The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

[Mr. Perfect]

If independents break for Trump in FL Trump wins.

[Mr. Perfect]

All the early voting this morning looks bad for Trump.

[Mr. Perfect]

Nate Silver says Trump is one state away from winning.

[Mr. Perfect]

So the conundrum of this election has always been Hillary will do worse than obama 2012 while Trump will do better than Romney 2012. This creates sort of a game of chicken.

[Nonc Hilaire]

So the conundrum of this election has always been Hillary will do worse than obama 2012 while Trump will do better than Romney 2012. This creates sort of a game of chicken.

Turkeys, actually.

[Mr. Perfect]

James Comey has produced the most violent whiplashes i've ever seen in us politics.

[Doc]

Comey's new letter is the creepest thing I think I have ever seen. When he decided to reopen the email investigation we were told that he was unaware of the existence of the Wienermail until the day before. Now we are told he knew right from the start. This was all a set up to prevent a public mutiny in the FBI.

[Mr. Perfect]

Personally I don't believe a word of the leaks and background stories from either direction. Comey started and ended 2 investigations he knew the outcome of on day 1. I never thought he would indict the first time or the second. He is just a strange man.

[Doc]

Unless those Soros owned Diebold voting machines are rigged there is no doubt, given all the Clinton scandals that are free for anyone to read, that the American people will get the leadership they deserve.

[Parodite]

I'm too lazy too googleitup re Clinton emails... but "extreme carelessness"... there is no law/rule/stuff that says anything about consequences for that behavior for a woman in her position? Hmmmm

And btw, if you can't prove intent.. you can't therefor conclude it was extreme carelessness either. Both are possible... and at this point it just is anyone's guess. If Comey's communicated conclusion was that she has been extremely careless.. his brain aint no thinkin right.

If you can't prove somebody committed a 1st degree murder, that doesn't prove he committed the lesser evil of man slaughter or other. Let alone that he was just "extremely careless". It could even be that he was extremely careful in making sure no evidence could be found of his actual 1st degree intended murder.

[Doc]

I'm too lazy too googleitup re Clinton emails... but "extreme carelessness"... there is no law/rule/stuff that says anything about consequences for that behavior for a woman in her position? Hmmmm

And btw, if you can't prove intent.. you can't therefor conclude it was extreme carelessness either. Both are possible... and at this point it just is anyone's guess. If Comey's communicated conclusion was that she has been extremely careless.. his brain aint no thinkin right.

If you can't prove somebody committed a 1st degree murder, that doesn't prove he committed the lesser evil of man slaughter or other. Let alone that he was just "extremely careless". It could even be that he was extremely careful in making sure no evidence could be found of his actual 1st degree intended murder.

They don't really show in Google. Best place to find them is Twitter. Though there have been a lot of fakes posted. Generally if you have the Email ID or the Subject line it is quite easy to find the original

[Parodite]

I just would like to hear some legal experts with no stake in the mud game.. of she broke the law on 1 or more points. I mean, breaking the law can be light/medium/severe/extreme. For instance, having classified documents on a private unsecured server without proven intent.. that is ok?

[Doc]

I just would like to hear some legal experts with no stake in the mud game.. of she broke the law on 1 or more points. I mean, breaking the law can be light/medium/severe/extreme. For instance, having classified documents on a private unsecured server without proven intent.. that is ok?

She had her maid faxing classified documents.

[Simple Minded]

I'm too lazy too googleitup re Clinton emails... but "extreme carelessness"... there is no law/rule/stuff that says anything about consequences for that behavior for a woman in her position? Hmmmm

And btw, if you can't prove intent.. you can't therefor conclude it was extreme carelessness either. Both are possible... and at this point it just is anyone's guess. If Comey's communicated conclusion was that she has been extremely careless.. his brain aint no thinkin right.

If you can't prove somebody committed a 1st degree murder, that doesn't prove he committed the lesser evil of man slaughter or other. Let alone that he was just "extremely careless". It could even be that he was extremely careful in making sure no evidence could be found of his actual 1st degree intended murder.

With all due respect Parodite, just the fact that people are discussing this matter in these terms shows the coverup/misleading aspect of the news. And the fact that we all like to speculate about matters of which we are very ignorant.

My wife and several co-workers have DOE security clearances. Intent and carelessness have nothing to do with anything. This information was either handled in accordance with very specific procedures or it was not. No middle ground, no room for misinterpretation. You did not intend to violate procedure, too bad, not following procedure means you violated procedures (who cares about the word careless) by definition. You go to prison.

No information ever gets off an classified network on to an unclassified network, if it does you go to prison. Leave a file on your desk, instead of locking it up, while you walk 10 yards down the hall for one minute to get a cup of coffee. You go to prison. Even if your office is locked. This information must be in specially marked, specially locked file cabinets at all times it is not being viewed.

It is as black or white as it gets. The fact that intent is even discussed shows how much the facts are distorted. Every person I know with a security clearance says the same thing, if they did what she did, they would face instant loss of job and instant incarceration. No going back to your desk to get your personal possessions. You lose your freedom right then and there.

None of them are voting for Hillary.

[Brecher]

Nate Silver says Trump is one state away from winning.

New Hampshire.

If he wins the Granite State, the night is pretty much over.

He'll probably win Florida. New Hampshire is the fulcrum.

[Brecher]

Unless those Soros owned Diebold voting machines are rigged there is no doubt, given all the Clinton scandals that are free for anyone to read, that the American people will get the leadership they deserve.

Soros doesn't own Diebold. Quit trolling. It's getting old. Really old.

[Brecher]

So the conundrum of this election has always been Hillary will do worse than obama 2012 while Trump will do better than Romney 2012. This creates sort of a game of chicken.

What it means is that it will be very close.

[Parodite]

I'm too lazy too googleitup re Clinton emails... but "extreme carelessness"... there is no law/rule/stuff that says anything about consequences for that behavior for a woman in her position? Hmmmm

And btw, if you can't prove intent.. you can't therefor conclude it was extreme carelessness either. Both are possible... and at this point it just is anyone's guess. If Comey's communicated conclusion was that she has been extremely careless.. his brain aint no thinkin right.

If you can't prove somebody committed a 1st degree murder, that doesn't prove he committed the lesser evil of man slaughter or other. Let alone that he was just "extremely careless". It could even be that he was extremely careful in making sure no evidence could be found of his actual 1st degree intended murder.

With all due respect Parodite, just the fact that people are discussing this matter in these terms shows the coverup/misleading aspect of the news. And the fact that we all like to speculate about matters of which we are very ignorant.

My wife and several co-workers have DOE security clearances. Intent and carelessness have nothing to do with anything. This information was either handled in accordance with very specific procedures or it was not. No middle ground, no room for misinterpretation. You did not intend to violate procedure, too bad, not following procedure means you violated procedures (who cares about the word careless) by definition. You go to prison.

No information ever gets off an classified network on to an unclassified network, if it does you go to prison. Leave a file on your desk, instead of locking it up, while you walk 10 yards down the hall for one minute to get a cup of coffee. You go to prison. Even if your office is locked. This information must be in specially marked, specially locked file cabinets at all times it is not being viewed.

It is as black or white as it gets. The fact that intent is even discussed shows how much the facts are distorted. Every person I know with a security clearance says the same thing, if they did what she did, they would face instant loss of job and instant incarceration. No going back to your desk to get your personal possessions. You lose your freedom right then and there.

None of them are voting for Hillary.

Makes total sense to me what you say. Which is what made me wonder...

[Simple Minded]

Makes total sense to me what you say. Which is what made me wonder...

Of course, there are always different rules for the chiefs than for the Indians. I suspect at that level, many time decisions are made not by one's sense of right and wrong, but ones sense of perceived threat, and one's desire to see one's children, wife, grandchildren, etc. lead a long and healthy lives. Personal cost always determines perspective.

When 100's of millions or billions of $ are on the line, I expect the players are very serious indeed.

As I said, we all like to speculate, and the less information we have the easier it gets.

Interestingly, at my wife's place of work it is very hard to get young people to stay. No cellphones or personal electronic devices allowed inside the secured area. The yutes find it very uncomfortable to leave their cell phones in the care for 8 or more hours a day.

If any pictures exist of Hillary or anyone in the same room looking at a cell phone, with classified material present, then either they are in violation of procedures, or the rules are very different at the top of the food chain.

Probably not too hard when there is money involved to find plenty of lawyers to argue the 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

[noddy]

any dog will tell you that you only get in trouble if you get caught.

[Doc]

I'm too lazy too googleitup re Clinton emails... but "extreme carelessness"... there is no law/rule/stuff that says anything about consequences for that behavior for a woman in her position? Hmmmm

And btw, if you can't prove intent.. you can't therefor conclude it was extreme carelessness either. Both are possible... and at this point it just is anyone's guess. If Comey's communicated conclusion was that she has been extremely careless.. his brain aint no thinkin right.

If you can't prove somebody committed a 1st degree murder, that doesn't prove he committed the lesser evil of man slaughter or other. Let alone that he was just "extremely careless". It could even be that he was extremely careful in making sure no evidence could be found of his actual 1st degree intended murder.

With all due respect Parodite, just the fact that people are discussing this matter in these terms shows the coverup/misleading aspect of the news. And the fact that we all like to speculate about matters of which we are very ignorant.

My wife and several co-workers have DOE security clearances. Intent and carelessness have nothing to do with anything. This information was either handled in accordance with very specific procedures or it was not. No middle ground, no room for misinterpretation. You did not intend to violate procedure, too bad, not following procedure means you violated procedures (who cares about the word careless) by definition. You go to prison.

No information ever gets off an classified network on to an unclassified network, if it does you go to prison. Leave a file on your desk, instead of locking it up, while you walk 10 yards down the hall for one minute to get a cup of coffee. You go to prison. Even if your office is locked. This information must be in specially marked, specially locked file cabinets at all times it is not being viewed.

It is as black or white as it gets. The fact that intent is even discussed shows how much the facts are distorted. Every person I know with a security clearance says the same thing, if they did what she did, they would face instant loss of job and instant incarceration. No going back to your desk to get your personal possessions. You lose your freedom right then and there.

None of them are voting for Hillary.

Makes total sense to me what you say. Which is what made me wonder...

Comey just had a press conference

1dnmso.jpg (49.87 KiB) Viewed 543 times

What Comey didn't say was that there are five investigations in Total The most recent being the IRS investigation of the Clinton Foundation

[Mr. Perfect]

I'm too lazy too googleitup re Clinton emails... but "extreme carelessness"... there is no law/rule/stuff that says anything about consequences for that behavior for a woman in her position? Hmmmm

And btw, if you can't prove intent.. you can't therefor conclude it was extreme carelessness either. Both are possible... and at this point it just is anyone's guess. If Comey's communicated conclusion was that she has been extremely careless.. his brain aint no thinkin right.

If you can't prove somebody committed a 1st degree murder, that doesn't prove he committed the lesser evil of man slaughter or other. Let alone that he was just "extremely careless". It could even be that he was extremely careful in making sure no evidence could be found of his actual 1st degree intended murder.

With all due respect Parodite, just the fact that people are discussing this matter in these terms shows the coverup/misleading aspect of the news. And the fact that we all like to speculate about matters of which we are very ignorant.

My wife and several co-workers have DOE security clearances. Intent and carelessness have nothing to do with anything. This information was either handled in accordance with very specific procedures or it was not. No middle ground, no room for misinterpretation. You did not intend to violate procedure, too bad, not following procedure means you violated procedures (who cares about the word careless) by definition. You go to prison.

No information ever gets off an classified network on to an unclassified network, if it does you go to prison. Leave a file on your desk, instead of locking it up, while you walk 10 yards down the hall for one minute to get a cup of coffee. You go to prison. Even if your office is locked. This information must be in specially marked, specially locked file cabinets at all times it is not being viewed.

It is as black or white as it gets. The fact that intent is even discussed shows how much the facts are distorted. Every person I know with a security clearance says the same thing, if they did what she did, they would face instant loss of job and instant incarceration. No going back to your desk to get your personal possessions. You lose your freedom right then and there.

None of them are voting for Hillary.

The issue has always been that if they take down Hillary about 100 people go down with her including obama. They were all sending stuff back and forth to the bathroom computer. On purpose.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

any dog will tell you that you only get in trouble if you get caught.

88XQcpU5Vuk

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I'm too lazy too googleitup re Clinton emails... but "extreme carelessness"... there is no law/rule/stuff that says anything about consequences for that behavior for a woman in her position? Hmmmm

And btw, if you can't prove intent.. you can't therefor conclude it was extreme carelessness either. Both are possible... and at this point it just is anyone's guess. If Comey's communicated conclusion was that she has been extremely careless.. his brain aint no thinkin right.

If you can't prove somebody committed a 1st degree murder, that doesn't prove he committed the lesser evil of man slaughter or other. Let alone that he was just "extremely careless". It could even be that he was extremely careful in making sure no evidence could be found of his actual 1st degree intended murder.

With all due respect Parodite, just the fact that people are discussing this matter in these terms shows the coverup/misleading aspect of the news. And the fact that we all like to speculate about matters of which we are very ignorant.

My wife and several co-workers have DOE security clearances. Intent and carelessness have nothing to do with anything. This information was either handled in accordance with very specific procedures or it was not. No middle ground, no room for misinterpretation. You did not intend to violate procedure, too bad, not following procedure means you violated procedures (who cares about the word careless) by definition. You go to prison.

No information ever gets off an classified network on to an unclassified network, if it does you go to prison. Leave a file on your desk, instead of locking it up, while you walk 10 yards down the hall for one minute to get a cup of coffee. You go to prison. Even if your office is locked. This information must be in specially marked, specially locked file cabinets at all times it is not being viewed.

It is as black or white as it gets. The fact that intent is even discussed shows how much the facts are distorted. Every person I know with a security clearance says the same thing, if they did what she did, they would face instant loss of job and instant incarceration. No going back to your desk to get your personal possessions. You lose your freedom right then and there.

None of them are voting for Hillary.

So you are saying that you have deep & shadowy gov't connections.

[Simple Minded]

So you are saying that you have deep & shadowy gov't connections.

only the low rankers who follow rules rather than decide which rules should apply to them...