This thing makes no sense at all because these new emails are not efen to or from Hillary. They are from her aide, Huma Aberdeen. The letter is so vague that it's impossible to even tell if there is anything, which is why I think it's a load of utter bullshit. There may be a tie. The FBI never does this but not they've decided to do it because Comey was either whining about Clinton or his head is on the chopping block and he had no other options.

Like seriously? There's already lots of accusations of wrongdoing.

As much as I don't like Hillary, painting her as being related/supporting Weiner's decisions is pretty unfair. We don't know if the 650k~ emails are duplicates or what either, yet.

The Clintons have been constantly investigated/ questioned, so this isn't something political that's just coming up, it's just par for the course.

Also I voted for Trump yesterday (NC)

Maybe it makes no sense, but maybe it does. We're unable to tell.

The thing is, they investigated in some alleged unrelated crime, the suspect of which happens to be the spouse of Clinton's aide (or rather the now-no-longer spouse). That same aide said she knews nothing about any such emails.

Fact is, however, the investigators found some (which Abedin doesn't know about?), and they said it looked as if they were related to the other examination, which gave enough of a suspicion to justify/require taking up the examination again (to rule out the possibility of having missed documents).

Now, whatever it is they found, they are indeed required to look into it. I don't know the English word for that, in German it's called "Legalitätsprinzip" ("principle of legality"? "obligation of legality" is maybe a better fit?). It is a rule/law which every non-joke constitutional state has somewhere in its constitution/set of laws.
This principle says that upon gaining knowledge of a possible felony, the officials are required to lead an investigation. There is no room for interpretation, they cannot choose to ignore a (possible) felony they have knowledge of. The investigation may of course clear the suspect, or be closed as "inconclusive", but it must in any case be held, and timely (though what's the meaning of "timely", nobody can tell, it's the same thing when you are being arrested... you have the right of a "timely" trial, which can mean... uh... six months? one year if you are unlucky?).

Alas, the timing right before the election is a bit unlucky, admitted. For some reason (which I don't understand, to be honest) they already knew about those e-mails for a couple of days, but needed to get another warrant for them because the original search warrant didn't cover the emails. You would think that if there's a warrant on "all possessions", this includes what's on a computer as well... but apparently not. At least that's what you can read on CNN (does not necessarily have to be the exact truth). Maybe it's because they're someone else's emails, who knows. I'm not an attorney, and US law is fucked up enough so one could indeed believe this is true.

Hence the delay. Is this a pleasant situation for Clinton shortly before the election? You bet it's not. But it's not like she gives a Mother Teresa impression in the first place, or like it's alltogether undeserved. There are, after all, some questions that need answering, and she is responsible (maybe not guilty, but still responsible for the stirrup) for that.

On the other hand, consider that whenever Donald the Great, First of His Name, Protector of the Land of the Free makes one of his sexist jokes, people aren't precisely holding back scolding him in every possible way. If scolding one is fair, scolding the other is fair, too.

Now, is it "fair" to hold back the information for so long? That assumes the FBI did it on purpose, which is something we don't know. It may seem "plausible" since Comey is a Republican, but I think accusing him of such a thing solely based on his political stance is going quite a bit too far, too. Without hard evidence, at least.
I don't know about the factual correctness of this warrant story, but it sounds to me like it's at least possible.

assumption of innocence

That's of course right. But I wanted to point out that there is a huge, huge difference between "not pressing charges", and "cleared". The former means, well, pretty much nothing, except there's no charges for the time being. The latter means "double jeopardy" applies.

I'm not aware of anyone except you has trying to insinuate a connection between Clinton and Anthony Wiener's wrongdoings specifically

To clarify on that point: I'm not. It's not like I have alleged that Hillary asked Weiner out for a threesome with that girl, or something. Nor that she even knew about him contacting the girl.

It is nevertheless a "dirty, sticky" story, which adds very well to the overall unfavorable image that she is giving (with the money stuff, her husbands story, the email stuff, the mobbing stuff, and everything). Investigators dug in the muckheap, and her name fell out.

Morale is somewhat weird, but in particular in the USA. A 90 year old married to a 30 year old and living with half a dozen 20-30 year olds in Playboy Mansion is perfectly alright, this guy is not a pervert or such, no... he is a hero. A 21 year old dating a 15 year old is a dangerous criminal, a sexual offender, which is kind of ridiculous (although in the case of a 52-year-old dating a 15-year-old, I am ready to agree that it's somewhat perverse, too).
Either way, the sad truth is that everybody getting anywhere close to someone involved in a "sex thing" is burned. Even if you cannot possibly know that your assistant, or your assistant's husband did something. But if you aren't precisely Mother Teresa to begin with, the napalm sticks to you even harder.

That aside, what's relevant about all that is that during the examination, they found something.

As much as I don't like Hillary, painting her as being related/supporting Weiner's decisions is pretty unfair. We don't know if the 650k~ emails are duplicates or what either, yet.

The Clintons have been constantly investigated/ questioned, so this isn't something political that's just coming up, it's just par for the course.

Also I voted for Trump yesterday (NC)

Grown men who use those kind of words and pass it off as "locker room talk" are seriously disturbed individuals. Some of my best friends would say some low brow stuff (nothing compared to trump) but its usually spent on a funny one liner. If they spoke like trump I would literally never speak to them again. At trump's age you don't just "wise up" one day, its far too late for that, its the kind of thinking that you could compare to religious funamentalism - he doesn't give 2 shits about woman or their rights, its the way he is - he conforms to the law & social correctness because its the law & socially accepted - not because it is morally wrong - its very evil and his words have probably already been used to recruit young men into terorrism.

This entire polical campaign has been a social experiement - a bit of fun for him - practising his sales pitch. You've been duped.

Chances are it won't impact me or my life significantly, the poor will suffer, but the poor tend to vote for this shit so... well.. fuck 'em frankly.

Unluckily, it' s more than likely that it will affect you, and more than the poor.

The poor are poor now, and will be poor after. But you will also be poor after. Unless you belong to the top-0.1% (belonging to the top-3% is not enough!), you will feel it, and it will be painful. Government will always make sure that although the poor remain poor they'll not starve. Why? Well simply because they don't want a revolution. They don't want a mob of metal workers and truck drivers with pitchforks in the streets. They don't like seeing their heads on a pike.

On the other hand, whether or not some computer geek with a well-above average income is unhappy because now he pays so much tax that he is effectively almost poor... who cares.

Grown men who use those kind of words and pass it off as "locker room talk" are seriously disturbed individuals.

Really? Different generations maybe. I'm 30, but when my friend said he couldn't go out drinking with me last week I said "What, too busy fucking your dog?" (He has a dog and no girlfriend). It's a joke, something I wouldn't normally say in public, but would with a friend.

Trump was saying "When you're rich you can just walk up and bang any girl, it's great!". Something vulgar to talk about, but it's not a big deal at all.

Fully expecting tax cuts/adjustments which will benefit me directly...

Here's how each would impact my taxes