The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

[Gaidin]

Exclusive: FBI still does not have warrant to review new Abedin emails linked to Clinton probe

When FBI Director James Comey wrote his bombshell letter to Congress on Friday about newly discovered emails that were potentially “pertinent” to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, agents had not been able to review any of the material, because the bureau had not yet gotten a search warrant to read them, three government officials who have been briefed on the probe told Yahoo News.

At the time Comey wrote the letter, “he had no idea what was in the content of the emails,” one of the officials said, referring to recently discovered emails that were found on the laptop of disgraced ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Weiner is under investigation for allegedly sending illicit text messages to a 15-year-old girl.

As of Saturday night, the FBI was still in talks with the Justice Department about obtaining a warrant that would allow agency officials to read any of the newly discovered Abedin emails, and therefore was still in the dark about whether they include any classified material that the bureau has not already seen.

“We do not have a warrant,” a senior law enforcement official said. “Discussions are under way [between the FBI and the Justice Department] as to the best way to move forward.”

That Comey and other senior FBI officials were not aware of what was in the emails — and whether they contained any material the FBI had not already obtained — is important because Donald Trump’s campaign and Republicans in Congress have suggested that the FBI director would not have written his letter unless he had been made aware of significant new emails that might justify reopening the investigation into the Clinton server.

But a message that Comey wrote to all FBI agents Friday seeking to explain his decision to write the controversial letter strongly hinted that investigators did not not yet have legal authority establishing “probable cause” to review the content of Abedin’s emails on Weiner’s electronic devices.

In that message, Comey told agents that he had only been briefed on Thursday about the matter and that the “recommendation” of investigators was “with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case.”

Comey approved the recommendation to seek judicial access to the material that day, he wrote.

“Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them,” he told agents.

Comey’s letter to Congress has subjected the FBI director to withering criticism. Top Justice Department officials were described by a government source as “apoplectic” over the letter. Senior officials “strongly discouraged” Comey from sending it, telling FBI officials last week it would violate longstanding department policy against taking actions in the days before an election that might influence the outcome, a U.S official familiar with the matter told Yahoo News. “He was acting independently of the guidance given to him,” said the U.S. official.

Comey insisted in his message to agents that he felt he had “an obligation” to inform Congress about the new material because he had previously testified that the bureau’s investigation into the Clinton email server was completed. He said it would be “misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.” He added, “Given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.”

The decision to send the letter “wasn’t easy,” said the senior law enforcement official. Comey and top FBI officials debated what course to take once they learned about the discovery on Weiner’s laptop – said to include thousands of Abedin’s emails. In the end, the official said, Comey feared that if he chose to move forward and seek access to the emails and didn’t immediately alert Congress, the FBI’s efforts would leak to the media and the director would be accused of concealing information.

“This was the least bad choice,” the senior official said.

But Comey’s letter to Congress — suggesting that the FBI might now revisit the Clinton email probe — may have been even more misleading, some critics charged Saturday.

“This letter is troubling because it is vaguely worded and leaves so many questions unanswered,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and three other Democrats on the panel wrote Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

“It is not clear whether the emails identified by the FBI are even in the custody of the FBI, whether any of the emails have already been reviewed, whether Secretary Clinton sent or received them, or whether they even have any significance to the FBI’s previous investigation,” the senators wrote.

A Yahoo News review of Abedin’s interview with FBI agents last April — when the Clinton email probe was in full swing — shows that the longtime Clinton aide hinted that there might be relevant material on her husband’s personal devices. But agents do not appear to have followed up on the clues.

Abedin, who served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and held a top-secret security clearance, disclosed she had access to four email accounts while working at the State Department.

These accounts, Abedin said, included an official State Department email account, but also an account on Clinton’s private email server that Abedin used to communicate with Clinton and her top aides, as well as a personal Yahoo account. She used both the Clinton email account and the Yahoo account to “routinely” forward State Department emails and documents so she could more easily print them, she said. In addition, she told the agents, she had a separate email account that she had previously used “to support her husband’s political activities.”

Abedin’s interview — conducted by agents at the FBI’s Washington field office last April 5 — was the first tip-off that the longtime Clinton aide might have circulated official State Department material among her multiple accounts. At one point, agents even confronted Abedin on one apparently sensitive email about U.S. policy towards Pakistan that had been forwarded to her State Department account from an aide to the late Richard Holbrooke, then a special State Department envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Abedin had forwarded the email to her Yahoo account in order to print it, but told agents she was “unaware of the classification of the document and stated that she did not make judgments on the classification of material she received. Instead, she relied on the sender to make that assessment and to properly make and transmit the document.”

There is no indication from the eight-page FBI report on the interview, however, that the agents ever pressed her on what has now turned into an explosive issue in the final days of the 2016 campaign: Did Weiner have access to any classified government documents on his laptop and iPhone — devices that, he apparently used to exchange sexually charged messages with women he met online, including in one alleged case, an underage teenager in North Carolina?

The fact that FBI agents failed to follow up on this shows that the original probe into the Clinton email server was “not thorough” and was “fatally flawed,” said Joseph DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney and independent counsel who has been a strong critic of Comey and the FBI probe. “The first thing they should have done was gotten a sworn affidavit about all her accounts and devices,” he said, adding that agents should have immediately attempted to obtain the devices, including Weiner’s.

But it is still far from clear which State Department emails might be on the devices that Weiner had access to. In a separate civil lawsuit brought by a conservative group, Judicial Watch, Abedin gave testimony in June that appeared to differ in some respects from what she told the FBI. Asked in that case about her email accounts, Abedin told Judicial Watch lawyers that she rarely used the personal Yahoo account, and that when she did, she only used it to forward State Department “press clips” so she could print them.

So guys. Judges get weekends as well. Also, Agents are humanly lazy.

[Flagg]

Plus, no one cares.

[Gaidin]

I figure the more Trump gets to throw out misdirection the more it becomes actually relevant.

[bilateralrope]

Exclusive: FBI still does not have warrant to review new Abedin emails linked to Clinton probe

Is there anybody talking about those emails that knows what their contents are ?

[Gaidin]

The only two people saying anything are Trump and Clinton. Clinton trying to get the FBI to spill facts that, not even the FBI can legally know yet. And Trump just having a field day until he accidentally puts his foot in his mouth again. Or as I like to think of it for Trump, Tuesday rolls around again.

[Flagg]

This is just shouting "MUSLIM!" on an airplane full of Nazis jacked on Jaeger Bombs by saying the name of Clinton's former assistant.

[MKSheppard]

FACTS ABOUT THE NEW EMAILS:

• There may only be three emails

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may- ... 477854957/

FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe
Laptop may contain thousands of messages sent to or from private server
By DEVLIN BARRETT

Updated Oct. 30, 2016 4:58 p.m. ET

As federal agents prepare to scour roughly 650,000 emails to see how many relate to a prior probe of Hillary Clinton’s email use....

Holy shitsnacks that's a hell of a lot of emails.

[Gaidin]

There's also apparently been a Hatch Act complaint filed against Comey by a former Bush ethics attorney, but I can't find anything other than an editorial by him saying so.

[MKSheppard]

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

[Gaidin]

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

Yea I somewhat am, considering the history of October Surprises has very little change on the Presidential election itself. Might make it harder for the dems to get more congressmen.

[MKSheppard]

This whole election has been an unending shitshow.

[Lord Revan]

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

very much actually but then I'm an outsider so if US screws itself over it's not my country they're screwing (well at least not directly)

[Flagg]

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

Yes. The GOP implosion and disintegration of the right wing power structure is like a diarrhea orchestra.

[Tsyroc]

This whole election has been an unending shitshow.

Regardless of who wins it is going to continue to be a shitshow.

If Trump wins he will continue to self generate the shitshow.

If Clinton wins the right wing shitshow will continue, plus she's still Hillary Clinton so she's bound to do something that will add to the never ending shitshow.

If Johnson wins, we will have seen a very entertaining shitshow on election day. Then we will have seen the vote go to the House of Representatives for a vote between the top three candidates (massive shitshow #2), and then the post Johnson selection shitshow (#3). After that I think we'd leave shitshow territory and just move on over to a complete clusterfuck of a 4 year term. The fucking looney assed Libertarian ideas with the other parties controlling the two legislative houses. Election cycle wise I'd kind of like to see this third option happen because if things are going to suck lets at least make the journey interesting. It would also be interesting to see how the Dems and Repubs would act with a third party president. Especially one who kind of sides with bits and pieces that each would like but has others they absolutely hate. Fun Times.

After that I think we can expect another fucked up presidential election in 4 years. Because we know that if Hillary wins all the Republicans should need to do to have a decent shot at her in 4 years is put up a decent center leaning moderate, but they'll fuck that up by playing to their "base" again. The same thing they always do when they should have a decent shot at defeating an incumbent.

If it is Johnson up for reelection in 4 years I wonder if he'd be allowed in the debates regardless of his polling numbers?

I truly hope that if either Hillary or Trump lose that we don't see either one of them run for president again.

[Q99]

Hillary has an impressive lead in Clark County Nevada

So the percentage lead in Clark is a little down from 2012 for the Dems, but the overall firewall is about the same: 47,000 votes. Washoe is at 2,500, which is almost twice what it was in 2012.The rurals remain plus 15,000 for the GOP

Dems are up 15 points in Clark (it was 16 in 2012), which is a point above registration, and that firewall is going to get to 60,000-plus, unless something strange happens. I repeat: Trump appears to have no path here, but the Senate race is not quite over yet.

And with Hillary having Nevada, that cuts down Trump's potential paths to victory *tremendously*.

If Clinton wins the right wing shitshow will continue, plus she's still Hillary Clinton so she's bound to do something that will add to the never ending shitshow.

Oh, we all know she doesn't actually have to do anything.

[The Romulan Republic]

This whole election has been an unending shitshow.

Regardless of who wins it is going to continue to be a shitshow.

If Trump wins he will continue to self generate the shitshow.

If Clinton wins the right wing shitshow will continue, plus she's still Hillary Clinton so she's bound to do something that will add to the never ending shitshow.

If Johnson wins, we will have seen a very entertaining shitshow on election day. Then we will have seen the vote go to the House of Representatives for a vote between the top three candidates (massive shitshow #2), and then the post Johnson selection shitshow (#3). After that I think we'd leave shitshow territory and just move on over to a complete clusterfuck of a 4 year term. The fucking looney assed Libertarian ideas with the other parties controlling the two legislative houses. Election cycle wise I'd kind of like to see this third option happen because if things are going to suck lets at least make the journey interesting. It would also be interesting to see how the Dems and Repubs would act with a third party president. Especially one who kind of sides with bits and pieces that each would like but has others they absolutely hate. Fun Times.

After that I think we can expect another fucked up presidential election in 4 years. Because we know that if Hillary wins all the Republicans should need to do to have a decent shot at her in 4 years is put up a decent center leaning moderate, but they'll fuck that up by playing to their "base" again. The same thing they always do when they should have a decent shot at defeating an incumbent.

If it is Johnson up for reelection in 4 years I wonder if he'd be allowed in the debates regardless of his polling numbers?

I truly hope that if either Hillary or Trump lose that we don't see either one of them run for president again.

If anyone other than Clinton or Trump wins a state, it isn't likely to be Johnson. It would more likely be McMullen in Utah, which if its very, very close, could indeed deny both Clinton and Trump a majority in the electoral college and send the election to the House (and a likely Trump win, given who controls the House- I don't think Trump hate is strong enough among Republican Congressmen for them to put their careers and potentially lives on the line giving the election to someone who got way fewer votes than Trump).

[Q99]

Slate: Trump had two secret servers to communicate with a Russian bank

The researchers quickly dismissed their initial fear that the logs represented a malware attack. The communication wasn’t the work of bots. The irregular pattern of server lookups actually resembled the pattern of human conversation—conversations that began during office hours in New York and continued during office hours in Moscow. It dawned on the researchers that this wasn’t an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank.

In this election, what could possess someone to possibly think secret servers were a good idea?

But that's not the big one,
Mother Jones: Veteran spy gave FBI info that Russian operative had cultivated Donald Trump for five years

The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer's conversations with Russian sources, noted, "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him." It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls."

[FireNexus]

I'll wait until that breaks through to sources that aren't in the tank left wing media.

[Q99]

I think the question is how much the source is sensationalizing it, but Mother Jones is pretty reliable, that Trump has been receiving support for awhile seems very likely.

Oh yea, and CNBC reports Comey knew about but wasn't reporting Russian attempts to meddle in the election (At the same time he thought Weinergate was enough to break the normal rules)


Basically, we got three Russian stories from three different sources. Take from that what you will.

[Tsyroc]

If anyone other than Clinton or Trump wins a state, it isn't likely to be Johnson. It would more likely be McMullen in Utah, which if its very, very close, could indeed deny both Clinton and Trump a majority in the electoral college and send the election to the House (and a likely Trump win, given who controls the House- I don't think Trump hate is strong enough among Republican Congressmen for them to put their careers and potentially lives on the line giving the election to someone who got way fewer votes than Trump).

I keep forgetting about him because he didn't make it on the ballot in Arizona, and came a long kind of late.

I haven't seen any electoral college breakdowns where they have him winning Utah and the other two not getting to 270 electoral votes. If it comes down to a four-way split he would beat Johnson because Utah has 1 more electoral vote than New Mexico.

I don't think the Republicans hate Trump enough for enough of them to vote to give the win to Johnson. I think it would have been teeny bit more likely before he started looking like the stoner candidate, being a former Republican etc..., but now? I do wonder if enough of them dislike Trump enough that a few states might end up throwing it to Clinton by not voting for him. I'm sure that would be a big concern because they definitely don't like her.

[Q99]

Hm, although the Hill is saying ties on the Trump/Russia are unconfirmed:

Amid multiple reports drawing different connections between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia Monday night, the New York Times reported that FBI officials' investigations of the GOP nominee have yet to confirm ties between the two.

Which makes Comey's hiding of it kinda odd, and the situation somewhat contradictory on what's coming out. As the Hill is also covering the 'spy tells FBI Russia was trying to cultivate Trump' story.

[The Romulan Republic]

If anyone other than Clinton or Trump wins a state, it isn't likely to be Johnson. It would more likely be McMullen in Utah, which if its very, very close, could indeed deny both Clinton and Trump a majority in the electoral college and send the election to the House (and a likely Trump win, given who controls the House- I don't think Trump hate is strong enough among Republican Congressmen for them to put their careers and potentially lives on the line giving the election to someone who got way fewer votes than Trump).

I keep forgetting about him because he didn't make it on the ballot in Arizona, and came a long kind of late.

I haven't seen any electoral college breakdowns where they have him winning Utah and the other two not getting to 270 electoral votes. If it comes down to a four-way split he would beat Johnson because Utah has 1 more electoral vote than New Mexico.

I don't think the Republicans hate Trump enough for enough of them to vote to give the win to Johnson. I think it would have been teeny bit more likely before he started looking like the stoner candidate, being a former Republican etc..., but now? I do wonder if enough of them dislike Trump enough that a few states might end up throwing it to Clinton by not voting for him. I'm sure that would be a big concern because they definitely don't like her.

I do vaguely recall at least one elector coming out months ago and saying that they would not vote for Trump regardless of how they state votes, but I don't have a source right now.

I'd really prefer it not come to that, though. Because despite it being legal, you can bet their'd be nation-wide riots at the minimum if electors going against their state (or the House going against the results of voting) determined the result.

But no way, no way, does New Mexico go to anyone other than Clinton. fivethirtyeight has it at over 90% odds of Clinton victory in Polls-plus, Polls-only, and the Now-cast. If you look at their last ten polls, every single one has Clinton leading by at least four points, and Johnson ranges from 12-24%. Which, hey, is good for a third party candidate, but he ain't winning it.

[maraxus2]

If anyone other than Clinton or Trump wins a state, it isn't likely to be Johnson. It would more likely be McMullen in Utah, which if its very, very close, could indeed deny both Clinton and Trump a majority in the electoral college and send the election to the House (and a likely Trump win, given who controls the House- I don't think Trump hate is strong enough among Republican Congressmen for them to put their careers and potentially lives on the line giving the election to someone who got way fewer votes than Trump).

I keep forgetting about him because he didn't make it on the ballot in Arizona, and came a long kind of late.

I haven't seen any electoral college breakdowns where they have him winning Utah and the other two not getting to 270 electoral votes. If it comes down to a four-way split he would beat Johnson because Utah has 1 more electoral vote than New Mexico.

I don't think the Republicans hate Trump enough for enough of them to vote to give the win to Johnson. I think it would have been teeny bit more likely before he started looking like the stoner candidate, being a former Republican etc..., but now? I do wonder if enough of them dislike Trump enough that a few states might end up throwing it to Clinton by not voting for him. I'm sure that would be a big concern because they definitely don't like her.

There's probably next-to-no chance that someone other than Trump or Clinton becomes President. Seeing the House support someone other than the Republican nominee is unthinkable at this point. Plus, it'd break a lot of norms, electing someone who will - at best - have ~5% of the national vote, regardless of Trump's raging assholery. This isn't like Bush v. Gore, where Bush became President after losing one state by a very narrow margin. This is an entirely different beast.

Plus, are Johnson and McMullen really that much worse than Trump? At least Republican voters elected him. Johnson's an idiot who isn't even a Republican anymore, and he's not going to win any states. McMullen is straight out of GOP central casting, but nobody knows who the hell he is. And he's only running in one state. It's a pretty tough sell that Utah alone should have paramount importance in this election (sorry Nap and Knife).

[The Romulan Republic]

Filled out my ballot yesterday, but couldn't mail it yet because the post office closed early for Halloween.

Their were some very interesting questions on the Colorado ballot (including that public health care option, an assisted suicide question, and two primary reform questions, among other things).

[Tribun]

As someone who is watching this whole thing from the outside, could you please answer me a few questions?

I'm starting to get nightmares from the idea that Trump is actually winning the whole thing thanks to his bud Comey serving him victory on a silver platter. You can't tell me he didn't do this to cause the maximum damage and he then hid himself away to wait out the fallout. His letter was clearly worded intentionally to imply "Hilly is criminal" without outright saying so, allowing him to save his ass on a technicality.

Worst thing is, it seems to be working like a charm. I really can't explain the numbers otherwise. I know this is not exactly a national election, but 50 single ones, but in all important states Trump suddenly has a comet-like rise.

Now:

• What the hell is behind this and do I actually have reason to be so deeply troubled about this? Are people really this dumb that they can't see this foul play and suddenly think Trump is integrity itself?
• We still got six days to go and just four were already enough to beat down Clinton's chances at 538's model by 10 percent. You think Trump is now simply waltzing to victory by always repeating the word "E-Mail"?
• Looking at 538, the states Colorado, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are probably the most important to hold. Honestly, you think Trump is managing to grab these?

Sorry if I sound like some worrywart, but the mere idea of this guy at the top of such a powerful nation... That even made me post again after years of being idle.