US presidential election, final poll

[Santo 10]

Do you know something the FBI don't?

 

The emails were indeed deleted after the subpoena. (The subpoena came on March 4, 2015, and an employee deleted the emails sometime after March 25, 2015, three weeks later.)

 

However, the FBI found no evidence that the emails were deleted deliberately to avoid the subpoena or other requests. Clinton’s team requested for the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena came. They also said that all the emails that would be relevant to the subpoena had already been turned over to the State Department.

 

I believe it was December 2014 when Clinton asked permission to delete the emails. The FBI found zero evidence to suggest that request had been made in anticipation of the subpoena that followed 3 months later.

[phil752 10]

Which emails? The 55,000 pages she turned over as requested or the 30,000 she was told she could delete because they weren't relevant?

 

Have you seen the timetable of when she deleted the emails and when the subpoena was issued Phil?

 

August of 2013 was the first of the subpoena's over Benghazi documents. There is plenty of evidence,

Edited October 31, 2016 by phil752

[Robin-H 11]

I believe it was December 2014 when Clinton asked permission to delete the emails. The FBI found zero evidence to suggest that request had been made in anticipation of the subpoena that followed 3 months later.

 

Exactly. Trump may be trying to make it seem like she committed a heinous act of treason, but the truth is much more vanilla.

 

---------- Post added 31-10-2016 at 22:42 ----------

 

August of 2013 was the first of the subpoena's over Benghazi documents.

 

Did she hand them over or delete them?

[phil752 10]

Exactly. Trump may be trying to make it seem like she committed a heinous act of treason, but the truth is much more vanilla.

 

---------- Post added 31-10-2016 at 22:42 ----------

 

 

Did she hand them over or delete them?

 

if work product was on government servers would they have had to subpoena them

[Anna B 1,417]

Perhaps. A Democrat in the Senate has said what he has done is illegal.

 

I'm not really sure what the full story is here. Some guy is being investigated for sexting a minor and the FBI are claiming as part of that investigation they have found sensitive emails between said sexter and Clinton?

 

But they aren't yet saying what the emails contain?

 

I can't see Hillary blaming the FBI as being helpful to her cause. Makes her look like she wants to suppress something.

 

I've listened very carefully to the News reports, and programmes like Newsnight, but they tell you little of what's really going on, and even that, in such a way as to be incomprehensible.

 

Either very bad reporting or obvious obfuscation I would say, but very damaging non the less.

[phil752 10]

I've listened very carefully to the News reports, and programmes like Newsnight, but they tell you little of what's really going on, and even that, in such a way as to be incomprehensible.

 

Either very bad reporting or obvious obfuscation I would say, but very damaging non the less.

 

look on you tube at Senate hearing regarding this

[Santo 10]

I've listened very carefully to the News reports, and programmes like Newsnight, but they tell you little of what's really going on, and even that, in such a way as to be incomprehensible.

 

Either very bad reporting or obvious obfuscation I would say, but very damaging non the less.

 

It may be a legal issue. Phil might be correct that the Director feels duty bound to mention the investigation has reopened but his hands are tied regarding what he can reveal so he can't be accused of interfering in the election which is a serious issue.

 

Whoever wins looks like being a lame duck.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Santo

[phil752 10]

never thought id see this, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/01/donald-trump-leads-hillary-clinton-in-new-poll-in-wake-of-email/, however I guess its how individual states vote rather than mass poll popularity. Still time for upsets on either side.

[El Cid 221]

I was listening to radio four, it said Trumps main policies, the few that he has, were in relation to reducing immigration and reducing free trade.

We have had the immigration debate, but people here welcome free trade, although they want the UK to be a manufacturing nation again.

 

Since we import more than 50% of our goods, an import tax could help the Government to lower VAT.

[area 51 10]

never thought id see this, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/01/donald-trump-leads-hillary-clinton-in-new-poll-in-wake-of-email/, however I guess its how individual states vote rather than mass poll popularity. Still time for upsets on either side.

 

I think i am going to check the odds on a bet for Trump to win.The unthinkable may just happen,at least i would have some money to spend before the bombs start dropping.

[blake 10]

fivethirtyeight.com which is the best American politics website in the business, have slashed Clinton's chances of winning from the 86% they were 10 days ago to 71% now, but Trump still has a massive mountain to climb to fluke it on Tuesday. Clinton's still going to win quite easily but not by the absolutely sledgehammer margin that it looked like she might a month ago. But she's still going to get over 300 of the 538.

[Snapshot 10]

fivethirtyeight.com which is the best American politics website in the business, have slashed Clinton's chances of winning from the 86% they were 10 days ago to 71% now, but Trump still has a massive mountain to climb to fluke it on Tuesday. Clinton's still going to win quite easily but not by the absolutely sledgehammer margin that it looked like she might a month ago. But she's still going to get over 300 of the 538.

 

Brexit has taught us all a valuable lesson on opinion polls / political predictions.