Analyzing the fallout from Clinton's emails

Three guests provided analysis, context and speculated about what the second round of Clinton emails might mean for her, and for FBI director James Comey.

Blogger for the Washington Post's, The Fix blog Aaron Blake laid out the complicated situation. Former federal prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg provided legal context. Politico media and politics reporter Hadas Gold shared how this has impacted media coverage of this presidential campaign.

To hear the entire discussion select the audio link above. Below are highlights from our guests.

Aaron Blake on what happened and why

Huma Abedin's husband, former congressman Anthony Weiner, is being investigated for alleged sexual contact with a 15-year-old girl online. To conduct the investigation, the FBI seized electronic devices from their home.

That investigation revealed more emails from Hillary Clinton, because Abedin is the chairwoman for her 2016 presidential campaign.

"We don't know much beyond that at this point, the FBI statement that they released was rather vague, which is a big reason why it was controversial and so we don't know what this is," said Blake.

Initially the FBI didn't have proper authorization to read or review the emails. They received a warrant on Monday, Oct. 31, two days after FBI director James Comey announced they existed.

"This is a very complicated legal process. They were discovered during one investigation, and they had to obtain a warrant to review them for a separate investigation," Blake said.

The Justice Department has laid out a protocol that they don't comment on ongoing investigations, which is why what Comey did is so controversial.

"In doing this Comey, according to his critics, broke this protocol and did something that could have an effect on an election. The flip side of that is ... the prospect of not disclosing the existence of these emails and then have it come out ... after the election would also seem like it was being politicized, like it was being concealed," said Blake.

The investigation into these second batch of emails will probably conclude following election day, said Blake. "If there was the prospect of (the investigation concluding before the election) the FBI may not have announced it at all, they would have waited and said, 'we reviewed this and here's what was in it.'"

Blake believed Comey, who is unlikely to stay on during the next presidency, wanted to get the information out as quickly as possible so it wouldn't look like "it was dropped on the eve of the election."

What is surprising about the reactions to Comey's decision, is that many Republicans have come forward to condemn him, even though this is beneficial for their nominee.

Blake noted they might be distancing themselves from Donald Trump. "I think that they do believe in the legal process and the protocol that exists in these kinds of investigations. And I think that they're worried about the precedent that this sets as far as the politicization of the FBI's investigation process," said Blake.

Peter Zeidenberg on the legal context

Former federal prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg agreed with other's that Comey's decision was "inappropriate" but not illegal.

"Director Comey was in a box of his own making," Zeidenberg said. "He made the decision to do this press conference back in July which was quite extraordinary and an inappropriate decision. It's not the job of the director of the FBI or anyone else from the bureau to be laying out a case when there is no indictment."

Zeidenberg went on to say that no one's case should be laid out by law enforcement, when "there's no way to respond." Comey testified before Congress about the initial investigation and agreed to keep Congress apprised of the investigation. "Which was a second, if not, third mistake. He shouldn't have committed to keeping Congress apprised because that's not their job to be apprised of the internal workings of the Justice Department."

"They should be told to butt out until there's a case to be brought," he said.

And because Comey made that promise, he released a letter regarding the second round of emails found.

"He's keeping them apprised about information that is so preliminary, so nascent that it is meaningless," Zeidenberg said.

Some have accused Comey of breaking the law under the Hatch Act, but Zedenberg disagrees. The act "prohibits political conduct by people while they're in office, federal employees ... can't be campaigning while you're working in your government job.

"I don't think Director Comey broke any laws. I think what he did exhibited poor judgement."

Hadas Gold on the implications to the media

Political and media reporter Hadas Gold said right away that this campaign is unlike any other the media have had to cover.

"A campaign is always a fast-paced world where there are constant revelations, " said Gold. But past campaigns "seem quaint" compared to the revelations of Clinton's emails and Trump's alleged connections to Russia.

"It's really stunning and these are much higher level issues we're dealing with," Gold said.

Not only are the media dealing with a higher caliber of revelations and news to report, but they're also burdened with a higher level of fact checking, said Gold.

"It is really incredible that in a single rally Donald Trump has, that he often makes so many false statements that a lot of them — that would have otherwise brought down any other candidate — just fly under the radar," she said. "The problem is that when you have a stream of things coming at you, you have to grab at the biggest ones."

Members of the cable outlets have admitted that they shouldn't have aired initial Trump rallies unedited. That they should have provided more context.

"It's one of those situations where we're used to, more or less, trusting our government or our politicians to at least give the facade that they're telling the truth. With Donald Trump there's not even an attempt at it," said Gold.

Gold also said there has been in a shift in what media consumers consider trustworthy sources, and that there is a different standard for what Trump says verses what Clinton says.

"When (Hillary Clinton) described Donald Trump supporters as 'deplorables' she got hammered for it and she apologized for it, and she's still getting hammered on it to this day, " Gold said.

"Whereas you have Donald Trump ... the New York Times published literally two full pages of insults that he has thrown at people ... and it just doesn't seem to stick."

If Trump were to win the presidency, Gold believes his behavior won't change and he will continue to use misleading information.

"Mind you I'm sure he believes them. Kellyanne Conoway, his campaign manager, herself has said, once when Donald Trump had tweeted about some video that ended up not being true, she said, 'I don't know, I haven't been with him today, maybe someone showed him some video.' So if that's all it takes ... we might have a lot to deal with when he's president."

Gold pointed out that either candidate ending up in the White House would continue the trend of media having less access to the president. Journalists have complained that President Barack Obama isn't as accessible as presidents past, and that would continue with a Trump or Clinton administration.

"It will be a problem no matter who wins," Gold said. "I think it will be worse under a Trump presidency ... But in both situations it won't be as good."