Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is a great summary. Do you think if the newly discovered emails contained Hillary's yoga schedules, Comey would rush to the Congress saying he has new evidence?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:let's not forget that there are still 1,000 e-mails between Petraeus and HRC missing from what HRC turned over.

i didn't know Petraeus was such an avid yogi!

As I recall, this allegation is sourced to Reddit. Why doesn't Petraeus turn them over? Maybe he has even given them to his girlfriend already.

Anonymous wrote:let's not forget that there are still 1,000 e-mails between Petraeus and HRC missing from what HRC turned over.

i didn't know Petraeus was such an avid yogi!

Anonymous wrote:This is a great summary. Do you think if the newly discovered emails contained Hillary's yoga schedules, Comey would rush to the Congress saying he has new evidence?

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?

Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:But you have no problem with the 22 MILLION emails GWB lost?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/george-w-bush-white-house-113150357.html?ref=gs

Anonymous wrote: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.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is reminding me more and more of the Salem witch trials. Mass hysteria over nothing.

This exactly. I can understand this from the Trumpsters, but I don't understand it from the others.

Tell this to the mother of the young officer serving time in jail for taking a selfie on a submarine and told his superiors immediately. She, as secretary of state, violated security protocol standard for everyone in that department, except for HRC. This isn't difficult to get why so many people are pissed at this, she is not the exception and I am disappointed that you spend so much time trying to defend her dishonesty.

You want to re-litigate everything from the past several years. That has been investigated by numerous Congressional committees and the FBI. No charges were pressed. You can be pissed off as much as you want, but facts are facts. I've never defended Clinton's use of a private server. It was a stupid thing to do. But, those responsible for investigations found no reason to charge her. The issue we are discussing here is not the past -- as much as you prefer to do that -- but the current situation. Given that we know nothing about the newly-discovered emails, why are so many people jumping to conclusions?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is reminding me more and more of the Salem witch trials. Mass hysteria over nothing.

This exactly. I can understand this from the Trumpsters, but I don't understand it from the others.

Tell this to the mother of the young officer serving time in jail for taking a selfie on a submarine and told his superiors immediately. She, as secretary of state, violated security protocol standard for everyone in that department, except for HRC. This isn't difficult to get why so many people are pissed at this, she is not the exception and I am disappointed that you spend so much time trying to defend her dishonesty.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is reminding me more and more of the Salem witch trials. Mass hysteria over nothing.

This exactly. I can understand this from the Trumpsters, but I don't understand it from the others.