail by Nate Silver. Go back and read the article.
In addition the GOP trotted out the same talking point in 2012 and got clobbered by Obama. If that isn't enough proof that this idea is inaccurate I don't know what else is.
Which article?
Well, excuse me if I don't trust these guys:
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
buzzsaw wrote:You are a stupid motherfucker. I am an expert in the field. My experience speaks loudly for itself. Expert. Let that sink in a bit...people rely on my expertise. Schools that educate people rely on my expertise. Professionals make multiple times your salary rely on my expertise. Multiple fortune 100 Companies rely on my expertise. And you're going to say I am wrong because you say so? Not a chance son, not a chance.
HAHAHAHAHA oh man...
buzzsaw wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … -not-coun/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar … e45bf3d23e
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nat … 8_ST_N.htm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ower-fina/
Let me know if you need more evidence of something almost anyone that's been paying attention already knew ID. Job market nowhere near as good as you seem to think it is. Apology will be accepted.
you quoted Forbes as a legit publication? HAHAHAHAHAHA! politifact is exactly what I quoted you and you said they were liars with rigged numbers!! Hilarious. I spoon fed you this stuff. After you just got done saying the press doesn't tell the truth you're quoting... The press? Too funny. Again, so you understand, things got better under Obama. Sorry.
You gave presentations.... Whoopdee-friggin-doo. What does that even mean? Literally millions of people give job presentations, my sister does for Berkshire Hathaway, she prepares them for Vanderbilt. So I guess that makes her an expert on everything. She also hires too...and everyone within that corporate space have VASTLY different opinions on things. Your expert credentials are laughable.
The fact you made this all about yourself says everything. Sorry, James, I won't play into his crap no mo.
Your ignorance is stunning. You just can't accept the truth. Good day chump.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
misterID wrote:The fact you made this all about yourself says everything. Sorry, James, I won't play into his crap no mo.
He's the smartest guy he knows!!! He also knows a lot of very very VERY smart people, tough people, who all say he's an expert in his field. You can ask any of them.
This is where both of your ignorance just shines through. There have been a ton of debates here over the years. 9/11, Benghazi, Trump, global warming, and a ton of others that there's no need to list. I stay out of them for the most part because frankly I don't know enough about them to hammer away at anybody. I offer up my opinion and why I feel that way and that's about it.
What have I focused on? Finck butchers the classic GnR songs (truth) and the job market. Why the job market? Because I know it better than all of you combined, that's why. So while in your imagination I chime in on everything, the facts beg to differ. This misdirection is what losers do when they know they are beaten. I am an expert, I am paid like an expert, and I am respected in the industry as an expert. My peers respect me as an expert. The fact that two assclowns online disagree with my assessment so they feel I can't be an expert changes nothing. You guys don't matter, my paycheck comes in every 2 weeks and I'd have companies begging to hire me if I had to find a new job tomorrow.
Suck on that for a little bit.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Buzz, do you have any leads on an IT professional with years of operational experience in the Pittsburgh area. I'm happy at my current Fortune 100, but am always looking. Low 6 figure salary as a starting point.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
What have I focused on? Finck butchers the classic GnR songs (truth) and the job market. Why the job market? Because I know it better than all of you combined, that's why. So while in your imagination I chime in on everything, the facts beg to differ. This misdirection is what losers do when they know they are beaten. I am an expert, I am paid like an expert, and I am respected in the industry as an expert. My peers respect me as an expert. The fact that two assclowns online disagree with my assessment so they feel I can't be an expert changes nothing. You guys don't matter, my paycheck comes in every 2 weeks and I'd have companies begging to hire me if I had to find a new job tomorrow.
Suck on that for a little bit.
You're such a bore...truly. Just indignant, arrogant and banal. Your diatribes aren't even your own, they're just rehashed blog noise that I can just as easily find in the youtube comment section.
So again, your "Proof" is that you're a self proclaimed expert? As I said...
The reality is that there was only one basic metric in regards to how we arrived at UE numbers...until Obama became president. Once that happened, the GOP redefined how we would calculate that number and proceeded to trot out the "true" numbers. You clowns do the same thing, in different ways, with polling data and anything else that upsets you. Everything is "skewed" everything has a "liberal bias" etc etc. Math, science, economics...it's all a conspiracy because it doesn't say what you'd like it to say.
No need to answer (although I bet your enormous ego is incapable of silence) I'll just go look for a similar response over at Breitbart...will be the same thing anyway.
