OMG. Weiner was stalking Huma. What a strange, strange dude he must be.
Dunn said that Abedin has not yet been contacted by the FBI, but that she “complied fully and voluntarily” with prior investigations into the server and would continue to do so.
So these partisan asshats at the FBI didn’t even bother to ask Huma for her permission, just went straight for a warrant – with the intent of making it appear she was in some way being uncooperative and had something to hide, which is 100% false. Seriously, way to go, FBI. Not playing politics, you say? I call Bull. Shit!
I’ve always believed that if you investigate anyone long enough, and closely enough, you can find some form of wrongdoing. That’s what police states do. In our democracy, you should conduct a particular investigation for a reasonable period of time and if nothing shows up, it’s time to move on to other matters. Like Trump being an agent for the Russians.
Exactly correct. The Republicans have been investigating two people for 25 years. In effect, they have created a de facto bill of attainder against the Clintons. This was one of the reasons we declared independence!
So one of the following is true:
A) Weiner on his own got remote access to her email account and copied over 650,000 (or whatever the number is) emails to his laptop;
B) Abedin is lying and for some reason herself transferred or sent many thousands of emails to Weiner’s laptop;
C) Somebody else got remote access to Abedin’s email account and sent/transferred thousands of emails to Weiner’s laptop.
None of these possible explanations address why this alleged transfer happened.
Of course, given the rumors that the FBI is full of agents who have an irrational hatred of Clinton and will do anything to sabotage her, maybe it’s:
D) The FBI is lying about the number of emails, and the actual number is far smaller and more reflective of what a spouse might send to her spouse in the course of a troubled marriage.
Very true. Matt Yglesias has an article on the constant and relentless investigations of the Clinton’s that is worth a read.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/31/13474116/clinton-prime-directive
I seriously doubt the number of relevant emails (State Department related) is anywhere near 650K. To date, Huma has given us no reason to believe she’s not telling the truth here, so I’m inclined to believe something unusual took place … like they were planted there by rogue FBI agents from the NYC office or the emails in question are nothing more than “Remember to bring your umbrella with you on your visit with … so-and-so, etc.”
I’m serious – at this point, I wouldn’t put it past some people to try and plant stuff there. We have absolutely no reason to consider Weiner did anything outside of the usual dick stuff, nor to not believe Huma. Plus, Hillary seems awfully confident in whatever is (not) there by telling Comey to spill it.
I feel so bad for her. There’s not one of us who hasn’t had an ex or known someone who has an ex who is a black pit of chaos and bad choices. But like Weiner?? And in front of the entire world? This really is too cruel.
Another thing that occurs to me is, what is an e-mail? I mean, there’s so little detail on this non-accusation accusationish accusation that it’s ridiculous. One possible scenario, for example, might be that Abedin accessed her e-mail through a browser on Weiner’s computer, not realizing that some or all of it might be cached in some nook and cranny. While in theory that could be in violation of state secrets if the material was classified, it would seem that such browser-stored e-mail would long ago have been investigated.
Four days later, it seems to me the FBI, having waded in, owes the nation an explanation of what, exactly, they think they found, in more concrete terms. Right now, what we have is a vague statement that somewhere something might be relevant. Which is outrageous.
These GOP ass hats have always pushed the adage, “if there’s smoke, there’s fire”, all the while generating huge amounts of smoke around Democrats (in particular the Clintons). It’s propaganda, pure and simple.
I guess one thing as well we should all remember: Clinton’s e-mails are way more important than substantive discussion of either climate change or health care. Thousands of e-mails matter literally more than millions of lives, and nature.
I’m not a complete idiot, but I’m getting there. What exactly does it mean to say her emails were on his laptop? Were they like copies of them? I mean if I use someones computer to look at my hotmail, I’m not leaving the actual emails on the computer am I? I understand if I allowed that computer or should I say the browser to retain my email address and my password which would then allow someone to go into my email. But I assume if I log on and tell the browser not to remember my user name and password that nothing of my emails is left on that computer after I log off, assuming I didn’t download anything.
Is that right? And if so does that mean she or someone copied some of her emails onto that computer? If so it makes me think he probably did that not her.
I guess I’m just not understanding exactly what it means to say some of her emails were found on his computer.
Can someone fill me in?
Constitution this Republicans
In a free country, information about citizens is protected by law. Information about the government is open to the public.
In a police state, information about the government is secret and the citizen’s lives are open books.
Such total information inversion is necessary to facilitate the crimes of government and to prevent those crimes from becoming public knowledge
"By closely guarding information about their own behavior, they are dismantling a fundamental element of our system of checks and balances. Because so long as the government’s actions are secret, they cannot be held accountable. A government for the people and by the people must be transparent to the people. "
It depends on the OS’s program settings. Many programs today–especially higher-end ones–are set to retain backups of pretty much everything from the hardware programs to your personal settings to such things as email, etc. Unless Anthony altered the program and put in his own personal preferences–or actually set it up that way from the beginning–then it’s likely anything she did from that laptop is stored on its memory/back-up, etc. Unfortunately, if that is the case, it would indicate she was either careless or wasn’t savvy enough to understand that.
Anyone else? Does that sound about right? (I am no expert, but try to pick up knowledge as I go along).
Has anybody actually found a smoking gun email on the Clinton server?
This is a step removed. It is very unlikely Comey will find anything.
Where does the 650,000 number come from? I doubt anybody sends that volume of emails in a decade.
Huma Abedin has repeatedly expressed surprise that her email were on Wiener’s laptop. She hardly ever used it, so how could years of her email end up on his laptop?
I can only think of one explanation. Wiener was spying on Huma’s email, and made copies of it without her knowledge. Wiener had been booted out of Congress and was without a job or friends in high places. If things really went south for him, he planned to use the emails as leverage by threatening to make some of them public.
I would not put anything past that piece of garbage.
Clinton should’ve gotten out in front of this two years ago, with a public statement and directive to everyone she works with, that she’s learned a simple lesson from her past mistakes. There is no such thing as private email! Every email to every person on every subject should be considered public domain. Nobody should ever send any email that they wouldn’t want read aloud on the evening news. The illusion of privacy on the internet is 90% obscurity - nobody knows who most people are or cares what they have to say - and 10% encryption. And encryption is only as good as a Russian or Chinese warehouse full of supercomputers.
In the ancient days, we used to ‘Download’ mail.
You may, in one form or another.
If you use say, MS Outlook (an email client in widespread use) you can ask it to save the inbox on your computer 'for ‘offline’ reading, in addition it may save copies in order to speed thing up (“Caching”),
With a webbased mail (like Hotmail or GMail) it depends on how you use it, the webbrowser may save some copies on its own ( in order to save drafts, speed, etc) , but they often also have a POP3 interface, so, say Outlook, can download the emails too. Lots of places, were copies are take…