Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday January 01 2018, @04:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the weiner-jokes-never-get-old dept.

State Dept. posts Clinton aide's documents found on Weiner's laptop

The State Department on Friday released portions of 2,800 emails and other documents belonging to former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin that were recovered by the FBI last year on Abedin's estranged husband Anthony Weiner's computer last year.

While the newly released emails have been seized on by conservative activists who have long been critical of Clinton's treatment of classified emails as secretary of State, the FBI already said in 2016 that a review of the emails didn't change the bureau's opinion that Clinton shouldn't face charges over email handling.

The Friday release came after a 2015 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the conservative group Judicial Watch against the State Department seeking the release of emails containing "official State Department business" sent or received from Abedin from January 2009 to February 2013 using a non-State Department email address.

Also at Judicial Watch and CNN.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 02 2018, @08:20PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 02 2018, @08:20PM (#616872) Journal

    I'll take the easy win on this one: all the millions he defrauded from his investors and all the discriminatory practices from employment to hotel patronage.

    Prove it's a crime first, bud. Amazing how you can call it "the easy win" without actually doing anything to support your claim.

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 02 2018, @09:20PM (1 child)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday January 02 2018, @09:20PM (#616898) Journal

    I have to side with khallow on this one. Not liking Trump is not enough reason to prosecute him.

    If, however, we indict Trump for what you're claiming and prosecute him, I say great, as long as we're doing the Clintons and Wall Street and the whole rest of the power-elite at the same time. One question, though--given that judges are all political hacks and all prosecutors are too, who are we going to trust to conduct said trials? Asking them to do it is basically asking one department of the Deep State to prosecute another department of the Deep State. It simply won't happen, or if it does happen, they'll magically find a way to exonerate all but a couple of sacrificial lambs to placate the plebes and get them off their backs.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 02 2018, @09:30PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 02 2018, @09:30PM (#616902) Journal

      One question, though--given that judges are all political hacks and all prosecutors are too, who are we going to trust to conduct said trials?

      Political enemies. They still have a need to appear impartial because they could be on the other end of a trial at some point.