There are several 'news' sources reporting on this:




The accusation seems to come from the defendant's lawyers, saying that, “They don’t want this stuff to come out because it will look really bad for Obama and Clinton just before the election” (source is the politico article).

Is there any evidence that this could be the reason why the case was dropped, or was there not enough evidence to pursue the case?

Note: first time posting, please let me know if this is not an appropriate question.

  • I am not sure if one is going to be able to tell the truth of this matter without seeing the court documents. Since it is the defendant's people claiming that, it is hard to tell. The emails charge is a bit baffling, as it is my understanding that the emails were already revealed so trying to cover them up now would be odd to say the least. One thing to note from the article is that the defendant's advisor Robert Stryk alleges that the administration has been harassing Turi in a desperate attempt to cover up Clinton's role in Benghazi, so you can take that for what you want.
    – rougon
    Oct 5, 2016 at 20:58
  • @rougon, Thanks for your input. It does seem like it will be a difficult question to resolve. It also might be to early since this is a fairly recent event.
    – Hobbes
    Oct 5, 2016 at 21:47
  • 1
    @rougon There are roughly 33,000 emails that were deleted. Only a portion of them were recovered. Most are still missing. Unless someone who hacked Clinton's server releases them, their contents are and will remain secret. Also, some of the emails that they do have are still being processed and have yet to be released. What you are recalling is most likely the initial, partial release.
    – Brythan
    Oct 6, 2016 at 2:50
  • @brythan I know about the deleted emails but was assuming they were gone. As in, they wouldn't be covering them up because they were gone.
    – rougon
    Oct 6, 2016 at 2:53


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .