You Can’t Just Bring Up Emails That Haven’t Been Read Yet

Another bombshell, another “October Surprise”. Or at least, that’s what the mainstream media would have you believe.

The only thing for certain these days is that the next season of House of Cards had better be extravagant, or we may find that that fictional election pales in comparison to this all-too-real one.

Early morning on the 28th of October, FBI director James Comey issued a letter to Congress stating that in the FBI case examining allegations of Anthony Weiner soliciting sex from a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina, new evidence possibly related to the Hillary Clinton email scandal that has followed her around for close to two years now.

You may or may not remember that Anthony Weiner, the former Congressman, was married to Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s top aide until 2 months ago. These newest allegations against him are what caused their swift divorce. It appears that, while they were still a couple, they shared a laptop (common fare for married folks, even if they have their own) for work, or just responding to emails when at home. In the FBI’s confiscation of Weiner’s devices, more emails were “discovered”. But there’s a problem here.

None of these emails are to or from Hillary Clinton.

There is no proof they were withheld from the FBI investigation, purposefully or otherwise.

James Comey, nor anyone else at the FBI has even read these emails (legally, anyway).

In fact, this entire new revelation seems to be more about Ms. Abedin’s possible mishandling of classified information as an aide rather than anything Hillary has done that has not been investigated yet. Even then, for any actions to be taken, the same standards under which Hillary Clinton was scrutinized will hold true for Ms. Abedin: it must be proven that she purposefully and maliciously mishandled this information, IF she mishandled it.

And so the question remains: why? Why would the director of the FBI release a letter so inflammatory 11 days before the election that essentially says “We have more emails that may or may not be related to this case” yet has largely been interpreted as “Hillary Clinton is back on the hot seat and we’ve got evidence to nail her this time”?

It appears to be more partisan-influenced than perhaps any move someone in government has made this election cycle.

James Comey is, of course, a registered Republican that was widely criticized by his party’s officials and the public for not recommending Hillary be charged with anything relating to the emails. Although legal experts agree that charging Hillary would’ve likely lead to her exoneration with the current evidence out there, Comey was still chastised by his Republican peers and the public. He was called “soft”, a “RINO”, and “paid off”.

If a man was seeking to establish favor again among his party mates, or even just turn the tide of this election for his own rational self-interest, what better way to do so than drop this no-risk “bombshell” less than a fortnight away from Election Day? There seems to be no other reason to revisit this case while the evidence literally has not been laid out for him.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign quickly responded, stating that voting is already underway and “the American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately”. They are confident these emails hold nothing that could harm the campaign and would like them to be made public as soon as possible. Whether this happens or the public is left in the dark up to or beyond Election Day, is wholly up to the Bureau.

You might also like More from author

Leave a Reply