Hacker News Reader

Comment by sp332 | Hacker News Reader

Here is the actual letter. Note the FBI does not say they are "re-opening" anything. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv3vbcHXgAAMdPE.jpg:orig

View on HN

The letter states "referred to the fact that the FBI had completed it's investigation". Then the letter states "I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow.... whether they contain classified information".

In plain English, the case was closed, but now there is new evidence and we're investigating it. Sounds like 're-opening' to me.

They are in fact re-opening so they can ammend the findings. If it is determined that new emails warrant charges, she may be charged.

The real news story here is that this is what everyone will be talking about for the next weekend, that's three days, with a response by her on Monday. So, maybe four days. That's more than 30% of the remaining election cycle.

As Trump would say. This is big league.

FWIW according to CBS News, they never officially closed the investigation so nothing is in fact being re-opened:

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/792063653919031296

Normally Friday is a classic "dumping bad news" day because most people don't watch the news on weekends.

>Sounds like 're-opening' to me.

Why are we now shoehorning the real world in to TV speak?

Washington Post says, 'FBI to conduct new investigation of emails from Clinton’s private server'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-i...

It seems pretty clear. They are going to investigate those new emails. Hence, reopening the investigation. Where am I wrong?

I was under the impression that there's some operational distinction between looking at and evaluating some information, and declaring a formal, targeted investigation as "open". But its probably too fine a distinction for the general public to be bothered about. It's a bad look vs a worse look.

Perhaps, I think the key takeaway for Americans is the "Not Guilty" that Americans seemed to believe was the case in regards to these emails (It was really "Nobody would prosecute") may not be so.

Perhaps it would have been better to admit fault and deal with this outright in the beginning, rather than attempting to manipulate the process[0].

[0]http://observer.com/2016/07/exclusive-security-source-detail...

It says they're going to look at whether the emails are relevant. That means they don't know if the emails are even relevant yet.

When you reference a past case against new evidence that's usually called re-opening a case.

https://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse/status/79204759704097177...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com