(10-29-2016, 01:48 PM)6andcounting Wrote: It's her campaign taking a complete 180 on their handling of this topic and Clinton controversy in general in the final two weeks of the campaign that's astonishing. She got this far by basically ignoring everything against her and having surrogates go out and publicly down play anything by blaming a Russian conspiracy.

Why does she need to beg the FBI to release them? If they are Secretary of State related emails and they truly aren't classified, why wouldn't she just release everything she has on her own?

(10-31-2016, 09:30 AM)Griever Wrote: so any update from comey on if the emails are relevant or not?

i would think he would want to get his ducks in a row before he did something like this, since this could be a violation of the Hatch Act

(10-31-2016, 09:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If she released everything she has on her own, what would that prove to the people who doubt her?

Nothing. 

The doubters would still doubt she released everything. 

(10-31-2016, 09:59 AM)6andcounting Wrote: If releasing her emails won't help, why is she asking the FBI to do it?

(10-28-2016, 09:57 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: How can they expect to find any criminal activity when none has been found in this: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

(10-31-2016, 11:42 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Many of those 22 Million Emails were recovered via backup tapes on those servers.
Where's Hillary's backups?

(10-31-2016, 09:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, they just got the warrant yesterday to actually look at the emails. So now they can find out if the emails have any significance to the previous investigation or, and this is the most likely scenario, they were emails already reviewed during the investigation and all of this was pointless.

Now comes the next step, there will likely be a DoJ investigation into whether Comey violated the law, Hatch Act or otherwise.

(10-31-2016, 11:42 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Many of those 22 Million Emails were recovered via backup tapes on those servers.
Where's Hillary's backups?

(10-31-2016, 11:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: Many?

How many?

22,000,000 vs 33,000

(10-31-2016, 01:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/

Washington (CNN) -- Computer technicians have recovered about 22 million Bush administration e-mails that the Bush White House had said were missing, two watchdog groups that sued over the documents announced Monday.



Let me know when you have 90%+ of Hillary's.

(10-31-2016, 12:39 PM)Griever Wrote: the ones "recovered", does that include emails from the 3 month gap at the beginning of the iraq war that were completely gone? 

How do you lose an entire 3 months worth of emails at the beginning of a war?

(10-31-2016, 01:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, I guess we'll have to give it it 2-4 years and then another decade or so until they can be made public.  

Then we'll see how many really are there.

At least the Bush administration didn't lose mislabel them when they were under investigation.

Oh, wait...they did. 

(10-31-2016, 02:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/

Monday's settlement allows for 94 days of e-mail traffic, scattered between January 2003 to April 2005, to be restored from backup tapes. Of those 94 days, 40 were picked by statistical sample; another 21 days were suggested by the White House; and the groups that filed suit picked 33 that seemed "historically significant," from the months before the invasion of Iraq to the period when the firings of U.S. attorneys were being planned.

So I guess it does include some of those days.

(10-31-2016, 02:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You mean they didn't use Bleach Bit on them after getting a subpoena...

(10-31-2016, 09:59 AM)6andcounting Wrote: If releasing her emails won't help, why is she asking the FBI to do it?

(11-01-2016, 07:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: You don't have to believe that Russia is behind the hacks to understand how many have been taken and quoted out of context to create "something" out of nothing.

I wouldn't acknowledge them either.  Every time she explains what is in one (Lincoln) people ignore it and she is "lying again".

There's no there there.

But if it makes people who "aren't defending Trump" feel better about voting for him I guess it served a purpose.