Are you quoting the new york times? I found the exact quote on

"http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-28/new-clinton-emails-emerged-part-probe-anthony-weiners-electronic-devices-nyt"

The only NYT article I see mentioning it says "A senior law enforcement official said that tens of thousands of emails belonging to Ms. Abedin were on Mr. Weiner’s laptop, which the F.B.I. had obtained as part of its investigation into Mr. Weiner"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html

I don't have a NYT account either. Perhaps they do free articles? I can load up the nytimes article with no issue.

"Correction: October 28, 2016   An earlier version of this article incorrectly reported when the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, announced that the bureau had closed its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use. It was in July, not September."

That looks to be the only change they have made. Or at least the note.

Try opening the link and seeing if it works?

You are the one not making sense. Not having all the information means that it may or may not have happened. Not that it happened for sure. You are ASSUMING without any proof to be sure.

She already apologised for the server thing. She admited it was her mistake and there was no protocol so she was left to her own devices. That does not make her crooked.

I believe the tally is Hillary lies 14% of the time and Trump lies 54% of the time. Now make your choice.

Welcome back.

Presidents have a limit of 2 terms, so Obama won't stay in charge.

Not really. I think Trump's thing is that he at least respects adversaries.... Not wanting open war with them. He's generally been pretty anti-war since on the campaign trail... Negative on Iraq, Syria, Libya, and others. With that kind of lean-in for disliking such things, you really don't want the Russians as an adversary.

I don't think it's a matter of they didn't get enough coverage. They got shit coverage. She lied, openly and blatantly, about not having any classified emails from four years at State. The media made no note of it. She deleted emails that were under subpoena. The media didn't start digging. It collectively yawned. Then when it came to Trump's first accuser they actually put on their investigative journalism hat to try and disprove the idea that armrests weren't movable back then. Priorities!

This was all right in front of our faces if you knew where to look. The Benghazi story never added up, and the emails known to be missing were all centered around that. No one pursued that. About a month ago someone discovered the reddit smoking gun. That got a little play, but nobody really dug much further after the hearing came to naught. Then the DOJ dropped its charges against Marc Turi and he wasn't exactly shy about telling everyone it was because he would have revealed the crimes of Clinton (and Obama) under oath. That was a one day story for a few outlets, and then they dropped it. Most hilariously, Kim Dotcom was telling THE WHOLE WORLD that he was going to bring down Clinton and precisely how he was going to do it and nobody paid the slightest attention.

This was Watergate x10000000, and the media just derped around because either they had no taste for bringing down their candidate of choice or they are genuinely retarded. Or both. Now they're in shock and trying to make sense of things while I, some random person on a video game forum, can tell you with near certainty that Clinton is finished as a free woman come next week. Journalism is dead.

Well, if polls are being rigged to help one candidate it's also likely that that candidate would also be made privvy to the "real" numbers. In addition to having internals, of course. That's pretty conspiratorial, I know, but I'm starting to believe in conspiracies.

Political polling at this point is almost voodoo, anyway, especially in crazy times like these. In addition to the well known landline problem, it's basically impossible to account for something like Reagan, Brexit, or Trump.

Benghazi ... I am honestly bewildered by people who think it has been insufficiently investigated.  They're working on the eighth congressional investigation now.  It's probably gotten closer attention than 9/11 did.  (Fun fact:  according to Wikipedia, when the 9/11 commission requested additional funding, they got 9 of the 11 million they asked for.  W probably did it as a prank.) 

Isn't it a better conspiracy to let her take power and then indict her so Kaine becomes president?