POTUS Election 2016- a Fresh Start

[russ_watters]

No, I don't think so. Even if I were to stipulate that Hillary is a narcissist and a pathological liar, Trump exhibits those traits to a much greater degree. It's not even close.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

I don't think it is quite that simple, that you can score them one for one. Trump's lies are thoughtless, spur of the moment acts, which is why the volume of them is so high. Hillary's are carefully planned(by committee!) and executed. That makes her individual lies worse, imo. Worse enough to flip the score? I don't know - bloody mess we're in!

 

[Kevin McHugh]

As I replied in another thread, I'm just peeved I have to chose between a power hungry, lying narcissist, and a mysogonistic, xenophobic, lying narcissist. However, IMO, I'll vote for the candidate that seems to like the Constitution more.

 

[NTL2009]

Yes, she is best for the country, .../

Strange, my thinking is who is best for the country despite of how much I like or dislike them. The answer is Clinton. ...

"She is best..."? "The answer is Clinton..."? You mean "Evo thinks she is...", and " Evo feels the answer is..." don't you? Those are your opinions, and per your opening post:

General
1) Politeness and respect for others is essential
2) Show reasonable effort to provide sources for any factual claims
3) Clearly state an opinion as such and not asserted as fact

If you want to assert them as fact, then provide sources (but that would be this entire thread!).

 

[NTL2009]

Since PF is a science forum, I think it is worthwhile to have a reality check on the candidates' views on science. Luckily, Scientific American has provided one:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/

The bottom line:

Out of 19 questions ranked 0 to 5, Trump gets a grand total of 7. I think we can safely say that anti-scientific is just the first name. Neither Clinton's or the others' scores are great, but Trump's is just apalling across the board. ...

I don't think this says anything at all about HRC's stance on science. I think it merely represents what her staff has told her plays well towards getting electoral votes. Like most politicians.

Maybe it's my personal bias at play, but SA's scoring does look biased to me. Look at the Mental Health section. HRC gets 3/5, DJT gets 1/5?

Clinton offers many "whats" but fewer "hows," including funding or which agencies she will call upon.

and

But he offers no specifics, saying "this entire field of interest must be examined and a comprehensive solution must be developed." His complete lack of specifics indicates that he has not given the subject much thought.

Looks to me like very similar in lack of specifics, but one gets 1/5, the other 3/5?

And "this entire field of interest must be examined and a comprehensive solution must be developed." sounds like a very scientific, logical approach.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Evo thinks

Good, please keep doing that, Evo.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'll vote for the candidate that seems to like the Constitution more.

In that case you will be voting for Trump. He likes the Constitution because it gives him the power to make laws, lower taxes, raise tariffs, imprison HRC and do all the things that only he can do.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

In that case you will be voting for Trump. He likes the Constitution because it gives him the power to make laws, lower taxes, raise tariffs, imprison HRC and do all the things that only he can do.

The only thing on that list he can do is have HRC indicted. It would take a jury and a judge to jail her.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The only thing on that list he can do is have HRC indicted. It would take a jury and a judge to jail her.

You missed the sarcasm. He can't do anything on that list despite what he keeps saying. He can't make laws, lower taxes, raise tariffs, imprison any citizen or do most of the things he's claimed ONLY he can do.. Congress initiates laws including tax laws. Tariffs are based on treaties which involve the Senate. Federal charges are initiated in the DOJ and tried in the courts. I've never heard of a president asking the DOJ to file charges against an individual. What if they refuse? Does he fire the AG and appoint a new one on the condition s/he charge HRC? In any case the Senate needs to approve a cabinet level appointment.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

You missed the sarcasm. He can't do anything on that list despite what he keeps saying. He can't make laws, lower taxes, raise tariffs, imprison any citizen or do most of the things he's claimed ONLY he can do.. Congress initiates laws including tax laws. Tariffs are based on treaties which involve the Senate. Federal charges are initiated in the DOJ and tried in the courts. I've never heard of a president asking the DOJ to file charges against an individual. What if they refuse? Does he fire the AG and appoint a new one on the condition s/he charge HRC? In any case the Senate needs to approve a cabinet level appointment.

Thanks for the civics lesson. Since the DOJ is part of the Executive, the president can ask or order the DOJ to do what he wants (within legality). Have you ever heard of a president interfering with an FBI investigation, telling them not to indict? Sounds eerily familiar and current.

PS: The AG serves at the pleasure of the president, so they typically do as told or resign.

 

[jim hardy]

...AG said she'd defer to FBI but changed her tune when Comey re-opened the investigation.

This 'Hatch act' talk is silliness. Since when does criminal investigation proceed at convenience of investigatees?

I've never lived through anything like this. My memories of McCarthy hearings pale alongside this frenzy. Of course Miami had only two or three TV channels back then.

old jim

 

[Evo]

Since when does criminal investigation proceed at convenience of investigatees?

It's not about the investigation, that's not the issue, it's about announcing it, and about announcing it before he even had a warrant to see what was on the computer. Yes, I would agree that he could be found guilty of abusing the Hatch Act, whether action will be taken against him is probably unlikely.

This is a good article from a few days ago talking about it.

When FBI Director James Comey wrote his bombshell letter to Congress on Friday about newly discovered emails that were potentially “pertinent” to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, agents had not been able to review any of the material, because the bureau had not yet gotten a search warrant to read them, three government officials who have been briefed on the probe told Yahoo News.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wr...re-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

 

[jim hardy]

Yes, I would agree that he could be found guilty of abusing the Hatch Act,

If they can show that his intent was to influence the election. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. He gave Hillary a walk for lack of intent with Lynch's blessing and deserves equal treatment .

 

[Evo]

If they can show that his intent was to influence the election. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. He gave Hillary a walk for lack of intent with Lynch's blessing and deserves equal treatment .

That's what I said, it's unlikely anything will be done.

 

[jim hardy]

This is a good article from a few days ago talking about it.

From that article, FBI's stated reason for the letter:

He said it would be “misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.” He added, “Given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.”

The decision to send the letter “wasn’t easy,” said the senior law enforcement official. Comey and top FBI officials debated what course to take once they learned about the discovery on Weiner’s laptop – said to include thousands of Abedin’s emails. In the end, the official said, Comey feared that if he chose to move forward and seek access to the emails and didn’t immediately alert Congress, the FBI’s efforts would leak to the media and the director would be accused of concealing information.

There's often two reasons for something.

IT folks know how email programs work.
Here's a "for dummies" explanation by a conservative blogger that explains why FBI might have felt it important to get out the word about existence of that computer before the fringe sites do it..
He's not a mainstream source for news but he is a subject matter expert on IT stuff, it's how he made his fortune.
If you disallow him no hard feelings.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3412493

IMAP and Exchange are email protocols. (So is POP3, but that's pretty much deprecated everywhere for good reason.) Exchange, when available, is often preferred by business people because it syncs not just email but also calendars and contact lists, which can (and does) include both phone numbers and email addresses.

IMAP is typically used by clients like Thunderbird because it doesn't know to speak Exchange. There's a plug-in for calendars using the davical protocol and another (the SoGo connector) for contacts, but no integrated Exchange support.

Outlook can use IMAP, but where the server supports it (like Clinton's "homebrewed" email server) Exchange would normally be used instead as a preferred choice. It both does more and also does a far better job of threading conversations (which is very convenient) and thus is almost-always preferred when it is available.

Here's the problem for the Clintons: Both of these protocols will sync any folder they are told to monitor and can be told to pull local copies of emails. By default both will typically do so on a desktop or laptop environment because WiFi is usually available and it has enough bandwidth to make that efficient. Mobile devices sometimes are configured to only grab email headers by default but increasingly, with 4g service, they're set up to get full messages too, sometimes including all attachments.

The reason to do this is that it is a lot faster to search messages locally than over the wire, and it's convenient to be able to search messages. In addition pulling full copies (including attachments) allows you to work offline (when there's no WiFi or other network available), and then re-sync when you get back in range.

Here's the problem for Hillary -- when the server had emails deleted and then was "Bleached" it had already been taken offline and was never returned to service. As such the laptop client would have been unable to connect back to it and thus it would never be told to remove anything.

Without that machine (Weiner's laptop) being under remote administration such as Domain Policy control (which we can reasonably assume it was not as Huma claims "she didn't know about it" and it was allegedly a private laptop) there is no remote capability to wipe or otherwise get into said computer and remove the emails either. In fact there's a decent chance it's running an operating system edition (if Windows) that lacks domain control capability entirely.

This means that the odds are extremely high that all of the deleted emails to which Huma was a participant are on that computer.

Every.
Single.
One.

If that examination shows that work product, or worse, classified information was sent and/or received and the evidence intentionally destroyed via the "Bleachbit" process then everyone involved is cooked. Remember, the claim was that the emails deleted were nothing more than yoga chat and similar; all "personal" content that the government had no right to and implicated no national security interest. Further, Huma claimed twice (once during her exit from State, and again under oath when questioned) that she had turned over all devices that might or did have US Government work product on them and had retained no copies.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3412493

If those emails are on Huma's hubby's computer because of an automatic email program it'd explain why she didnt know about it, and they're probably backed up on the cloud somewhere and quite insecure. But these copies should be authentic. FBI's IT types know their potential value to the investigation.

I don't know what was Comey's reason, could be as stated or he could be shaking the bushes to see if any IT types fly out looking for immunity.

end speculation, and no hard feelings if you disallow the post.

old jim

 

[Evo]

Your post is fine. I read the other day that Uma thinks the emails may be ones that she sent to this computer to work on at home because she was having trouble printing at the office. Makes me wonder how much she printed. We'll see. But it's the reason Clinton was not aware of the emails, maybe Clinton was actually telling the truth when she said she was not aware of them. Anyway, until something of importance had been found, which as of yet, I haven't heard of anything, and I am sure Russ will correct me if I've missed it, Comey made a bad decision, at the very least. What it appears, IMO, at the least, is that he was trying to regain favor with fellow Republicans, at the worst, trying to interfere with the election. Only Comey knows, which is why I don't believe he will be punished.

 

[Student100]

It's not about the investigation, that's not the issue, it's about announcing it, and about announcing it before he even had a warrant to see what was on the computer. Yes, I would agree that he could be found guilty of abusing the Hatch Act, whether action will be taken against him is probably unlikely.

The Hatch act prevents federal employees from using their position to engage in partisan politics, I'd hardly consider keeping Congress up to date on an investigation they've expressed oversight of a partisan affair.

Reguardless,
The Hatch act is a civil statute, not a criminal one. The worst that could happen to him is termination, which Evo, when Hillary wins is a certainty anyway.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7326

 

[russ_watters]

Federal charges are initiated in the DOJ and tried in the courts. I've never heard of a president asking the DOJ to file charges against an individual. What if they refuse? Does he fire the AG and appoint a new one on the condition s/he charge HRC? In any case the Senate needs to approve a cabinet level appointment.

The obvious precedent here is the Obama/Holder Justice Department. Since the DOJ is under the Executive Branch, any President of course appoints like-minded individuals who will do as directed, to run it (so, low odds of a refusal to follow direction). Obama did indeed direct DOJ actions in a number of cases, such as directing them to investigate the Ferguson, MO police department.

 

[russ_watters]

Your post [Jim's] is fine.

Actually, I would tend to disagree. It's a blog article, which would at face value not be acceptable and reading its tone it is a pretty biased one at that. And given the biased tone...

The article makes a logical leap that to me doesn't make sense. It suggests that Huma had an Exchange client on Weiner's laptop. Why would she do that? A person like her is going to have her own laptop everywhere and in the rare event that she doesn't, it is kind of a pain to set up and use an Exchange client on a machine you rarely use. I think it is more likely she forwarded herself some emails and used his computer to access them and they got cached.

But the author is correct: if the client hasn't been synced in a while, the emails that were there at last syncing are all still there.

What it appears, IMO, at the least, is that he was trying to regain favor with fellow Republicans, at the worst, trying to interfere with the election. Only Comey knows, which is why I don't believe he will be punished.

He's an odd bird and it is tough to tell. The opposite possibility is that he's trying to use openness to avoid the appearance of burying it if it leaks (which they always do). I suspect that to you his original statement that he would recommend against prosecution probly looked like a way to get a shot in anyway, but to me it looked like a [lame] way to explain-away an otherwise baffling lack of action.

 

[jim hardy]

The article makes a logical leap that to me doesn't make sense. It suggests that Huma had an Exchange client on Weiner's laptop.

They used to live in the same house. Unknown whose laptop it was before the split.

But you are correct that fellow dislikes Hillary more than he dislikes Trump.
I offered the snip for its tech content and thought i'd made that clear. Sorry if not.

 

[Evo]

The worst that could happen to him is termination, which Evo, when Hillary wins is a certainty anyway.

I've considered this, and without clear intent, I don't think so, I think he's muddied his name enough that he may have done enough harm to himself with regards to future positions, if anyone still cares in what 2023? I think I read that's when his appointment ends. But, who knows?

@russ_watters As far as Jim's source, a few blogs get through, if they do not have a political agenda, I will allow them on an ICB. It may or may not have any basis, Jim didn't say it did

 

[Student100]

Some email news slowly leaking out: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-finds-emails-related-to-hillary-clintons-state-department-tenure/

Still can't draw too much about the significance.

 

[BillTre]

I doubt Comey will be fired. There would be a big political cost for that.
It would cause a lot of political response which would not be helpful in getting a new administration started.
If Hillary is elected, there will probably be a Republican House and possibly a Republican Senate. She would want to get things done like a new Supreme Court justice. Firing Comey would make things more difficult.
If Trump is elected, it would not be an issue... until Trump gets pissed off at him.

It seems more likely to me that a Clinton administration could make life unpleasant for Comey to encourage his leaving and perhaps give him something else to do.

 

[Student100]

I doubt Comey will be fired. There would be a big political cost for that.

Wouldn't be the first clinton to remove the FBI director: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sessions

 

[BillTre]

Wouldn't be the first clinton to remove the FBI director: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sessions

Interesting link. Sounds like he got both Republicans and Democrats upset with him.

 

[Evo]

Wouldn't be the first clinton to remove the FBI director: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sessions

Tell the whole story, I see you edited your post, good.

Despite being a Republican who was appointed by Reagan, Sessions disappointed the administration of President George H. W. Bush for not being partisan, and he was personally disliked by Attorney General Dick Thornburgh. Sessions had an uneasy relationship with Thornburgh's successor William P. Barr. Reflecting the tensions between the Justice Department and the independent Bureau, Sessions announced that the FBI would be looking into whether Justice Department officials illegally misled a federal judge in a politically sensitive bank fraud case involving loans to Iraq before the Persian Gulf War, and 48 hours later Sessions was the subject of an ethics investigation on whether he had abused his office perks.[5][2]

Sessions enjoyed his strongest support among liberal Democrats in Congress.[5][3] Sessions was applauded for pursuing a policy of broadening the FBI to include more women and minorities, efforts which upset the "old boys" at the Bureau. [4]

Sample "Winners Don't Use Drugs" message. This one is from Golden Axe.
Sessions became associated with the phrase "Winners Don't Use Drugs", which appeared on idle North American-released arcade game screens during demos or after a player finished playing a game. By law it had to be included on all imported arcade games released in North America and continued to appear long after Sessions left office. The quote normally appeared in gold against a blue background between the FBI seal and Sessions' name.

Sessions' major contributions to the US criminal justice community include the encouraging of the FBI Laboratory to develop a DNA program with a strong legal underpinning and the automation of the national fingerprint process. The later project, known as the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) reduced the turn around time for fingerprint searches for both criminal arrest cycles and applicants for sensitive positions to include teachers from months to hours. A full description of the IAFIS program can be found in Section 2.7 of the book: Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) published by Elsevier, Inc. in 2005; ISBN 0-12-418351-4.[5]

Sessions was FBI director during the controversial 1992 confrontation at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, at which the unarmed Vicky Weaver and her son were shot dead by an FBI sniper. This incident provoked heavy criticism of the Bureau, as did the deadly assault on the Branch Davidian compound which lasted from February 28 to April 19, 1993. These incidents were also related to the discovery of severe procedural shortcomings at the FBI's crime laboratory.

Just before Bill Clinton was inaugurated as the 42nd President of the United States on January 20, 1993, allegations of ethical improprieties were made against Sessions. A report by outgoing Attorney General William P. Barr presented to the Justice Department that month by the Office of Professional Responsibility included criticisms that he had used an FBI plane to travel to visit his daughter on several occasions, and had a security system installed in his home at government expense.[5] Janet Reno, the 78th Attorney General of the United States, announced that Sessions had exhibited "serious deficiencies in judgment."[6]

Although Sessions denied that he had acted improperly, he was pressured to resign in early July, with some suggesting that President Clinton was giving Sessions the chance to step down in a dignified manner.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sessions#FBI_career

 

[Student100]

Tell the whole story, I see you edited your post, good.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Sessions#FBI_career

How so? Definitely wasn't my intention.

I didn't edit?

 

[Evo]

How so? Definitely wasn't my intention.

I didn't edit?

You are right, my mistake, I was looking for the part that pertained to his FBI career that got him into trouble that was farther down. Clinton inherited the mess. I used to give out GOOBF cards for my mistakes. I need to think of a new prize since a former mentor lisab counterfeited billions of them, they lost their impact.

 

[Student100]

You are right, my mistake, I was looking for the part that pertained to his FBI career that got him into trouble that was farther down. Clinton inherited the mess.

I just thought it was interesting how there are parallels between him and Comey. For some Republicans, he's not partisan enough. For Democratics his letter to Congress could be seen as an ethics violation.

I don't he's long for the job, especially if (when) Clinton wins.

 

[Evo]

I just thought it was interesting how there are parallels between him and Comey. For some Republicans, he's not partisan enough. For Democratics his letter to Congress could be seen as an ethics violation.

I don't he's long for the job, especially if (when) Clinton wins.

I think that if Clinton is elected, she has bigger fish to fry and let him squirm. That's what I'd do.

 

[rootone]

Wasn't sure about the word 'squirm'
Apparently it means "to make a lot of twisting movements because you are nervous, uncomfortable, bored, etc."

 

[1oldman2]

Wasn't sure about the word 'squirm'
Apparently it means "to make a lot of twisting movements because you are nervous, uncomfortable, bored, etc."

That is a pretty good definition of "squirm".

 

[kyphysics]

What happened to the rape stuff against Trump? Is it just me or has that not gotten the same coverage and/or not had the same impact on voters' minds?

All the "dirt" coming out on both candidates is terrible, but I would have thought rape would have been viewed much much more negatively than emails or DNC corruption, etc.

 

[Student100]

What happened to the rape stuff against Trump? Is it just me or has that not gotten the same coverage and/or not had the same impact on voters' minds?

All the "dirt" coming out on both candidates is terrible, but I would have thought rape would have been viewed much much more negatively than emails or DNC corruption, etc.

Don't confuse sexual assault or harassment with rape, they're not the same crime. After the release of the tape, multiple women came forward to say Trump made ill advised comments and advances, advances that could reach the level of assault. There has been no real investigation of the claims and most people are skeptical about the timing of the women coming forward. That's why it hasn't had a big impact.

Unless of course you're talking about this: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation

Which is beyond shady, and even the anti-Trump media isn't touching it.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Came across this article before -- http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americ...terror-threat-on-eve-of-presidential-election

Particularly noting:

Federal officials have warned authorities in New York, Texas and Virginia about an unspecific threat of attacks by the al-Qaeda militant group around US presidential election day.

and

The potential for violence related to the election has already darkened a rancorous presidential race between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, on top of the threat of computer hacking and fears that Russia or other state actors could spread political misinformation online or tamper with voting.

While federal and state authorities are beefing up cyber defences against electronic threats to voting systems before Election Day, others are taking additional steps to guard against possible civil unrest or violence.

In my opinion, I foresee civil unrest or violence, regardless of who gets the popular vote next Tuesday.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

In my opinion, I foresee civil unrest or violence, regardless of who gets the popular vote next Tuesday.

I agree. It looks like the election will be close and may center on the reliably dysfunctional state of Florida. If HRC does win, she is likely to have a very difficult four years, assuming she is not removed from office. Her best hope, if she wins, is that the the Dems regain the Senate majority in this election and then the House in 2018.