News POTUS Election 2016- a Fresh Start

[Evo]

hopefully not to Huma's husband who they were investigating for something unrelated . I've heard quite enough about his phone games.

I'm sure the conversations on that phone are quite interesting.

 

[Astronuc]

TRUMP: 'We should just cancel the election and give it to Trump'
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-just-cancel-election-trump-215738504.html

Donald Trump: 'We Should Just Cancel the Election and Just Give It to Trump'
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-cancel-election-give-trump/

Not what I would expect from a presidential candidate.

Meanwhile - Trump wants to run the country like his businesses.

Trump U staff included drug trafficker, child molester
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-u-staff-included-drug-trafficker-child-molester-173925535--election.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump says he hand-picked only the best to teach success at Trump University. But dozens of those hired by the company had checkered pasts — including serious financial problems and even convictions for cocaine trafficking or child molestation, an Associated Press investigation has found.

The AP identified 107 people listed as speakers and staff on more than 21,000 pages of customer-satisfaction surveys the Republican presidential nominee has released as part of his defense against three lawsuits.

Half the 68 former faculty and staff identified by AP had personal bankruptcies, foreclosures, credit card defaults, tax liens or other indicators of significant money troubles prior to teaching Trump University courses promoting "wealth building" and "how to invest like a billionaire," according to AP's review. Many of those hired to teach did not have college degrees and were not licensed to broker real estate.

At least four had felony convictions.

They include Ron P. Broussard Jr., who was hired to the Trump University staff in 2007 after years serving as a motivational speaker at get-rich-quick seminars taught in hotel conference rooms.

Though he has never been licensed as a real estate agent or broker, Broussard is listed as "staff" or "coordinator" for at least five Trump seminars titled "Fast Track to Foreclosure."

In a 2005 video targeted at prospective students, Trump said he personally vetted those hired to run his seminars.

"At Trump University we teach success. That's what it's all about. Success. It's going to happen to you," Trump said in a promotional video, looking intently into the camera. "We're going to have professors and adjunct professors that are absolutely terrific — terrific people, terrific brains, successful. We are going to have the best of the best. ... These are all people that are hand-picked by me."

In sworn depositions taken as part of the lawsuits, Trump said he had not met all of those hired at Trump University, though he often reviewed their resumes.
. . . .
Asked whether he could recall the names of any of his hand-picked instructors, Trump, who in the past said he had "one of the world's greatest memories," said he was unable to do so.
. . . .
Timothy C. Gorsline, who taught at least eight Trump University seminars in 2008, pleaded no contest a decade earlier to felony cocaine possession, according to an electronic database of Florida court records.

Records also show Damian D. Pell, who helped teach at least 23 Trump University seminars from 2008 to 2010, pleaded guilty in Florida to a felony charge of trafficking cocaine.

Spencer J. Raffel, who staffed a Trump University event in 2008, has a felony conviction in Florida for grand theft, according to court records. He was sentenced to serve three years of probation in 1989.

That he is the GOP nominee is just sad.

 

[Astronuc]

Emails show how Clinton campaign chair was apparently hacked
https://www.yahoo.com/news/emails-show-clinton-campaign-chairman-apparently-hacked-001804996--election.html

Podesta's chief of staff, Sara Latham, forwarded the email to the operations help desk of Clinton's campaign, where staffer Charles Delavan in Brooklyn, New York, wrote back 25 minutes later, "This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately."

But the email was not authentic.

The link to the website where Podesta was encouraged to change his Gmail password actually directed him instead to a computer in the Netherlands with a web address associated with Tokelau, a territory of New Zealand located in the South Pacific. The hackers carefully disguised the link using a service that shortens lengthy online addresses. But even for anyone checking more diligently, the address — "google.com-securitysettingpage" — was crafted to appear genuine.

I hope these Clinton people do not get jobs in the White House.

 

[Evo]

These people are not internet savvy. Clinton had no idea what she was doing when she was told she could have an email server. When she said she didn't know, she really didn't know. Why the Government doesn't have people in charge to make sure that these people don't go off and do things because they don't know any better is just mind blowing. Who is supposed to be in charge of these things? Who is responsible? And if there is no one responsible...WHY THE HELL NOT?

 

[Astronuc]

Who is responsible?

Clinton hired or approved Podesta who hired or approved Latham. I don't know about Delavan. Delavan screwed up big time and he should find alternative employment, preferably not involving communication over the internet or any interaction with computer systems.

I can't believe that these people aren't internet savvy in this day and age, and given the role that the internet and emails play in the daily routine. It's part of their responsibility to be aware of cyber threats, and if they aren't and/or can't be bothered, then they should have no role in the nation's political process or government. They are basically risks we don't need.Meanwhile -

An artificial intelligence system that correctly predicted the last three U.S. presidential elections puts Republican nominee Donald Trump ahead of Democrat rival Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House.

MogIA was developed by Sanjiv Rai, founder of Indian start-up Genic.ai. It takes in 20 million data points from public platforms including Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the U.S. and then analyzes the information to create predictions.

The AI system was created in 2004, so it has been getting smarter all the time. It had already correctly predicted the results of the Democratic and Republican Primaries.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ai-system-finds-trump-win-104022784.html

We shall see in 11 days.

 

[Evo]

Clinton hired or approved Podesta who hired or approved Latham. I don't know about Delavan. Delavan screwed up big time and he should find alternative employment, preferably not involving communication over the internet or any interaction with computer systems.

I can't believe that these people aren't internet savvy in this day and age, and given the role that the internet and emails play in the daily routine. It's part of their responsibility to be aware of cyber threats, and if they aren't and/or can't be bothered, then they should have no role in the nation's political process or government. They are basically risks we don't need.

The Government should have IT specialists in high level security overseeing all levels of traffic, that we don't is just shocking.

 

[russ_watters]

These people are not internet savvy. Clinton had no idea what she was doing when she was told she could have an email server. When she said she didn't know, she really didn't know. Why the Government doesn't have people in charge to make sure that these people don't go off and do things because they don't know any better is just mind blowing. Who is supposed to be in charge of these things? Who is responsible? And if there is no one responsible...WHY THE HELL NOT?

Near as we can tell, there were a lot of people who told Hillary "no" (and even more who told each other "WTF?"), but the problem is that Hillary was the boss, so she didn't have to listen. So she's responsible, whether she knew what she was doing or not. So not only did she not know what she was doing (*wink*), but she didn't listen to people who did know what she was doing and knew she shouldn't. That's a really bad/dangerous combination of incompetence and arrogance for a leader to posses.

The Government should have IT specialists in high level security overseeing all levels of traffic, that we don't is just shocking.

What exactly do you mean by "overseeing"? Do you mean playing the role of her secretary, typing all the emails for her and using the secure systems for her and just handing her printouts? Or do you just mean training her and setting up the systems for her and checking to ensure she was using them right? Because it its the latter, then she had that, she just didn't listen/obey.

[edit] Er -- though if you are referring to the Podesta hack, John Podesta is not a government employee, so there is no reason why the government would oversee his internet usage.

 

[Evo]

I mean for all of the government Russ, I used to work with very sensitive Government accounts and they had nothing in place for security. Sure, they had some rules about not using government email for personal use, but that was about it. Yeah, I had to sign documents about not disclosing information, which I never did, but there was no oversight. There were no secure servers that we used to send information about highly sensitive information. Nothing was encrypted. It's mind boggling.

And don't try to tell me what she had as oversight unless you can prove it.

 

[RonL]

The Government should have IT specialists in high level security overseeing all levels of traffic, that we don't is just shocking.

I think you would be more shocked to find out just how much security and IT personnel the Government has and how everyone has to be tested and approved to operate behind very strict firewalls.

 

[Evo]

I think you would be more shocked to find out just how much security and IT personnel the Government has and how everyone has to be tested and approved to operate behind very strict firewalls.

Well, it's been a few years,maybe 5-6 and if I told you what I did and what I worked on and the departments I worked with, your ears would curl up and fall off. Maybe they are different now, I certainly hope so, but back when Clinton was in office, there wasn't. I was a Government SPOC at the time for a very sensitive network.

 

[russ_watters]

I mean for all of the government Russ, I used to work with very sensitive Government accounts and they had nothing in place for security.

I can't parse that. It is practically impossible to have "nothing in place for security" on a multi-user computer system/network. Their email accounts had usernames and passwords, didn't they? And:

There were no secure servers that we used to send information about highly sensitive information. Nothing was encrypted. It's mind boggling.

I don't know what agencies you worked for, but you are aware that military/government classified communications have their own special system that is separate from peoples' normal email, right? After months of discussing it, I don't think I've ever seen you acknowledge that Hillary sent and received secure message traffic on her secure, government provided classified system.

And don't try to tell me what she had as oversight unless you can prove it.

C'mon, Evo, we've been discussing this for months. Don't just keep your blinders on and just keep repeating Hillary's proven lies, unsubstantiated claims and intentional distractions over and over again. You're better than that.

[edit]
Just one of many examples you've probably already seen:

In March 2009, after unsuccessful efforts to supply Secretary Clinton with a secure government smartphone, DS was informed that Secretary Clinton’s staff had been asking to use BlackBerry devices inside classified areas. The Assistant Secretary of DS then sent a classified memorandum to Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff that described the vulnerabilities associated with the use of BlackBerry devices and also noted the prohibition on the use of Blackberry devices in sensitive areas. According to a DS official, shortly after the memorandum was delivered, Secretary Clinton approached the Assistant Secretary and told him she “gets it.”

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

 

[Evo]

C'mon, Evo, we've been discussing this for months. Don't just keep your blinders on and just keep repeating Hillary's proven lies, unsubstantiated claims and intentional distractions over and over again. You're better than that.

I'm saying that you are giving the woman way too much credit. She wanted a way to work at home so that important issues didn't wait until she was in the office and she was happy to hear that was possible. Gullible? Maybe. Too willing to believe it was ok? Most likely. Intentionally trying to get away with something illegal? Highly doubtful. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, I don't believe that she was that IT savvy that she fully understood when she was told that they could set up a secure server that it wouldn't be "ok". Maybe not 100% Kosher, but "ok". Politicians do things that aren't Kosher all of the time, she probably felt justified in doing it because she saw no wrong in getting important issues addressed faster (that probably meant she could stay home and not have to go to the office in the middle of the night, I'm not saying it wasn't part laziness). Her fault is not admitting she screwed up when it was first explained to her.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm saying that you are giving the woman way too much credit. She wanted a way to work at home so that important issues didn't wait until she was in the office and she was happy to hear that was possible.

"Credit"? I don't know how such a word even applies here. Anyway, I've never heard before that a state department email address can't be accessed from home nor that that was a reason why she used a personal account. Do you have a source for that?

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, I don't believe that she was that IT savvy that she fully understood when she was told that they could set up a secure server that it wouldn't be "ok".

The key part we'll have to "agree to disagree" on is the part where you claim she had permission. The only "evidence" that she had permission is her own claim itself - and both the FBI and DOS Inspector General put a lot of effort into trying to verify that claim and came up empty. You must be aware of that. This is what I mean about you just accepting anything she says and putting on blinders to the issue of proof.

 

[Evo]

"Credit"? I don't know how such a word even applies here. Anyway, I've never heard before that a state department email address can't be accessed from home nor that that was a reason why she used a personal account. Do you have a source for that?

It was in an article I read at least a year ago. I have no idea if I could find it now.

I didn't say that she had "permission" I said that she asked if it could be done and she was told yes, and it could, and it was, that's not the same as permission.

 

[russ_watters]

It was in an article I read at least a year ago. I have no idea if I could find it now.

Sounds solid, thanks.

I didn't say that she had "permission" I said that she asked if it could be done and she was told yes, and it could, and it was, that's not the same as permission.

I don't see a difference but in either case - again - there is no evidence besides her claim itself that "she was told yes" to any such thing.

 

[Astronuc]

and setting up the systems for her and checking to ensure she was using them right?

The part about setting up the systems for her - wasn't done properly. It should have been secured/encrypted and wasn't. She should have made clear to anyone she contacted that it was an unsecure system. No one, including her, should have sent any classified information over that system.

If she didn't know something was classified, she wasn't properly trained. When in doubt, ask, and she didn't know to do that, then she wasn't properly trained, or perhaps she didn't bother, which is more disturbing.

 

[Evo]

If she didn't know something was classified, she wasn't properly trained. When in doubt, ask, and she didn't know to do that, then she wasn't properly trained, or perhaps she didn't bother, which is more disturbing.

Edit: Clarification - Neither of her 2 emails deemed classified by Comey were actually classified, according to Kirby from the sate department, Comey was mistaken, the State Department cleared that up, stating that they were "human error", see below. This is not in reference to any other emails that have not been examined by the State Department as mentioned in Russ's post.

Some classification markings found in email messages on Hillary Clinton's private server were the result of "human error" and the related information was not considered classified at the time it was sent to her, State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday.

When FBI Director James Comey announced Tuesday that investigators were not recommending any charges in the Clinton email matter, he noted that "a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information."

The claim appeared to contradict Democratic presidential candidate Clinton's repeated claims that nothing in her emails was marked classified at the time she received it, although the State Department has also said on numerous occasions that none of the information in those messages was marked classified.

At a regular briefing for reporters Wednesday, Kirby said State is aware of two instances in the set of roughly 30,000 messages turned over to the agency by Clinton where classification markings appeared in the emails. However, he said those were mistakes where staff failed to remove the notations while preparing background and talking points for Clinton in a planned phone call with a foreign official.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-classified-emails-error-225194

 

[S.G. Janssens]

This is what I mean about you just accepting anything she says and putting on blinders to the issue of proof.

There may be people with blinders here, but I doubt that the person you are addressing is among them.

 

[russ_watters]

The part about setting up the systems for her - wasn't done properly.

You need to go a step further: it shouldn't have been done at all. Or, from the opposite direction: she had a "system" that was set up properly: It was her DOS email. She just never used it.

 

[russ_watters]

None of her emails were classified, Comey was mistaken, the State Department cleared that up.

From the mouth of the fox guarding the hen house. It's the same as the tactic you are using when you say Clinton did the same thing that Powell did. It is true in a very narrow sense but wildly misleading because it ignores everything else. But at least he admitted later in the press conference that he wasn't necessarily talking about the same thing the FBI was:

Kirby acknowledged that he could not say for sure whether "human error" accounted for all such instances of classification markings the FBI identified in Clinton's private email account because Comey said the FBI had recovered more such emails than the ones Clinton provided to State in December 2014.

Here's the full transcript:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/07/259402.htm

The reporters were all over him because they picked-up on a couple of problems:
1. He falsely claimed that you can just make something unclassified by deleting the classification header (!)
2. He implied but then backed away from the claim you forwarded - that those were the only marked as classified emails.

 

[jim hardy]

So she's responsible, whether she knew what she was doing or not. So not only did she not know what she was doing (*wink*), but she didn't listen to people who did know what she was doing and knew she shouldn't. That's a really bad/dangerous combination of incompetence and arrogance for a leader to posses.

Rickover said "If nobody is responsible then everybody is irresponsible."

Whoever is at apex of state department holds responsibility for what goes on in state department.
What Russ describes is pure hubris.

 

[Astronuc]

You need to go a step further: it shouldn't have been done at all. Or, from the opposite direction: she had a "system" that was set up properly: It was her DOS email. She just never used it.

Yes, absolutely, Clinton as SOS should have been using the state.gov email system for 'official' business. That she did not for specious reasons is troubling.

I've read a number of criticisms about Clinton's sense of entitlement. Despite her rhetoric about public service, her behavior seems to indicate that she feels entitled and that the system should accommodate her.

I would have preferred to have a choice of Kasich vs Sanders, rather than the current selection.

 

[russ_watters]

I would have preferred to have a choice of Kasich vs Sanders, rather than the current selection.

My mother is writing-in Kasich.

 

[jim hardy]

I've read a number of criticisms about Clinton's sense of entitlement. Despite her rhetoric about public service, her behavior seems to indicate that she feels entitled and that the system should accommodate her.

read about her childhood.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I wonder why some Americans don't trust the electoral system...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americ...ice-after-fearing-first-vote-would-be-changed

Rote told Iowa Public Radio that she cast her first ballot for Donald Trump but feared it would be changed to a vote for Hillary Clinton.

"I wasn't planning on doing it twice - it was spur-of-the-moment," Rote told the radio station. "The polls are rigged."

 

[Evo]

Friday, James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acting independently of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to Congress saying that the F.B.I. had discovered e-mails that were potentially relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server. Coming less than two weeks before the Presidential election, Comey’s decision to make public new evidence that may raise additional legal questions about Clinton was contrary to the views of the Attorney General, according to a well-informed Administration official. Lynch expressed her preference that Comey follow the department’s longstanding practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations, and not taking any action that could influence the outcome of an election, but he said that he felt compelled to do otherwise.

Comey’s decision is a striking break with the policies of the Department of Justice, according to current and former federal legal officials. Comey, who is a Republican appointee of President Obama, has a reputation for integrity and independence, but his latest action is stirring an extraordinary level of concern among legal authorities, who see it as potentially affecting the outcome of the Presidential and congressional elections.

“You don’t do this,” one former senior Justice Department official exclaimed. “It’s aberrational. It violates decades of practice.” The reason, according to the former official, who asked not to be identified because of ongoing cases involving the department, “is because it impugns the integrity and reputation of the candidate, even though there’s no finding by a court, or in this instance even an indictment.”

Matthew Miller, a Democrat who served as the public-affairs director at the Justice Department under Holder, recalled that, in one case, the department waited until after an election to send out subpoenas. “They didn’t want to influence the election—even though the subpoenas weren’t public,” he said. “People may think that the public needs to have this information before voting, but the thing is the public doesn’t really get the information. What it gets is an impression that may be false, because they have no way to evaluate it. The public always assumes when it hears that the F.B.I. is investigating that there must be something amiss. But there may be nothing here at all. That’s why you don’t do this.”

“Comey is an outstanding law-enforcement officer,” Miller said, “but he mistakenly thinks that the rules don’t apply to him. But there are a host of reasons for these rules.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...oretta-lynch-and-justice-department-tradition

 

[Student100]

"Credit"? I don't know how such a word even applies here. Anyway, I've never heard before that a state department email address can't be accessed from home nor that that was a reason why she used a personal account. Do you have a source for that?

If the State Department is anything like the DoD, to access email from home you only need your CAC, a government issued computer, and to then set up web-mail (This of course, only applies to unclass systems). It would be hard to imagine that the state department is that different, but I don't really know.

I'm saying that you are giving the woman way too much credit. She wanted a way to work at home so that important issues didn't wait until she was in the office and she was happy to hear that was possible. Gullible? Maybe. Too willing to believe it was ok? Most likely. Intentionally trying to get away with something illegal? Highly doubtful. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, I don't believe that she was that IT savvy that she fully understood when she was told that they could set up a secure server that it wouldn't be "ok". Maybe not 100% Kosher, but "ok". Politicians do things that aren't Kosher all of the time, she probably felt justified in doing it because she saw no wrong in getting important issues addressed faster (that probably meant she could stay home and not have to go to the office in the middle of the night, I'm not saying it wasn't part laziness). Her fault is not admitting she screwed up when it was first explained to her.

You might be giving her too little credit Evo.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of either "she was using a private system to send classified information because she didn't want to be bothered by the burdens of being in the SCIF" and the "She was naive and gullible" camps. I don't believe she intentionally meant to send classified information (that doesn't make it okay) on her private server, but I do believe she purposefully meant to skirt federal recording keeping laws.

It's really the only thing that makes sense. If it was merely a convenience thing, she would have used a email hosted by a third party, like yahoo or google (like CP or her predecessors who used third party emails, far more plausibly for convenience). Using a private server primary for her work correspondence ensured only she had the finally say in what, if anything, was turned over for recording keeping or FOIA requests. That probably seemed like something very appealing, especially with another presidential run on the horizon.

To address the other part of the quote,

As far as it being "ok", the state department OIG says there's no evidence she ever sought approval, and that is certainly not "ok."

By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the Department’s guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated. Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the Department revised the FAM and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not doing so. Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives.

Secretary Clinton used mobile devices to conduct official business using the personal email account on her private server extensively, as illustrated by the 55,000 pages of material making up the approximately 30,000 emails she provided to the Department in December 2014. Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized AIS, yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

Was it legal for the FBI to expand the Weiner email search to target Hillary Clinton’s emails?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ail-search-to-target-hillary-clintons-emails/

From what I can patch together, the FBI was investigating former congressman Anthony Weiner for potential crimes involving sexting with an underage girl. As part of the investigation, the FBI seized Weiner’s laptop to search it for evidence of the sexting crimes. I would guess, although I haven’t yet been able to confirm, that the FBI obtained a warrant to search Weiner’s computer. The Fourth Amendment would generally require a warrant to search a suspect’s personal computer unless there are special circumstances such as consent that haven’t been mentioned in press reports.

The case connects to Clinton because the laptop happens to have been shared by Weiner and his now-estranged wife, Huma Abedin, who is an important adviser to Hillary Clinton. In the course of searching Weiner’s laptop, the FBI came across emails in Abedin’s email account that appeared to the agents to be relevant to the Clinton email server case. According to news reports, the FBI now is planning to get a warrant to search the laptop for emails related to the Clinton server case. They haven’t obtained that warrant yet, however, so the Weiner computer has not yet been subject to a comprehensive search.

I'd say it is legal. It appears that the FBI are going by the book. They were investigating one case (Weiner's apparent sending illicit message to a teenager) and noticed possible evidence (new emails that were apparently previously undisclosed by Clinton and her staff). The FBI having noticed the emails will obtain a warrant. That seems reasonable - probably cause.

The current matter is Clinton's own doing, which is why she should have conducted State related business on a state.gov server. Mixing personal and business matters (emails) is never a sound practice. I keep my work related communication separate from my personal, except where personal communication may relate to work. When I was hired, I understood that my work emails are essentially the property of the organization and will be archived , and my emails can be scrutinized by IT/security.

 

[Evo]

Was it legal for the FBI to expand the Weiner email search to target Hillary Clinton’s emails?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ail-search-to-target-hillary-clintons-emails/
I'd say it is legal. It appears that the FBI are going by the book.

The question is not if it's legal, it's announcing it before it's been done or even without anything being found. It's going against the DOJ. That's the issue.

 

[jim hardy]

it's announcing it before it's been done or even without anything being found.

wow what would i do in Comey's shoes ? Loose lips sink ships.

Speaking as a plain civilian i'd rather hear about it from Comey than Alex Jones.
That removes the 'pinch of malice' implied if it came out via a FBI leak.

Curiously, Trump predicted last summer :

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/29/trump-called-it-months-ago-anthony-weiner-threatens-national-security.html

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump saw this coming from a mile away, fingering Weiner as a potential national security threat all the way back in August of 2015. “It came out that Huma Abedin knows all about Hillary’s private illegal emails,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Huma’s PR husband, Anthony Weiner, will tell the world.”

 

[Astronuc]

The question is not if it's legal, it's announcing it before it's been done or even without anything being found. It's going against the DOJ. That's the issue.

Legality is one question, the timing of the announcement is another issue. I'm not clear on the publicity of the announcement. I thought Comey informed Congress about the new discovery, which is appropriate. I'm sure how the new information was released to the press.

I think it is relevant, because it addresses whether or not Clinton is trustworthy, and it would have been nice to know during the primaries. It might have influenced some voters then.

Another issue is her effectiveness as CinC. Based on her interaction with the families of those killed in Benghazi, I wonder about here suitability or effectiveness as CinC who has to address families of service personnel killed while serving. Perhaps she will rise to the occasion - at least I hope she would.

I have seen Clinton up close when she addressed a local Chamber of Commerce gathering around 2007. She did express a warmth and concern for folks who wanted to talk with her after the formal program, and she did find time to speak with folks before rushing off to the next engagement. That's what I'd like to see going forward.

 

[Astronuc]

Curiously, Trump predicted last summer

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...thony-weiner-threatens-national-security.html

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump saw this coming from a mile away, fingering Weiner as a potential national security threat all the way back in August of 2015. “It came out that Huma Abedin knows all about Hillary’s private illegal emails,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Huma’s PR husband, Anthony Weiner, will tell the world.”

Bear in mind that those are Trumps words, and not the words of the DOJ or FBI.

The content of the emails on Weiner's computer is not clear. If they are personal emails or otherwise emails not related to State department business, that's no big deal, and they are certainly not illegal. Private emails between Clinton and her social network are not subject to federal oversight. Emails related to her work as SoS are government business, and if such emails are present on Weiner's computer, then that is a big deal.

One other concern I have. I hear a lot of noise about 'innocent until proven guilty,' which some folks seem reluctant to extend to Clinton. That appears to me as one of numerous hypocrisies shared by Trump and his surrogates, and others who support him. I've heard some folks describe Trump as honest, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As we've seen at Politico's Truthometer, Clinton appears to be mostly truthful, while Trump is mostly untruthful.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mike-pence/ - mostly in the middle
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/tim-kaine/ - slightly to the truthful side of the middle.

Of course, that's not strictly scientific, and the bias/objectivity is uncertain.

 

[Evo]

Legality is one question, the timing of the announcement is another issue. I'm not clear on the publicity of the announcement. I thought Comey informed Congress about the new discovery, which is appropriate. I'm sure how the new information was released to the press.

I had already posted earlier about how he had contacted his fellow Republicans only against the DOJ already in an earlier post, perhaps you missed it. Here it is. No Democrats, Not even Clinton was notified, they learned about it from the news. Dirty politics?

Friday, James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acting independently of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to Congress saying that the F.B.I. had discovered e-mails that were potentially relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server. Coming less than two weeks before the Presidential election, Comey’s decision to make public new evidence that may raise additional legal questions about Clinton was contrary to the views of the Attorney General, according to a well-informed Administration official. Lynch expressed her preference that Comey follow the department’s longstanding practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations, and not taking any action that could influence the outcome of an election, but he said that he felt compelled to do otherwise.

Comey’s decision is a striking break with the policies of the Department of Justice, according to current and former federal legal officials. Comey, who is a Republican appointee of President Obama, has a reputation for integrity and independence, but his latest action is stirring an extraordinary level of concern among legal authorities, who see it as potentially affecting the outcome of the Presidential and congressional elections.

“You don’t do this,” one former senior Justice Department official exclaimed. “It’s aberrational. It violates decades of practice.” The reason, according to the former official, who asked not to be identified because of ongoing cases involving the department, “is because it impugns the integrity and reputation of the candidate, even though there’s no finding by a court, or in this instance even an indictment.”

Matthew Miller, a Democrat who served as the public-affairs director at the Justice Department under Holder, recalled that, in one case, the department waited until after an election to send out subpoenas. “They didn’t want to influence the election—even though the subpoenas weren’t public,” he said. “People may think that the public needs to have this information before voting, but the thing is the public doesn’t really get the information. What it gets is an impression that may be false, because they have no way to evaluate it. The public always assumes when it hears that the F.B.I. is investigating that there must be something amiss. But there may be nothing here at all. That’s why you don’t do this.”

“Comey is an outstanding law-enforcement officer,” Miller said, “but he mistakenly thinks that the rules don’t apply to him. But there are a host of reasons for these rules.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...oretta-lynch-and-justice-department-tradition

I think it is relevant, because it addresses whether or not Clinton is trustworthy, and it would have been nice to know during the primaries. It might have influenced some voters then.

It's not relevant because the device doesn't belong to Clinton, the FBI didn't ask for the device in regards to Clinton, and we don't know if there is anything on it that is relevant to Clinton.

 

[Astronuc]

I had already posted earlier about how he had contacted his fellow Republicans only against the DOJ already in an earlier post,perhaps you missed it. Here it is. No Democrats, Not even Clinton was notified, they learned about it from the news. Dirty politics?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...n-wrongly-says-fbi-director-sent-letter-abou/

Comey sent a letter to Congress Oct. 28 saying the FBI may have found new emails relevant to its probe into Clinton’s private email server that she used while secretary of state. The FBI plans to review these new emails to see if they contain classified information.

Interestingly,

Clinton was incorrect to say that the letter "only" went to Republican members of the House of Representatives. Democrat members received the letter, too.

The letter was addressed at the top to the chairmen of various congressional committees, who are all currently Republican because the party controls both the Senate and the House. But the second page of the letter indicates that Comey also circulated the letter to ranking Democrats on those committees, as well.

Comey's actions seem appropriate. He notified the Committee Chairpersons, who happen to be republican, but he also notified ranking democrats.

 

[Evo]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...n-wrongly-says-fbi-director-sent-letter-abou/

Interestingly, Comey's actions seem appropriate. He notified the Committee Chairpersons, who happen to be republican, but he also notified ranking democrats.

That wasn't apparent yesterday, you are correct, I see that has just come out. Aparently she found out through the news after her plane landed. So, that still leaves Comey with going against the DOJ, his actions are still inappropriate.

@Astronuc do you realize that if Clinton isn't elected, Trump will become President? Is that what you want? Do you think Trump is more qualified and a better person for President than Clinton? I'm just curious. Clinton is far from perfect, but when it comes to running the country, she is by far the only one of the two that I would allow in the Oval office. Because this isn't about who you like, it's about who can run the country.

I heard today that he has decided not to release his income taxes at all. What is he hiding? That really concerns me.

 

[russ_watters]

[edit] deleted/nevermind -- was responding to another regurgitated Hillary lie.

 

[russ_watters]

@Astronuc do you realize that if Clinton isn't elected, Trump will become President? Is that what you want? Do you think Trump is more qualified and a better person for President than Clinton? I'm just curious. Clinton is far from perfect, but when it comes to running the country, she is by far the only one of the two that I would allow in the Oval office. Because this isn't about who you like, it's about who can run the country.

Evo, you do understand that it is possible to not like either Trump or Hillary and that it is possible to vote for Hillary even while being open/honest with yourself about all the bad things she's done, right? I don't think it is helpful to pretend Hillary is something she isn't just to get people (or convince yourself its ok?) to vote for her. Regardless of whom one votes for, in my opinion it is best to make the decision with eyes completely open.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The Hatch Act, as amended and as it applies to the FBI among other agencies, prohibits "use of offical authority to influence or interfere with elections".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

I understand Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has filed a complaint re FBI Director James Comey with the DOJ citing this law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ken-the-law-by-disclosing-new-clinton-emails/

EDIT: Correction: Reid sent a letter. The complaint was filed by another party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/o...ils-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html

 

[Evo]

Evo, you do understand that it is possible to not like either Trump or Hillary and that it is possible to vote for Hillary even while being open/honest with yourself about all the bad things she's done, right? I don't think it is helpful to pretend Hillary is something she isn't just to get people (or convince yourself its ok?) to vote for her. Regardless of whom one votes for, in my opinion it is best to make the decision with eyes completely open.

I completely agree and I thought that's what I said, I don't approve of some, or even many of the things Hillary's done, but if it comes to Trump or Hillary as president, I have to go with Hillary. Nothing says she can't be impeached later or charges pressed later, but at least we keep Trump out of office.

I'm just afraid of people not voting for her and not realizing that means electing Trump as president.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I completely agree and I thought that's what I said, I don't approve of some, or even many of the things Hillary's done, but if it comes to Trump or Hilary as president, I have to go with Hillary. Nothing says she can't be impeached later or charges pressed later, but at least we keep Trump out of office.

I'm just afraid of people not voting for her and not realizing that means electing Trump as president.

US democracy has survived some less than mediocre presidents: Tyler, Fillmore, Buchanin, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Hayes, B. Harrison, Taft, Harding and Hoover by general consensus. I'll leave history to judge others. We survived them all. Hillary may mess up, but I think we will still survive as a democracy. I don't feel that way about Trump.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I completely agree and I thought that's what I said, I don't approve of some, or even many of the things Hillary's done, but if it comes to Trump or Hillary as president, I have to go with Hillary. Nothing says she can't be impeached later or charges pressed later, but at least we keep Trump out of office.

I came across this FiveThirdyEight page that shows how women will keep Trump out of office.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-are-defeating-donald-trump/
Those maps are quite an eye opener.

 

[Evo]

US democracy has survived some less than mediocre presidents: Tyler, Fillmore, Buchanin, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Hayes, B. Harrison, Taft, Harding and Hoover by general consensus. I'll leave history to judge others. We survived them all. Hillary may mess up, but I think we will still survive as a democracy. I don't feel that way about Trump.

I know, this is the first time in my life that I am truly scared. I've never been scared before. Maybe they weren't my first choice, but I wasn't worried that they might not have both oars in the water.

 

[Astronuc]

@Astronuc do you realize that if Clinton isn't elected, Trump will become President? Is that what you want? Do you think Trump is more qualified and a better person for President than Clinton? I'm just curious. Clinton is far from perfect, but when it comes to running the country, she is by far the only one of the two that I would allow in the Oval office. Because this isn't about who you like, it's about who can run the country.

If I only had a choice between Clinton and Trump, I'd choose Clinton, who is certainly more capable than Trump. Trump is simply inappropriate. In my opinion, Trump would be undermine national and global security; Clinton while not perfect is less of a risk.

However, I'm disappointed in the fact that most of the nation has to choose between the two of them. Sanders was a little to far out for my taste, and of all the candidates this cycle, I would prefer Kasich. I currently reside in a region that is predominantly republican, but the state has a democratic majority heavily weighted in major urban areas. I expect that Clinton will win the state. Based on that, I wrote in a candidate, because I want to encourage independents to run for office as a third alternative to either of the two major parties.

What I would like to see is McMullin win Utah and Kasich to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, which is enough to deprive Clinton or Trump of 270 of 538 votes.

 

[Evo]

If I only had a choice between Clinton and Trump, I'd choose Clinton, who is certainly more capable than Trump. Trump is simply inappropriate.

However, I'm disappointed in the fact that most of the nation has to choose between the two of them. Sanders was a little to far out for my taste, and of all the candidates this cycle, I would prefer Kasich. I currently reside in a region that is predominantly republican, but the state has a democratic majority heavily weighted in urban major urban areas. I expect that Clinton will win the state. Based on that, I wrote in a candidate, because I want to encourage independents to run for office as a third alternative to either of the two major parties.

What I would like to see is McMullin win Utah and Kasich to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, which is enough to deprive Clinton or Trump of 270 of 538 votes.

Voting for an independent is voting for Trump. It is meaningless, you threw away your vote , worse, you threw it to Trump. My dad used to vote for independents. You know George Wallace? He was an independant. He was shot, an assasination attempt that failed. That's how much history pays attention to independants. Of course he was a racist, biggot, can't say what else I think of him.

Is Donald Trump A Modern-Day George Wallace?

Wallace allies and family see parallels today in Trump.

"It's just a replay," Charlie Snider, one of Wallace's most trusted political aides, told NPR. "We're looking at a modern-day George Wallace."

Snider is a Trump supporter. Wallace's daughter, a Democrat, hears it, too, but in a different way.

"Trump and my father say out loud what people are thinking but don't have the courage to say," Peggy Wallace Kennedy told NPR. Wallace Kennedy was 18 when she was on the campaign trail with her father in 1968. She believes Trump is exploiting voters' worst instincts, the way her late father once did.

"They both were able to adopt the notion that fear and hate are the two greatest motivators of voters that feel alienated from government," she said.

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/22/475172438/donald-trump-and-george-wallace-riding-the-rage

 

[Astronuc]

It is meaningless, you threw away your vote , worse, you threw it to Trump.

I'm making a statement with my vote. I know many republicans who won't vote for Trump, and some can't vote for Clinton, but I expect vote for Clinton will probably be twice those for Trump.

I think the nation needs to stop with 'the lesser of two evils' approach and encourage more capable folks with integrity. In the long term, the nation will note fare well on the current trajectory.

Something to consider beyond Nov 8 -
Natasha Trethewey and Eboo Patel — How to Live Beyond This Election
http://www.onbeing.org/program/natasha-trethewey-and-eboo-patel-how-to-live-beyond-this-election/9010

 

[Evo]

I'm making a statement with my vote. I know many republicans who won't vote for Trump, and some can't vote for Clinton, but I expect vote for Clinton will probably be twice those for Trump.

I think the nation needs to stop with the lesser of two evils and encourage more capable folks with integrity. In the long term, the nation will note fare well on the current trajectory.

Independents are quickly forgotten, no one notices.

Scary though, how Trump seems to be mirroring Wallace.

 

[Astronuc]

Independents are quickly forgotten, no one notices.

I notice independents, and I wrote my self in for county commissioner as an independent. Got to start somewhere.

Actually, Sanders is an independent from Vermont, although he does caucus with the democrats.

I voted for an independent for Senator, and a mix of democrats and republicans for state and local offices.

 

[BillTre]

US democracy has survived some less than mediocre presidents: Tyler, Fillmore, Buchanin, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Hayes, B. Harrison, Taft, Harding and Hoover by general consensus.

Unfortunately, Buchanin helped get the Civil War started, the most costly in our history>

What I would like to see is McMullin win Utah and Kasich to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, which is enough to deprive Clinton or Trump of 270 of 538 votes.

You might find this interesting, a scenario of how McMullin might win the presidency. It's something like this: McMulliin wins Utah, neither Trump nor Clinton get enough electoral votes to become president. Not a likely outcome, but possible. Determining the next President is then determined by a vote in the House of Representatives. They can only vote for people who have won electoral votes. Enough of them (Republican House) don't like Trump that McMullin gets picked.

 

[Student100]

Voting for an independent is voting for Trump. It is meaningless, you threw away your vote , worse, you threw it to Trump. My dad used to vote for independents. You know George Wallace? He was an independant. He was shot, an assasination attempt that failed. That's how much history pays attention to independants. Of course he was a racist, biggot, can't say what else I think of him.

It isn't voting for Trump, it neither helps nor hinders Hillary (or Trump when people try to make the same argument for him).

 

[Evo]

Unfortunately, Buchanin helped get the Civil War started, the most costly in our history>You might find this interesting, a scenario of how McMullin might win the presidency. It's something like this: McMulliin wins Utah, neither Trump nor Clinton get enough electoral votes to become president. Not a likely outcome, but possible. Determining the next President is then determined by a vote in the House of Representatives. They can only vote for people who have won electoral votes. Enough of them (Republican House) don't like Trump that McMullin gets picked.

He's against women's and gay right's, let's hope not.