Author Topic: Most bizarre twist ever? (Read 13980 times)

Seriati · « **on:** October 28, 2016, 01:37:46 PM »

Fox is reporting that the FBI has reopened its investigation in Hillary's email server. Have no idea what this means, or where it would go, but this has to be one of the most bizarre twists in an investigation and election.

D.W. · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2016, 01:44:50 PM »

Announcement is legit anyhow. Times and others also reporting it. No info yet on what the emails were that have them looking again.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2016, 02:28:57 PM »

Quote

Most bizarre twist ever?

Really? A twist of unknown significance, rather.

D.W. · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2016, 02:43:19 PM »

The content isn't the bizarre thing. It's that the FBI would choose now to announce it. Not to mention do so with a cryptic "non news" briefing.

It smacks of them playing politics to me at least. And THAT is strange given their previous comments on the subject.

TheDrake · « **Reply #4 on:** October 28, 2016, 03:18:13 PM »

Maybe Adams hypnotized the FBI.

full text

So did the FBI announce it, or did a member of congress release the letter? In either case, it is quite a cryptic letter. The "unrelated case" must also be an interesting one if someone has some of Clinton's emails. Comey goes out of his way to say that the emails have not been determined to have a qualitative difference from ones they already have.

Conspiracy version: The FBI had and covered up the "new" emails, but feared that they were going to be exposed, and wanted to get ahead of any claims of coverup.

Strange days, if it does have a qualitative difference from the existing pile of mishandled emails, they may not decide that until after the election. What happens if the President-Elect is indicted? Do they take office and have to be impeached under the rules that apply to a sitting President, or could it go to a normal federal court prior to Jan 20?

Impeachment is supposed to apply to acts that occur while the President is in office, though, so could she plead guilty and then pardon herself? If she did, would it be an impeachable abuse of power?

JoshuaD · « **Reply #5 on:** October 28, 2016, 04:21:16 PM »

A hard position for the FBI. They found new evidence such that they should reopen the case. If they don't say anything, they suppressed important information during an election. If they do say something, they meddled in an election.

I'm sad about the result, but assuming the emails on Weiner's computer are significant enough, I think the FBI did the right thing.

scifibum · « **Reply #6 on:** October 28, 2016, 05:30:39 PM »

The emails on Weiner's computer were sent/received by his wife who was one of Clinton's top aides in the State Department. They were found because the FBI was looking into Weiner's interactions with a teenager.

It would seem that there's no reason to suspect that these emails have been scrubbed or tampered with. And they surely include emails sent to and received from Clinton herself.

So, if the FBI finds nothing new of interest, will that do anything to quell theories that Clinton successfully hid misdeeds by deleting emails?

I predict not.

scifibum · « **Reply #7 on:** October 28, 2016, 05:31:49 PM »

On a funny note, there's no mystery as to why Huma Abedin didn't take her husband's last name.

D.W. · « **Reply #8 on:** October 28, 2016, 08:03:08 PM »

https://mic.com/articles/157995/hillary-clinton-calls-on-fbi-to-come-clean-in-first-comments-on-new-email-probe?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=WHFacebook&utm_content=inf_11_285_2&tse_id=INF_4a05d8109d6a11e6bd3ee3ca348530db#.ryIvgyvyV

I find it more than a little amusing that she is essentially urging the FBI to release her emails to the public...

AI Wessex · « **Reply #9 on:** October 28, 2016, 08:09:36 PM »

We should be able to assume that any email that was sent between Clinton and Abedin should be on Clinton's server, as well. The only question is whether any on her laptop were not turned over from her server AND were classified. I think the odds are they won't find anything damning, but even the FBI doesn't know what might be there. It also may take months for them to make their report. There will be some political fallout between now and the election, but it's speculation. She can say there's nothing to see and he can insist that the emails are a smoking gun.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #10 on:** October 28, 2016, 10:24:25 PM »

Trump has apparently raised the concern that Clinton will try to politicize today's announcement.

Greg Davidson · « **Reply #11 on:** October 29, 2016, 06:16:53 PM »

Quote

The disclosure by the Federal Bureau of Investigation late on Friday, October 28 that it had discovered potential new evidence in its inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of her personal email when she was Secretary of State has virtually nothing to do with any actions taken by the Democratic nominee, according to government records and an official with knowledge of the investigation, who spoke to Newsweek on condition of anonymity."

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-comey...

rightleft22 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 30, 2016, 01:45:03 PM »

I thought everyone expected that days before the election something would happen to pivot the election.

Whoever is pulling the strings behind the scenes have been ready for months.

TheDeamon · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2016, 03:24:19 PM »

The fun thing this cycle is the prediction tools that survived Obama and Bush are largely pointing at Trump this time.

Going with the low voter motivation expectations I have this cycle, I will concede that Trump's election fraud claims may be more of a maneuver to get his backers to go "and vote against the machine" particularly given polling showing his backers seem to be the most demoralized(expecting the other side to win). We'll know one way or another in under 9 days.

rightleft22 · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2016, 03:43:52 PM »

Trump has been very successful using the strategy of accusing the "other" of doing the very thing he is doing and playing victim.

When trump claims the election is rigged I can't help wonder if something more is going on then the ploy of getting his followers out to vote.

yossarian22c · « **Reply #15 on:** October 30, 2016, 04:25:19 PM »

Quote from: TheDeamon on October 30, 2016, 03:24:19 PM

The fun thing this cycle is the prediction tools that survived Obama and Bush are largely pointing at Trump this time.

538 had the best prediction analysis (to my knowledge) the last couple cycles and they still point to an 80% chance for Clinton. I'm willing to concede that may be too high since there could be a real effect of people not wanting to admit (even to an anonymous pollster) that they are supporting trump but I think they is going to change the models by 1-2% tops.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #16 on:** October 30, 2016, 05:55:49 PM »

Quote

When trump claims the election is rigged I can't help wonder if something more is going on then the ploy of getting his followers out to vote.

Note that his poll numbers have improved slightly over the past few days, so he now says that the polls aren't quite as badly rigged as he thought. The man is a pillar of crap. If we elect him, he will *censored* all over us. I saw Michael Moore's movie about Trumpland last night. He made one very good observation, that people are voting for Trump to send a "*censored* You!" to the "establishment". He likened it to the Brexit vote, where people did pretty much that, but in the weeks after the vote when they realized what they had done, 4 million signed a petition asking for a re-vote. Didn't happen, and it won't happen here either.

rightleft22 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 30, 2016, 06:18:00 PM »

I can understand people wanting to send a FU to the establishment but not when the finger is likely to end up in their own ass without even the courtesy of a reach around.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #18 on:** October 30, 2016, 06:44:34 PM »

Well then, you're one of the normals. I wish there were more.

NobleHunter · « **Reply #19 on:** October 30, 2016, 06:55:07 PM »

I prefer the idea that Trump's support stems mostly from a desire to stick it to the establishment. More palatable than so many people believe he's actually suitable to be President.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #20 on:** October 30, 2016, 08:44:52 PM »

Michael Moore put it well in the Trumpland movie. Trump's platform is "*censored* You!" That only goes so far.

TheDeamon · « **Reply #21 on:** October 30, 2016, 10:31:00 PM »

Quote from: NobleHunter on October 30, 2016, 06:55:07 PM

I prefer the idea that Trump's support stems mostly from a desire to stick it to the establishment. More palatable than so many people believe he's actually suitable to be President.

Welcome to me last spring. I'm still holding to it in large part. I'm still undecided who I'll vote for, inclined to do a write-in but learning I have to select an "approved" one for the vote to count... May be more effort than it's worth. Trump's very likely to get the electoral vote regardless so I don't need to care on the meta-scale side of it, even if it echoes 2000 and we get an electoral President again who didn't get the most votes.

Edit: Although I'll be in full LMFAO mode if Hillary winds up in that particular boat(electoral winner), but I find that unlikely. I do expect that whomever wins, they'll be in the low 40th percentile in terms of the popular vote, if they're not in the high 30's after it all settles out.

yossarian22c · « **Reply #22 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:40:11 AM »

The winner is going to get to at least the mid 40's. There isn't a strong enough national third party candidate for the winner to come in lower than that. New mexico and Utah are probably the only 2 states that the winner of the state falls below 40%.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #23 on:** October 31, 2016, 09:12:36 AM »

We don't yet know what the impact of Comey's statement on Friday will be. I think nothing could happen that would give Trump the election before election day other than her dropping dead, but I'm concerned that what he did could cost her the Senate. Note that Harry Reid raises the possibility that Comey himself could be charged with a federal crime by violating the Hatch Act.

cherrypoptart · « **Reply #24 on:** October 31, 2016, 03:42:58 PM »

Hillary Clinton calls this unprecedented.

As it turns out, not so much...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/10/30/flashback-clinton-campaign-tried-to-use-indictment-against-former-defense-secretary-to-discredit-bush-41-n2238640

"Well, in 1992, the Clinton/Gore campaign harped on the indictment of the late former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger to discredit the re-election campaign of President George H.W. Bush four days prior to Election Day. The indictment involved Weinberger’s involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan administration. At the time, October 30, 1992, then-Gov. Bill Clinton said:

Today's disclosure that President Bush knew and approved of the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran not only directly contradicts the president's claims, it diminishes the credibility of the presidency. It raises the question first, and most importantly, about whether he's told the truth in this campaign and for the last five years. And secondly, it raises the whole question of his support for the policy. But the far more important thing is whether for five years he's been telling the American people something about his conduct of foreign policy as vice president which was simply not true."

And that's fine. The American people have a right to know when those running for office are lying.

TheDeamon · « **Reply #25 on:** October 31, 2016, 03:57:59 PM »

Quote from: AI Wessex on October 31, 2016, 09:12:36 AM

We don't yet know what the impact of Comey's statement on Friday will be. I think nothing could happen that would give Trump the election before election day other than her dropping dead, but I'm concerned that what he did could cost her the Senate. Note that Harry Reid raises the possibility that Comey himself could be charged with a federal crime by violating the Hatch Act.

https://scontent.fsnc1-5.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14938178_1093854577402493_3770000674479480532_n.jpg?oh=0da26bdaacd02aff71e0d79557474820&oe=58932204

AI Wessex · « **Reply #26 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:04:08 PM »

and...?

yossarian22c · « **Reply #27 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:05:38 PM »

1) Investigations aren't indictments.
2) Iran-Contra is a bigger deal than Clinton using a private email server.

TheDeamon · « **Reply #28 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:06:40 PM »

Quote from: AI Wessex on October 31, 2016, 04:04:08 PM

and...?

Come on, for being a patron of the party that avidly supports the concept of moral relativism, you should be able to figure that picture out.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #29 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:19:07 PM »

What it says to me is what a lot of qualified people have commented, that Comey overstepped in this case. Is it your view that he acted properly and is being attacked for partisan reasons? If so, then what do you think of Trump and all the other Republicans who attacked him viciously for not proposing charges against Clinton last summer who now think that he is a true patriot?

Quote

for being a patron of the party that avidly supports the concept of moral relativism

? What Party doesn't?

AI Wessex · « **Reply #30 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:21:54 PM »

Quote from: yossarian22c on October 31, 2016, 04:05:38 PM

1) Investigations aren't indictments.
2) Iran-Contra is a bigger deal than Clinton using a private email server.

From the Republican perspective investigations of Hillary themselves are indictments. If she didn't do anything wrong they wouldn't need to investigate to find out what she did. That none of the investigations have led to criminal charges is irrelevant.

A great many scandals are far bigger with far greater consequences than her use of a private email server. Those who make claims to the contrary are highly politicized and/or come from people who don't know their recent US history, like Trump.

D.W. · « **Reply #31 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:28:15 PM »

The reason it's a "Big Deal", and not just to Republicans, is that this sever is seen as a tool premeditated to dodge disclosure laws and court orders to turn them over. By (intentionally) blurring the line between private and "work" email she gained cover for deletion of those files before letting others see them. It also gives her control over them meaning she would (in theory and in practice) have warning prior to them being accessed / handed over.

It's not so much WHAT she was hiding, but that she put into place a system that exists for no plausible reason other than to enable the hiding of info.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #32 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:32:03 PM »

Quote from: D.W. on October 31, 2016, 04:28:15 PM

The reason it's a "Big Deal", and not just to Republicans, is that this sever is seen as a tool premeditated to dodge disclosure laws and court orders to turn them over. By (intentionally) blurring the line between private and "work" email she gained cover for deletion of those files before letting others see them. It also gives her control over them meaning she would (in theory and in practice) have warning prior to them being accessed / handed over.

It's not so much WHAT she was hiding, but that she put into place a system that exists for no plausible reason other than to enable the hiding of info.

Does it bother you that a great many elected officials and their appointees have skirted those practices? People here and elsewhere keep pointing out that the Bush WH used RNC email servers and deleted over 22,000,000 emails when they left office. I'm sure there are many other egregious cases, where the details are always different, but the practice was basically for the same purpose.

Fenring · « **Reply #33 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:38:08 PM »

Quote from: D.W. on October 31, 2016, 04:28:15 PM

It's not so much WHAT she was hiding, but that she put into place a system that exists for no plausible reason other than to enable the hiding of info.

In terms of what could be shown now, THAT she was hiding things would be the issue on the table. However I view that in itself as fairly minor in terms of impact on the country. She broke the rule, boo hoo. The issue is whether WHAT she was hiding was the reason she set things up like this. It is that possible "what" that I think a lot of people are really concerned about, which may include various suspicions about the Clinton Foundation. If she was breaking the rules to hide soup recipes because she's just paranoid (and keeper of the secrets of soup) then I'd personally say to just forget about it. The possible perjury is another matter altogether, though.

D.W. · « **Reply #34 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:50:08 PM »

Yes it bothers me that our reality is that we must mistrust all politicians and that we must rely on them to set the very rules that are intended to (make us believe they can) keep them in check...

I would like, one of these days, to actually vote for someone who seems to be out for the public first and focused on CYA a distant second. Probably never going to happen. But I'll take CYA first, the public second over Hey, over here, keep watching MEEEeeeeeee.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #35 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:52:12 PM »

Quote

The issue is whether WHAT she was hiding was the reason she set things up like this. It is that possible "what" that I think a lot of people are really concerned about, which may include various suspicions about the Clinton Foundation.

Suspicions have fueled every investigation into the Clinton's lives for the past 25 years, at a cost of many $100M's and have turned up nothing. Republicans turn the notion of being an optimist on its head by hoping and praying that one day they will find her guilty of something they are desperate to believe that she did wrong. Not to mention that they never let anything go when they do fail to find what they hoped for. Trump has re-raised the Vince Foster witch hunt, and a number of right-wing bozo sites have touted "new and explosive" evidence about his murder. In fact, Republicans have still never forgiven her for a chance comment she made in 1991(?) about not having time to bake cookies.

She's guilty, GUILTY they say. They just need to figure out for what.

D.W. · « **Reply #36 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:56:09 PM »

Think of it like the cops going after the mob boss who is smarter than all of them put together. They KNOW she's dirty, but she apparently knows the legal system better than they do and how to cover her tracks. That is going to infuriate them far more than any ordinary criminal ever could.

That's what they have convinced themselves she is. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. If there isn't at least a little truth to that, she's either A: way too paranoid, or B: been playing a long con on them just because she gets off on it / wants to see them self destruct over it.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #37 on:** October 31, 2016, 04:59:18 PM »

Quote from: D.W. on October 31, 2016, 04:56:09 PM

Think of it like the cops going after the mob boss who is smarter than all of them put together. They KNOW she's dirty, but she apparently knows the legal system better than they do and how to cover her tracks. That is going to infuriate them far more than any ordinary criminal ever could.

That's what they have convinced themselves she is. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. If there isn't at least a little truth to that, she's either A: way too paranoid, or B: been playing a long con on them just because she gets off on it / wants to see them self destruct over it.

The difference is that they know the mob boss runs a crime syndicate; here they just hope she does. If she were as smart as you suggest she would have to be, then I suspect handling the US economy and fixing Obamacare with one hand and Putin and all other world leaders with the other would be no problem for her. Come to think of it, that's exactly the kind of leader everybody who thinks they want Trump would really appreciate.

D.W. · « **Reply #38 on:** October 31, 2016, 05:07:48 PM »

Which is a large part of why I'm voting for her. She may be an evil mastermind, but she's MY evil mastermind!

or at least I share her with Wall Street...

AI Wessex · « **Reply #39 on:** October 31, 2016, 05:53:33 PM »

No worries, according to Republicans she can dribble Wall Street with either hand.

Greg Davidson · « **Reply #40 on:** November 01, 2016, 12:11:52 AM »

And now it turns out that Comey chose to hide the FBI's determination that the Russians were responsible for the hack of the Democratic Party servers because he feared that would be inappropriately prejudicial to Trump this close to the election.

The one lesson learned from this will be that Hillary Clinton will not make the same mistake as Obama did with Comey of appointing a potentially partisan Republican to a position of trust (or as Bill Clinton did with Kenneth Starr).

Gaoics79 · « **Reply #41 on:** November 01, 2016, 05:23:36 AM »

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/if-hillary-wins-shell-be-grateful-for-comeys-move

Quote

What the anti-Comey arguments ignore is that if Lynch (and Obama) had maintained a more scrupulously non-partisan approach over the last two years, Comey perhaps would not have had to insert himself as publicly as he has in order to defend the F.B.I. from allegations of political interference. Comey became the face of the investigation, to the public and to Congress, because his superiors—Obama and Lynch—could not.

This article does not exactly come from a pro Trump source. But moreover, it does appear that the man has been vilified by both sides of the aisle at varying times in his career and indeed, during this very election (first when he made the decision not to prosecute Clinton and declared the investigation closed, and now that he has raised these latest e-mails). I consider that to be an excellent character reference for the man.

While Comey may or may not have erred in his latest disclosure, I find it hard to believe that he's a "partisan Republican" as Greg Davidson alleges. It's sad though if that's the lesson that comes from this. We need more people of "uncertain" political allegiances in positions of power in Washington, not fewer.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #42 on:** November 01, 2016, 07:13:59 AM »

I don't think Comey is partisan, but perhaps too "honorable" and put a sense of purity and mission ahead of good judgment. The letter to Congress was a huge mistake for which he may be fired. If so, he may not even understand why.

Fenring · « **Reply #43 on:** November 01, 2016, 08:48:51 AM »

Quote from: AI Wessex on November 01, 2016, 07:13:59 AM

I don't think Comey is partisan, but perhaps too "honorable" and put a sense of purity and mission ahead of good judgment.

You're dreaming in technicolor when you say he's too honorable. It has been revealed that he re-opened the investigation in the midst of fury coming from all over the FBI at him, including a mountain of resignation letters from disaffected agents who believed he had disgraced the organization. Reportedly, many FBI members refused to speak with him after what he did, and even declined to reply when he would say hi to them in the corridors. I know you'd like to spin any act he did that helped Hillary as being within a "sense of purity and mission", but I fear this is a delusional interpretation of what really happened.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #44 on:** November 01, 2016, 09:32:07 AM »

Quote from: Fenring on November 01, 2016, 08:48:51 AM

Quote from: AI Wessex on November 01, 2016, 07:13:59 AM
I don't think Comey is partisan, but perhaps too "honorable" and put a sense of purity and mission ahead of good judgment.

You're dreaming in technicolor when you say he's too honorable. It has been revealed that he re-opened the investigation in the midst of fury coming from all over the FBI at him, including a mountain of resignation letters from disaffected agents who believed he had disgraced the organization. Reportedly, many FBI members refused to speak with him after what he did, and even declined to reply when he would say hi to them in the corridors. I know you'd like to spin any act he did that helped Hillary as being within a "sense of purity and mission", but I fear this is a delusional interpretation of what really happened.

From this I gather you haven't read posts I made where I said this will cost her 1-2% and quite possibly the Senate. I'm actually not two-dimensional for favoring Clinton and challenging you for having a visceral dislike towards her.

rightleft22 · « **Reply #45 on:** November 01, 2016, 09:36:14 AM »

Donald trump’s companies destroyed emails in defiance of court orders
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html

Quote

Trump’s use of deception and untruthful affidavits, as well as the hiding or improper destruction of documents, dates back to at least 1973, when the republican nominee, his father and their real estate company battled the federal government over civil charges that they refused to rent apartments to african-americans. The trump strategy was simple: deny, impede and delay, while destroying documents the court had ordered them to hand over.

I’ve mentioned a few times that one of Trump favorite tactics is to accuse his opponents of the very things he does.

I see now why Trump is so keen on labeling the scandal criminal. It’s because when he did/does it the purpose was to circumvent the law.

“Good can imagine Evil; but Evil cannot imagine Good.” ― W.H. Auden

Quote

Evil, that is, has every advantage but one - it is inferior in imagination. Good can imagine the possibility of becoming evil-hence the refusal of Gandalf and Aragorn to use the Ring-but Evil, defiantly chosen, can no longer imagine anything but itself. - W. H. AUDEN
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/02/11/specials/tolkien-return.html

Fenring · « **Reply #46 on:** November 01, 2016, 10:12:06 AM »

Quote from: AI Wessex on November 01, 2016, 09:32:07 AM

From this I gather you haven't read posts I made where I said this will cost her 1-2% and quite possibly the Senate. I'm actually not two-dimensional for favoring Clinton and challenging you for having a visceral dislike towards her.

You suggested above that his actions were perhaps a result of him being TOO honorable, rather than partisan. Admitting that bad press will cost Hillary votes does not require admitting anything bad about her or about Comey; that's just physics. The point is you not only paint everything about Hillary in a positive spin, but now Comey as well. Unless you think massive amounts of people within the FBI are so partisan that they would quit rather than work under someone fair, your assertion about Comey is vacuous.

AI Wessex · « **Reply #47 on:** November 01, 2016, 10:36:04 AM »

Quote from: Fenring on November 01, 2016, 10:12:06 AM

You suggested above that his actions were perhaps a result of him being TOO honorable, rather than partisan. Admitting that bad press will cost Hillary votes does not require admitting anything bad about her or about Comey; that's just physics. The point is you not only paint everything about Hillary in a positive spin, but now Comey as well. Unless you think massive amounts of people within the FBI are so partisan that they would quit rather than work under someone fair, your assertion about Comey is vacuous.

I confess I can't keep up with the way you think. If I'm such a Hillary bigot, how come I "praise" him for acting honorably? Why can't I say that he did something he thought was honorable that damages the chances of the candidate I prefer? That doesn't mean that *I* think he acted wisely or well, fWIW. Is there anything anyone can do that won't be partisan?

scifibum · « **Reply #48 on:** November 01, 2016, 11:41:55 AM »

I think Comey had no good options. If he sat on Weiner's laptop until after the election, the anti-Hillary brigade would have had his head. This way he gets yelled at but there's a chance to clear the air (somewhat) before Nov 8.

It might have been the wrong call, but rather than Comey I blame the Benghazi truthers in office. They are the ones who set the conditions where "hey there's a laptop with some emails we're not sure we looked at yet" equates to a smoking gun in the minds of anyone at all.

Fenring · « **Reply #49 on:** November 01, 2016, 11:57:59 AM »

Quote from: AI Wessex on November 01, 2016, 10:36:04 AM

I confess I can't keep up with the way you think. If I'm such a Hillary bigot, how come I "praise" him for acting honorably? Why can't I say that he did something he thought was honorable that damages the chances of the candidate I prefer? That doesn't mean that *I* think he acted wisely or well, fWIW. Is there anything anyone can do that won't be partisan?

I believe we are mixing up events. Closing the case initially is what some people say is evidence of him being partisan (or at any rate affiliated with Hillary, specifically). That is what made people within the FBI angry. The re-opening of it did not occur in a vacuum, but rather within the context of new evidence mixed with intense pressure from all around him in the FBI. Under such circumstances, re-opening the case *could* be called an attempt to rebuild his reputation, but it didn't occur in a vacuum. In my comments, however, I was addressing the atmosphere within the FBI prior to him re-opening the case.