Criminal law, Media, Politics, Society

Comey Sends Letter To Congress Citing New Evidence (and An Investigation) In The Clinton Email Scandal [UPDATED]

Jcomey-100Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziThere is a major news development with the release of a letter from FBI Director James B. Comey that the Bureau has decided that new evidence requires further investigation into the Clinton emails. It was a surprising change just days before the election. After all, as recently as September 27, 2016, Comey rejected the idea that the bureau would reopen its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. Comey wrote in a letter to top members of Congress that the bureau has “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” UPDATE: There are accounts suggesting that the information came from an investigation of Anthony Weiner, estranged husband of Huma Abedin, and that the emails were not authored by Hillary Clinton. This is still unfolding and there are calls to confirm this information. If the author is Huma Abedin, the investigation would hit one of the most senior aides. If it contained classified information, that is a stand only offense under federal law. Human Abedin was interviewed previously by the FBI — raising the risk that she will be called in for additional questioning. However, the new development could also prove insignificant for a criminal investigation and, if these were communications between Abedin and her estranged husband, it may not implicate Clinton personally or have any serious impact on the prior conclusions of the FBI investigation.


It is not clear what the “unrelated” case produced new emails related to the Clinton investigation. He also says that they are still determining whether these new emails contain “classified information” or are relevant to the overall investigation. Accordingly, this could result in a determination that the new concerns are a “dry hole” and that no further action is needed. However, it is fairly unusual to take the step to notify Congress before an election. One would assume that there is some threshold determination that the evidence warrants such a step that would inevitably cause a flair up in the political season.

I have been critical recently of the handling of the FBI investigation, particularly in the granting of immunity to key potential targets. I recently wrote a column on FBI investigation into the Clinton email scandal and revised my view as to the handling of the investigation in light of the five immunity deals handed out by the Justice Department.  I had previously noted that FBI Director James Comey was within accepted lines of prosecutorial discretion in declining criminal charges, even though I believed that such charges could have been brought. However, the news of the immunity deals (and particularly the deal given top ranking Clinton aide Cheryl Mills) was baffling and those deals seriously undermined the ability to bring criminal charges in my view.

Wikileaks disclosures have only embarrassed the Bureau further in showing Clinton aides debating how to explain the deletions and how to delay turning over material. Comey now has told legislators that “I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

He did note that the FBI could not yet assess whether the new material is significant. Comey clearly felt obligated to let the Committees know about the development. In making such a decision, Comey is caught in the horns of a dilemma. The Justice Department strongly discourages investigatory announcements or actions shortly before an election to avoid any claims of trying to influence the outcome. On the other hand, if this is significant, the FBI does not want to be accused of hiding material developments from Congress or the public, particularly after criticism over its alleged different treatment given Clinton and her aides as opposed to other recent cases.

In such a situation, caution favors disclosure. It is unlikely that we will see major developments in the remaining two weeks, but the announcement shows that this is not a closed matter. In many ways, the lingering character of this scandal was only worsened by the tactics of Clinton aides in changing explanations and refusals to cooperate absent immunity. That served to delay the investigation, which will now likely extend beyond the election.

300 thoughts on “Comey Sends Letter To Congress Citing New Evidence (and An Investigation) In The Clinton Email Scandal [UPDATED]”

  1. BENGHAZI………BENGHAZI…………Oh never mind. I do get a kick out of these people that yell law and order, but shes guilty no matter what.

    1. Glenn,

      The interesting thing is that this does happen. On Clinton’s side, her supporters say they are for law and order but don’t want her investigated.

      This is why I keep saying that our nation needs to become an ethical people. Right now, we are more often than not, team players. That isn’t what will get us to truth and justice.

    2. You hear them shouting “lock her up” or “hang the bitch” to their dictator.

      1. Dave,

        This is true and this is wrong. Now are you able to admit that your candidate, Clinton, has been willing to incite violence at Trump rallies and that is also wrong?

        We need to stop playing for teams. If something is wrong, it is wrong when Trump people do it and it is wrong when Clinton does it, along with her followers.

        Please, we need ethical people. It’s imperative to be ethical in this time. That means, wrong behavior isn’t excused based on your party.

          2. Dave – you haven’t been reading Wikileaks or watching O’Keefe. There is enough proof that 2 people from the DNC lost their jobs.

    1. Independent Bob – Comey cannot survive a thorough background check regarding the Clintons.

  4. So, thanks to Wikileaks we are aware that the DNC paid disruptors to attend Trump rallies to perpetuate the myth that Trump supporters are hateful and violent. Similar to the Berniebro myth and chairs being thrown at the NV LA caucus- which BtW the MSM has never corrected.

    Essentially scabs are hired to create an alternate reality. Looks to me that the DNC could have simply asked their supporters to do the dirty work like these people in LA attacking a pro-Trump homeless woman. I don’t know if this was real – is the woman really homeless or is an experiment taking place? The reaction and hatred from the crowd though is real.

  6. This is linked to a video of the speech at wikileaks twitter:

    “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” — Barack Obama (2011)

  8. A choice between the habitually crass and the consistently corrupt. If we vote for the consistently corrupt we give those people a pass. We would encourage more of that behavior. I choose the crass one. It might make a difference if the corrupt actually had a record of accomplishments along with the nice titles. But titles are meaningless if you don’t have a record of accomplishments to go with them. In two Senate terms (12 years) Clinton sponsored only 3 bills that became law. They were to name a part of a highway, a post office, and label a building as historic. That’s it. Overstated her role in getting CHIP legislation passed. It was mostly Ted Kennedy. She cannot run on her record if one actually pays attention to it. So I choose the crass one who turned a $1 Million into over $3 Billion empire at his firm that has more female than male management staff. He may be a jerk in many ways but HRC has her own brand of ownership in that category.

    1. Hi mespo!

      Yep, totally agree.

      Trump is partially right. The whole thing is rigged. It is not rigged against him; it is rigged against the 99%.

  12. The whole concept of democracy and a persons right to vote on their choice, is being lost throughout this campaign. A situation has been created which insults our intelligence and freedom of choice by all these revelations against both candidates.
    Our freedom of choice on voting rightly or wrongly is being manipulated to such an extent by all these accusations that we are loosing that basic right. We are not being allowed to choose without attempts at being manipulated

    1. Bry Doode,

      Celebrate that we have the internet and do your research. Why would you expect the MSM to give you bias free info (actually misinformation) or any partisan news outlet?

      Seems to me you want to go back the Myth when everything (they told us) was clear: Red or Blue. Now we realize that is meaningless – same coin different sides.

      One thing I look for when doing research is who profits from the information?

  13. My hope:

    That Clinton is elected and gets the Senate. That the repubs initiate as many investigations as possible against her. These will be pointless as the only thing that was ever actually proven about the Clintons was a $40 million investigation that confirmed that a man committed adultery [consensual], lied about it [that’s what adulterers usually do, at least for a while], and that, subsequently, his wife attacked the accusers [that’s what the wives of adulterers usually do].

    That HRC will finally throw in the towel, surrender and resign after a lengthy career [including breaking the final glass ceiling] and can enjoy friends and family, especially young grandchildren, in an undisclosed location.

    That Tim Kaine will then be president. He is the most administratively qualified of the four Pres and Veep candidates and will usher in a period of calm and capable leadership. He will nominate a few moderate supreme court judges that all can agree on [except for rabid right- and left-wingers].

    That Bannon, Dossie, Conway, Trump, and the rest of the alt right won’t know what the hell to do with themselves without the Clintons and will continue to circle round and round in endless conspiracy theories on their Trump News Network until they flame out. Eventually, they will be the stuff of urban legend.

    By the way, I wouldn’t trust Clinton to babysit my goldfish. And there’s only one reason she gets my vote: her opponent.

    1. Very sad. People like you will allow the final corporate coup d’tat. Bernieorbusters, Steiners and many Trumpsters see the dangers of the TPP. Our brothers and sisters across the pond are fighting like crazy against the corporate controlled EU trade deals – with mixed success.

      We want a U.S. Brexit – get rid of NAFTA, CAFTA, KORUS and certainly defeat the TPP

      HW Bush – NAFTA, pro TPP
      Clinton – NAFTA, pro TPP
      W Bush – CAFTA, KORUS, pro TPP
      Obama – KORUS, TPP
      HRC – NAFTA, CAFTA, KORUS, TPP
      Kaine – TPP
      Pence – TPP

      1. You might want to add in the TTIP (Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – presently in trouble) and TISA (Trade in Service Agreement) which is considered by some to be the most toxic of all -.but which regardless, has been kept under wraps more successfully than the others at least up until recently.

        Also, I’m curious where you get the specifics you mention above. As far as I know, every one of those individuals is behind every so called trade agreement currently on the table if not every one ever written..

    2. Exactly, and it is the saddest comment of all. It’s not about getting Clinton into the White House where there will be an even chance that things will not get worse but about keeping the nut case Donald, ‘Chicken Little’, Trump as far away from political office as can be accomplished. There are still far too many Americans who will vote for the shiniest apple with the slickest delivery. Trump’s delivery is so bad it makes you wonder who these people are. Let’s let Honey Bo Bo and the ducks from Duck Dynasty decide. Yup.

      1. Isaac, there you go again “these people” – why call them a basket of Deplorables like HRC?

        AGAIN: HRC has done bad things, Trump sometimes sez bad things. In other words: she is a definite danger, whereas he is a maybe danger.

        1. I’ve listened to him for 18 mos. No media interpretation. Just my brains and experience listening to the words when they come out of his mouth. Plus, his actions are continuing to be vetted. If elected,he will make the Clintons look like middle-schoolers. There is no maybe about it.

          1. CC and Issac,

            In case you’re actually interested in hearing a different point of view than the duopoly, here’s a link to a thoughtful piece.

            http://blackagendareport.com/malcomx-on-clinton-vs-trump

            Here’s another one: https://archive.fo/1inAb#selection-409.3-413.11

            Inside the Invisible Govt. by John Pilger

            These are actual leftists who hold left wing positions on this and every other matter. It’s a voice we don’t get to hear because it is too difficult for the propagandists to deal with.

    3. fundamentals – Hillary is in poor physical health, shaky mental health, took furniture from the White House (returned some of it), took furniture from the State Department. Has an abysmal record as both a Senator and SoS. Is running a foundation that only gives 5% of its income away. Ran a pay-for-play while SoS. Violated Federal laws and regulations with her home brew server. Supposedly had her lawyer delete emails on her server.

      This woman has a horrible track record. Do you think she is going to make a good President?

    1. Autumn,

      No, they really don’t care. Any crime, any harm they cause, any evil Clinton has and is doing is all worth it to them. Maher doesn’t have to vote for Clinton or Trump. But, he wouldn’t get paid for saying that!

  16. It may simply be a dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t scenario. Comey, with others observing, came across something that could be used to damage his already under siege reputation if he didn’t release it; and he had no choice. His intentions might have been his own reputation/performance but sometimes a move satisfies desires and demands on all sides to varying degrees. The Republicans and Trump get a momentary respite as the audience gasps in horror and disbelief. Clinton undergoes a tarring which, when quickly worn off, adds to that accumulating patina of being unjustly or overly punished, beyond proportion, exhibited in Trump’s mindless tirades, and then rises above it all.

    The down side is that it might cost the Democrats the Senate. The Supreme Court is up for grabs for the next twenty years. This country does not need another Scalia. This country certainly does not need another four to eight years of stagnation while the Republican House opposes everything Clinton regardless of merit, best interests of all Americans, or simple logic. It’s not a case of moving forward either under a Republican or conservative flag or a Democratic or progressive flag; it’s a case of moving forward under Clinton or self destructing under Trump. One can almost hear the “Yeah, burn it all down.” emanating from around the kitchen tables of the great white uneducated, far too populous, segment of the country. Even the ‘mobs’ of ancient Rome weren’t as mindless as this celebrated ‘backbone’ of America.

    1. Your hatred for poor people is palpable Issac. Like your candidate, you wish to make people despise and hate each other. That serves her well. As your candidate whips up hatred between people she will destroy many things, unchallenged by her supporters. I think it is very wrong to whip up hatred against one’s fellow citizens, especially appalling in the service of a very evil candidate. I’ve come to expect nothing less from a Clinton supporter and that both saddens and frightens me.

      Here is an article by John Pilger that speaks to the propaganda we are blanket with by the Clinton campaign and her supporters.

      https://archive.fo/1inAb#selection-409.3-413.11

      1. “I think it is very wrong to whip up hatred against one’s fellow citizens”

        This is a great description of Trump. Succinct and accurate. Thank you.

          2. Alejanddro,

            It is wrong for Trump to whip up hatred against other people. This is dangerous. The more people turn on each other, the more the oligarchy gets to do what it wants. They need people to hate and not pay attention to the oligarchy’s actions.

          3. Of course he did not say ALL Mexicans are rapists. Everybody He said some of the people illegally invading the country are rapists. That’s what is called factual, objective truth. He’s said a many, many times he loves Hispanic people and Mexico. But you want to push the Democrat Media Complex lie that he “calls Mexicans rapists”. “Mexico. I love the Mexican people. I love Hispanics. I love Hispanics.”

          4. Alejandro – just as Castro sent us some of his criminals, the Mexicans are sending us some of theirs. Some are rapists. We caught one the other day.

        2. Oh is ti fundamentals? Here’s your fine Clinton supporters attacking a homeless woman. And please don’t forget your Candidates documented attempts to foment violence at Trump rallies.

          Your arrogance is appalling and it is dangerous. Because you believe your group is superior, you will not mind the violence such superior people inflict on their “inferiors”. This is one essence of totalitarianism in action. Thank you oh enlightened Clinton supporters! You are truly great and without parallel in our nation.

          https://twitter.com/vivelafra/status/792179263688630272

            1. Dave, I don’t care where information comes from. I just care if it’s accurate. I’ve already outed myself about that years ago on this blog!

              If you know something is inaccurate about what happened here, please link to it.

    2. Isaac, re: ” One can almost hear the “Yeah, burn it all down.” emanating from around the kitchen tables of the great white uneducated, far too populous, segment of the country. Even the ‘mobs’ of ancient Rome weren’t as mindless as this celebrated ‘backbone’ of America.”

      exactly how much time have you spent amongst the unwashed masses you so easily define and demean? I lived in rural TN for 3 years and I can assure you the folks I met were not “Mindless” even though some did not have a formal education. Indeed, they were some of the most honest, hard working and kindest people I have ever met.

      You’d do better to apply “mindless” to the devout Cult of Hil members.

      1. You and Jill have a few wild hairs which have affected your eyes. Nowhere in my posts do I reference poor or unwashed people. I target precisely what has been established statistically, Trump’s core of supporters are the lesser educated Americans. Typically Republicans and Democrats represent an even cross section of the education status of Americans. Trump is different. Trump is our ‘Chicken Little’ fear monger who plays the hero from out of town. No one and that means absolutely no one can dispute that Trump’s excessive use of fear mongering adjectives, adverbs, all exaggerations speaks directly to those who don’t spend very much time if any at all researching the realities of what is going on, has gone on, to make a decision as to what might go on. Take a dose of ignorance, add in a cup of confusion, and apply a target to blame and you have the ‘mob’.

        I state what has become common knowledge and painfully obvious on the media. Trump’s core supporters either hate Clinton to the point of shutting off their mind and/or have sucked up the manure Trump has been laying down since day one. It’s a disaster. We’re heading for ruin. This is the worst in history. Etc. along with a pathological tendency to lie without exhibiting any indication whatsoever except timing. Trump lies so consistently that it has become accepted and if he ever told the truth his face would crack a smile of exhilaration. The sky is falling and only I can save the world, sums up Donald, Chicken Little, Trump. So talk to me about the uneducated and mindless. I stand by those words. Your words are in the style of Trump, lies and distractions. Trump should be standing in front of the stands at a High School football game yelling through a megaphone all sorts of chants and threats to a crowd, some of whom don’t really realize that it is not a football game but the next four, perhaps eight, years of our country.

        1. Isaac, no, both Jill and I look for the truth. We refuse to be put in a Partisan box.

          Repeat the lie that Trump’s base are uneducated and mean-spirited. The Trump supporters I know personally are all bright professionals – ranging from doctors, dentists, attorneys, engineers, pharmacist, teachers, professors, veterans, small business owners, coders, military personnel and my mechanic.

          And here’s the kicker – most of them do not LIKE Trump – and many would have voted for Bernie.

          So you arrogant Demoncrats screwed up by sticking with a despicable, crooked, liar who will win only she if can steal the (s)election.

          That’s on you Partisan fools who didn’t hold the DNC’s feet to the fire.

          With great fondness I still remember the chants of the protestors outside the DNC convention:

          Hell, no, DNC – we won’t vote for Hil-A-Ree”

          “We Don’t need no super PACs, Keep your money Goldman Sachs”

          Rest assured: the independents are NOT falling in line. Even Jill Stein considers HRC to be more dangerous than Trump.

          “The People, United, Will never be defeated”

          1. As bad as Clinton is, Trump is simply too dangerous and it’s not as if he was a double edged sword, intelligence with a lack of stability. He is not intelligent. He was born to riches and privilege and happens to be clever at some of what he does, approximately a third. He is the quintessential huckster. In his own words, you sell the illusion. Spend equal time scrutinizing Trump as you have with Clinton and she comes off the safer bet. Trump has nothing to offer but fear and loathing. HIs entire appeal is based on hating Clinton. I don’t hate Trump. I simply have no respect for him. He serves a purpose as a buffoon, a court jester, a funny guy. Court jesters are there to bring people down to earth, to remind them of their human frailty, to amuse. Court jesters don’t get to run things. Trump has run a real estate development company, successful half the time. He has failed at everything else he has tried: airlines, casinos, foodstuffs, etc. He is a brand, an illusion, an entertainer. Entertainers can say and do anything. Somehow it’s OK because you accept the fact that nothing more is to be expected. Clinton’s main failure is that she is expected to be perfect so her accomplishments disappear in light of of a few failures. Review Reagan and his absolute screw ups in Lebanon that cost the lives of almost 300 Marines. Or, was that excused because he was Republican. Review Reagan’s cocaine importing business which facilitated selling missiles to Iran. Reagan was simply a more charismatic liar that Clinton. They all have sh*t on their shoes. If you want to wallow around in that swamp you will lose any argument.

            The bottom line is Trump grew up in a swamp, was born to a swamp, and didn’t do much except entertain himself. Trump has nothing actual, tangible, or in the least thought out to offer America. Trump simply stands for that leader in the street that organizes a mob of malcontents. The reasons for America’s woes are far too complicated and entrenched for a superficial brand name buffoon like Trump to deal with. It’s not about how sleazy Clinton is. It is about how useless Trump is.

            1. No, it’s about who is more impeachable and Trump wins that so he gets my vote. Clinton is way more dangerous because once in, she will never get kicked out.

            2. issac – Donald Trump has 500 businesses with his label on them. How many do you have?

            3. Isaac re: “Clinton’s main failure is that she is expected to be perfect so her accomplishments disappear in light of of a few failures.”

              Alright – if you are able to believe that in light of her history past and present I give up. There is no hope for you getting rid of the blinders you so stubbornly cling to.

  19. This article may give the readers pause to wonder why this politician bears a last name which is that of a human private body part. Well it goes like this. Weiner’s great grandfather got off the boat from Austria at Ellis Island. He was in customs and presented his credentials. The Clerk there saw that his last name was Dichead and that he hailed from Wein, Austria which is the German word which we translate to Vienna, Austria. If you hail from Wein then you are a Weiner. So, great grandpa was given a choice of last name for the new World he was entering and the name has not changed since. Anthony Weiner is not a Dichead.

  20. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit “A federal judge in New York has ordered counsel for Donald Trump and the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein to appear in court along with the attorney for a woman referred to only as “Jane Doe” who alleges the Republican presidential nominee raped her when she was 13.

    Judge Ronnie Abrams has slated an initial status conference in the civil lawsuit for 16 December in a New York district court.

    The order raises the extraordinary prospect, were Trump to win the 8 November battle for the White House, of counsel for a US president-elect being called into federal court in proceedings relating to allegations of rape of an underage girl.” Wow what a crazy election

    1. not much crazier than a sitting President required to testify in a case in which plaintiff stated that he requested her to “kiss it”.

        1. Yes. And there is another allegation that surfaced.
          Trump is now accused of inappropriately touching a 14 year old babysitter in 1948.
          Trump claims to have no memory of this incident, but a patent lawyer may represent the now 84 year old victim.

          1. As Trump (b. June 14, 1946) was about two years old at the time, it isn’t surprising his memory of the alleged incident is vague.

            1. Brooklin Bridge – in 1948 it wasn’t a crime or a big deal. It was part of the office initiation.

            2. Yeah, but
              I understand that Allred is looking into it.
              There are still c. 10 more days for her to hold more press conferences to highlight these timely allegations (like the 1948 incident).

              2. The alleged child rape took place in 1996 and there will be a court hearing. Child rape normally isn’t a laughing matter even among good old boys.

                1. That I’m aware, no one is laughing about the alleged child rape that took place in 1996. I would remind you that this is still alleged but no matter, the levity was regarding a different incident that is absurd (see above) and I don’t think it was associative.

                  It is indisputable that Trump (when he is not sleeping with his buddy Putin) has been accused of everything but the recent Martian invasion which is particularly surprising given that there was no recent Martian invasion which makes it an absolutely perfect candidate for blaming on Trump.

                    1. Should this trial proceed and Trump be found guilty in a clear and convincing manner, there will be serious indignation here as well as elsewhere. I very much doubt any “old buddies” around here think rape trivial which agrees with your overall point, simply that until then we are not ready to get out our fainting couch and smelling salts..

                2. As to rape in the abstract being no laughing matter, let’s not put the verdict before the trial. Let’s also not bandy concepts about as if the subject itself imposes a a required moral indignation (a no levity zone) that sucks Trump into it by association.

      2. Uhhh, one was a nonconsensual violent act against a child. The other was a consensual sexual act with a woman. It’s crazy, or worse, not to understand this.

    2. And Bill would be put back in the executive branch (to help the economy) if Hillary is elected:

      “Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s (Jeffrey Epstein) infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records”

      I find it hard to believe he was there just for the free drinks.

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html

Comments are closed.