Please explain this newest e-mail controversy / Weiner / Huma thing

[Anonymous]

People have been talking about e-mails for years. Last week when I was following the news I was told Hillary was going to have a historic victory. I worked 80 hours this week and didn't read any news and now it's all tied up?

What's so different about these e-mails? Can anyone (moderate, rational) explain what the facts are and why this time it's a big deal in three / four sentences? NYTimes says it doesn't matter / ignores it, Drudge says Hillary is the spawn of Satan and headed directly to Rikers. So what's the real deal?

[jsteele]

The FBI was investigating Anthony Wiener due to his sexting controversy. In the process they discovered emails somehow related to Hillary Clinton on one of his devices. At this point, we don't know anything about those emails.

[Anonymous]

Thanks. So if we have no clue about the context of the e-mails, why would just the fact that there are more e-mails cause the polls to move? The actual e-mails that have been uncovered so far (like the Podesta ones) didn't seem to move the polls that much, so why are these new e-mails so important?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks. So if we have no clue about the context of the e-mails, why would just the fact that there are more e-mails cause the polls to move? The actual e-mails that have been uncovered so far (like the Podesta ones) didn't seem to move the polls that much, so why are these new e-mails so important?

Because American voters are dumb shits with the attention span of a kumquat.

[Anonymous]

I think the Podesta emails are causing some harm. It shows the whole Clinton foundation as a quasi scheme to get the Clintons rich and give access to its donors.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks. So if we have no clue about the context of the e-mails, why would just the fact that there are more e-mails cause the polls to move? The actual e-mails that have been uncovered so far (like the Podesta ones) didn't seem to move the polls that much, so why are these new e-mails so important?

I don't think there is evidence of the polls moving yet, or at least not movement caused by the emails. There is lots of controversy because Comey's letter was immediately leaked by Republicans with their spin attached. The media bought the spin and ran to press with that spin. So, there is a lot of misinformation being spread. Add to that the intentional misrepresentations being spread by Trump and his supporters and here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
People have been talking about e-mails for years. Last week when I was following the news I was told Hillary was going to have a historic victory. I worked 80 hours this week and didn't read any news and now it's all tied up?

What's so different about these e-mails? Can anyone (moderate, rational) explain what the facts are and why this time it's a big deal in three / four sentences? NYTimes says it doesn't matter / ignores it, Drudge says Hillary is the spawn of Satan and headed directly to Rikers. So what's the real deal?

Are we reading the same NY Times?

[Anonymous]

I don’t know that you will get any nonpartisan responses here, OP, but I will give it a shot and attempt to be objective.

Back in July, Comey announced that no indictment would be sought against Hillary for anything she had done WRT the server/email/etc. He was then called to Congress to testify about the decision he made because Congress felt that there was ample evidence to issue an indictment or convene a Grand Jury. At least the Republican members felt this way.
At that time, he indicated that the investigation into Clinton’s server was essentially complete and that nothing more would be done unless and until other evidence was presented that warranted further investigation.

On Friday, he announced that new evidence has been presented. We later found out that this was found while the FBI was investigating the Weiner sexting case. Because of this new evidence, he informed Congress that he needed to amend his previous testimony and that the FBI would be investigating this new evidence which appeared to have a connection to the Clinton email case.

There has been a lot of speculation about what is in the emails that have since been discovered. A lot of speculation. What we have heard is that there are thousands of emails.
Since nobody knows what exactly is in the emails, these questions have arisen:

1. Could these be some of the emails that Hillary deleted before turning over the emails to State?
2. Who is the author of these emails.... Hillary? Huma? Weiner?
3. Is there any classified information in these emails?
4. Is there any other incriminating information in these emails (Clinton Foundation, for example)?
5. Are these emails purely personal?
6. Does the FBI know the content of these emails enough to have sent a letter to Congress to begin with?
7. Are these emails duplicates of what the FBI has already seen?
8. How did these emails get on a computer that reportedly belonged to Weiner?
9. Was Weiner privy to classified information when he did not have a clearance to view classified information?

None of these questions have been answered. And, because they haven’t, people are speculating.
I think that is it in a nutshell, but I am sure others will fill in information I omitted.

[Anonymous]

All my conservative sources said that the polls would tighten as we got close to election day because at that point, the pollsters would need to save face. Which is why before the emails, Hillary's 10 point lead quickly started to vanish.

They did not expect this latest email issue. How that will wash out, I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the Podesta emails are causing some harm. It shows the whole Clinton foundation as a quasi scheme to get the Clintons rich and give access to its donors.

No, the stolen Podesta emails don't show that.

[Anonymous]

We don't actually "know" whether there are thousands of emails, pp. It could be 1 email, it could be 10,000 emails. We know NOTHING.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the Podesta emails are causing some harm. It shows the whole Clinton foundation as a quasi scheme to get the Clintons rich and give access to its donors.

OP here. This seems more logical to me. The Podesta e-mails certainly bothered me. I was surprised the polls didn't change when they came out. Maybe there is simply lag between when they were released and when polling data came back?

These new e-mails seem much ado about nothing so far. Why wouldn't a politician have e-mails about another politician in his inbox?

[Anonymous]

Because Comey is basically saying "Hold on a second, the case is not closed on Hillary and her emails yet" which he seemed to say back in the summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks. So if we have no clue about the context of the e-mails, why would just the fact that there are more e-mails cause the polls to move? The actual e-mails that have been uncovered so far (like the Podesta ones) didn't seem to move the polls that much, so why are these new e-mails so important?

The polls are the least of Hillarys concern. Having her closest aide flip on her to corroborate all the pay to play allegations made in the Brand memo. That's what will keep her up at night whether she wins or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Podesta emails are causing some harm. It shows the whole Clinton foundation as a quasi scheme to get the Clintons rich and give access to its donors.

OP here. This seems more logical to me. The Podesta e-mails certainly bothered me. I was surprised the polls didn't change when they came out. Maybe there is simply lag between when they were released and when polling data came back?

These new e-mails seem much ado about nothing so far. Why wouldn't a politician have e-mails about another politician in his inbox?

I don't know how people could take stolen, confidential emails that were so freaking boring so seriously in their choice of candidates.

People are ridiculous.