It’s almost as she’s . . . a little bit worried by what might come next.

Don’t blink or you’ll miss the whole thing. The statement and Q&A together last less than four minutes. That said, my favorite part comes at 2:10, where the panic visibly starts to creep in as she sees it all possibly slipping away:

You know, I think people a long time ago made up their minds about the emails. I think that’s factored in to what people think, and now they’re choosing a President. So I would urge everybody to get and vote in all the states that have early voting, because I think Americans want a President who can lead our country, who can get the economy working for everyone, not just those at the top, and who can bring our country together.

Please hurry. Vote as soon as you can! Before . . . before the next shoe drops . . .

Her prepared remarks closely track the points made in the John Podesta email reported earlier. The talking points are clear: 1) We’re 11 days out from the election; 2) Comey says he doesn’t know if the emails are significant; 3) nothing will change from the FBI’s decision in July; and 4) hurry up and get the details out.

Her smile has never looked so forced.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

FBI Director James Comey has sent a letter to Congress indicating that, while he had previously stated that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails had been completed, evidence from another investigation has emerged, and the FBI will be reviewing it:

FBI Dir Comey letter to congressional committee chairs re discovery of "new emails…pertinent to the investigation" pic.twitter.com/y4gvHiILLn

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) October 28, 2016

“Sources” are saying that the evidence is from another device from this unrelated investigation. (Could it be in the Anthony Weiner investigation? Not impossible.)

It’s difficult to know what to make of this, other than that it is bad for Hillary politically. Here is your thread to discuss it.

UPDATE: I had not seen this story when I first posted, but apparently my Weiner speculation was correct.

Donald Trump has given up on trying to win the presidential election, and the latest evidence of that fact is his pitiful donation of only $33,000 to his campaign so far in October:

Donald Trump has repeated it so much it’s almost part of his stump speech: He’s going to put $100 million of his own money into his campaign before Election Day. But new filings show he’s got a long way to go if he’s going to hit that mark.

The Republican presidential nominee has given a mere $33,000 to his campaign this month. That means he needs to pony up another $44 million to fulfill the boast that’s become a familiar refrain in interviews and rallies over the past several days.

“I will have more than $100 million in the campaign,” Trump told CNN on Wednesday. “And I am prepared to go much more than that.”

Over the course of his presidential bid, the New York businessman who says he is worth $10 billion has given about $56 million of his own money. The majority of that spending occurred in the GOP primary. During the general election, his campaign gifts slowed to about $2 million each month.

OK, everybody raise your hand who believes that Donald Trump will put another $44 million into his campaign before election day.

I have bad news for you. If your hand is in the air right now, you are an idiot.

Just like the people dumb enough to contribute to his campaign based on a phony and empty promise that Trump would triple their contributions:

On Oct 1, I got an email from Trump pledging to triple donations for 24 hrs.

Donors gave $165,829 that day.

Trump gave $30,682 all month.

— Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) October 28, 2016

At this point, I wonder if Donald Trump even has another $44 million in liquid cash.

I love the detail that most of the money he has spent, he spent in the primary — meaning he spent it to beat Republicans, and not the Democrat Hillary Clinton. (If this shocks you, raise your hand. OK, same people. Got it.)

Keep in mind that a bunch of the cash Trump “donates” ends up going right back into the Trump business:

Trump’s overall monetary contribution to his presidential bid shrinks when accounting for about $9 million in campaign cash that has returned to his family and businesses. That money has largely gone to the holding company of his private jet, but the campaign also paid for rent at Trump Tower, catering at his restaurants and even the Trump Ice bottled water that’s popped up at his events.

The irony of all this is that Mr. “Self-Funding” came in second to Hillary Clinton in terms of self-funding this month:

A particularly rich stat from last night:

Hillary Clinton self-funded her campaign ($50k) more in October than Donald Trump did ($30k.) https://t.co/p0SfyhCHyB

— Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) October 28, 2016

This comes as a surprise to everyone who didn’t realize Trump is a con artist, but is willing to look at the facts detailed in this post. That Venn diagram is two circles that don’t intersect. If you don’t know by now that Donald Trump is a con artist, you haven’t been paying attention — or you have, but you’re just so invested in the con that facts mean nothing to you.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

Remember the other day when we learned that Clinton bag man Terry McAuliffe had raised money for the campaign of a wife of an FBI official overseeing the Hillary email investigation? That seemed bad enough, since he never recused himself. Well, it’s gotten worse, since it looks like Hillary raised a lot of that money herself:

Hillary Clinton headlined a major fundraiser for a political action committee shortly before the group steered nearly $500,000 to the wife of the FBI official who oversaw the Clinton email investigation, DailyMail.com has learned.

Clinton’s ties to the Common Good VA – a Virginia state PAC run by Clinton’s long-time friend and advisor Terry McAuliffe, its governor – came under scrutiny this week after the Wall Street Journal reported that the group donated heavily to the state senate campaign of Jill McCabe.

Her husband Andrew McCabe led the FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails.

Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI, told the Wall Street Journal that he complied with federal ethics rules and was not promoted to lead the Clinton probe until months after his wife’s unsuccessful state senate bid ended.

Saying McCabe “led” the FBI investigation is a bit of an aggressive characterization. He was a supervisor, high up in the chain of command of the team that conducted the investigation. But given all the fuss we saw about Loretta Lynch just meeting with Bill Clinton before the decision, this seems like a big deal. Hillary’s appearance at the fundraiser was on June 26, 2015, and contributions from the PAC went to McCabe’s wife in June, August, and October of the same year.

I said the other day:

Hillary defenders will no doubt argue that McCabe only assumed an oversight position after the political donations, and took steps to stay out of his wife’s campaign after his wife received the donation. Why, his wife’s campaign was even over once he assumed the oversight position! they will say.

That’s not good enough. The American people would naturally assume that, once Hillary Clinton’s longtime and well-known ally scratched the McCabes’ back, Hillary expected a back-scratch in return. That’s how it works, folks. And it’s that kind of crap, frankly, that fuels the anger that drives Donald Trump’s campaign.

Now that Hillary Clinton has been directly tied to the fundraising, the expectation of a quid pro quo is even stronger. When your spouse is running for office, that is a community effort. Many people (not Donald Trump so much, as we’ll learn later today, but many people) fund their own political campaigns. And in a marriage, everything is community property. So when someone pumps a bunch of money into your spouse’s campaign, that’s money in your pocket.

It is astonishing to me that this McCabe did not recuse himself from the investigation into Hillary Clinton. But I guess that’s how Washington works these days. McCabe is certainly not the only person high up in the FBI who has done Hillary a favor or two.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

[guest post by Dana]

In an unintentionally funny twist, a noted group of liberal extremists have joined forces with the Southern Poverty Law Center to debut the SPLC’s Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. These arbiters of extremism include Media Matters for America, the Center for New Community and ReThink Media.

Their executive summary begins with a very carefully worded introduction lest you think Islam is any sort of motivating factor or common thread:

Ever since the Al Qaeda massacre of Sept. 11, 2001, American Muslims have been under attack. They have been vilified as murderers, accused of conspiring to take over the United States and impose Shariah religious law, described as enemies of women, and subjected to hundreds of violent hate crime attacks. A major party presidential nominee has even suggested that America ban Muslim immigrants.

Ironically, included in their profiles of 15 anti-Muslim extremists are women who themselves have been victimized by Muslims practicing their form of Islam, and face death threats for exercising their First Amendment right to speech.

Unbelievably making the cut (no pun intended), is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. And from the get-go, you can see the group casting doubt on her life story, even the worst parts. Because in the world of leftist extremism, only certain women are given the benefit of the doubt:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born activist who says she endured female genital mutilation and fled civil wars and an arranged marriage in Africa.

From Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her autobiography, Infidel (page 32), describing what took place when she was five years old:

I was next. Grandma swung her hand from side to side and said, “Once this long kintir is removed you and your sister will be pure.” From Grandma’s words and gestures I gathered that this hideous kintir, my clitoris, would one day grow so long that it would swing sideways between my legs. She caught hold of me and gripped my upper body in the same position as she had put Mahad. Two other women held my legs apart. The man, who was probably an itinerant traditional circumciser from the blacksmith clan, picked up a pair of scissors. With the other hand, he caught hold of the place between my legs and started tweaking, like Grandma milking a goat. “There it is, there is the kintir,” one of the women said.

Then the scissors went down between my legs and the man cut off my inner labia and clitoris. I heard it, like a butcher snipping the fat off a piece of meat. A piercing pain shot up between my legs, indescribable, and I howled. Then came the sewing: the long, blunt needle clumsily pushed into my bleeding outer labia, my loud and anguished protests… When the sewing was finished, the man cut the thread off with his teeth.

The SPLC list of anti-Muslim extremists also includes Pamela Geller. And of course she gets hammered by the SPLC, while those who sought to kill her for exercising her right to speech are handled with care:

In 2015 in Garland, Texas, Geller sponsored a “Draw the Prophet” cartoon contest — an obvious provocation aimed at Muslims, who regard graphic depictions of Muhammad as blasphemous — which drew two angry U.S.-born jihadists who were killed when they attacked the event. An ardent defender of Israel, Geller has described the press there as largely “Jewicidal.”

–Dana