2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK · 31-10-2016 08:12PM

Huma Abedin is playing the fool by claiming she doesn't know how emails came to be on Weiner's laptop.

Fox News say they were told by officials that the metadata shows there are new emails that were not on other devices from the Clinton sever and from the State department, and it is as Permabear stated yesterday, it was done so emails could be printed and it was a Yahoo email account that was used - the emails stopped going to the account when Hillary stopped being at the State department.

RobertKK · 31-10-2016 08:17PM

gosplan wrote: »

Comey did, Bill did, email server, she looks guilty in her mannerisms.

Lots of nothing tbh.

You are basing that on nothing to back up your claim it is lots of nothing.

We don't know, but are we to think that Comey put his reputation on the line for 'lots of nothing'?

Comey who the White House said today is a man of integrity and good character.

Comey must believe they found the smoking gun to do what he did.

31-10-2016 08:24PM

The White House just came out in support of Comey and said Obama doesn't think he's trying to influence anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRc1-3-OjtQ

Pretty big either way.. They know it's nothing or they know it's bad.

K-9 · 31-10-2016 08:25PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You are basing that on nothing to back up your claim it is lots of nothing.

We don't know, but are we to think that Comey put his reputation on the line for 'lots of nothing'?

Comey who the White House said today is a man of integrity and good character.

Comey must believe they found the smoking gun to do what he did.

This is the same Comey who was accused of political bias for months up to this decision?

It was a brave step for him to take, time will tell if it was a stupid one.

RobertKK · 31-10-2016 08:34PM

K-9 wrote: »

This is the same Comey who was accused of political bias for months up to this decision?

It was a brave step for him to take, time will tell if it was a stupid one.

Yes, depending on which side one was on, he did a great job or he did an awful job. I thought it was a bit strange as I didn't understand the system, but didn't realise until the past few days he had overstepped his reach when he said there would be no prosecution which was the job of the Justice Department.
It probably added to Trump arguing the system was rigged - probably as rigged as any election in a western democracy is. But it was not good how the FBI dealt with the whole Clinton email scandal, I still think it was strange.

Yeah time will tell. I think they must be fairly certain for what they did.

gosplan · 31-10-2016 08:40PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You are basing that on nothing to back up your claim it is lots of nothing.

We don't know, but are we to think that Comey put his reputation on the line for 'lots of nothing'?

Comey who the White House said today is a man of integrity and good character.

Comey must believe they found the smoking gun to do what he did.

'We don't know'

Exactly.

This is another scandal to engulf Hillary and the beat people can say is 'we don't know'

Sofa Spud · 31-10-2016 08:43PM

Amerika wrote: »

Wikileaks said they were launching "phase three" of its election coverage this week. I have a feeling this week’s leaks will damaging for Trump and Republicans.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/wikileaks-warns-it-launching-phase-three-its-election-coverage

Based on what? The release from wikileaks makes no reference to him - Zerohedge said that Wikileaks have said in the past that they would publish information relating to Trump if they had any, that's all. What makes you think they have any?

Amerika · 31-10-2016 08:50PM

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Based on what? The release from wikileaks makes no reference to him - Zerohedge said that Wikileaks have said in the past that they would publish information relating to Trump if they had any, that's all. What makes you think they have any?

Just a gut feeling. Republicans can't be that smart as to not have some emails hacked along the way.

RobertKK · 31-10-2016 08:52PM

gosplan wrote: »

'We don't know'

Exactly.

This is another scandal to engulf Hillary and the beat people can say is 'we don't know'

Except that is more than "Lots of nothing".

In the media, there has been claims the metadata shows that state.gov emails and emails from the Clinton server, plus emails not on other devices on this particular laptop.

It is more than 'Lots of nothing', but all we don't know is the content of the emails, given there was classified emails found before, and given the sheer number of emails involved with this laptop - it does not look good for the Hillary camp, and I think this is why some are taking a step back from Clinton.

RobertKK · 31-10-2016 08:55PM

Amerika wrote: »

Just a gut feeling. Republicans can't be that smart as to not have some emails hacked along the way.

Trump didn't use email, so if it was simply Republicans wanting to stop him, well we all know that.
I can't see what Wikileaks would have that would be bad for Trump.

Christy42 · 31-10-2016 08:57PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Except that is more than "Lots of nothing".

In the media, there has been claims the metadata shows that state.gov emails and emails from the Clinton server, plus emails not on other devices on this particular laptop.

It is more than 'Lots of nothing', but all we don't know is the content of the emails, given there was classified emails found before, and given the sheer number of emails involved with this laptop - it does not look good for the Hillary camp, and I think this is why some are taking a step back from Clinton.

This is indeed a near perfect definition of lota of nothing. We have claims, a may earlier on. An ah sure it must be something if his reputation is on the line. Sure with that many emails there must be something like. None of these amount to proof. Indeed as it stands it doesn't even amount to evidence. Just more pure hope. Remember the burden of proof is not on Hillary here so unless you need something more than smoke.

Amerika · 31-10-2016 09:00PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump didn't use email, so if it was simply Republicans wanting to stop him, well we all know that.
I can't see what Wikileaks would have that would be bad for Trump.

Perhaps some high level GOP politicians negative feelings about Trump. Wouldn't look good for the GOP or Trump either.

RobertKK · 31-10-2016 09:04PM

Christy42 wrote: »

This is indeed a near perfect definition of lota of nothing. We have claims, a may earlier on. An ah sure it must be something if his reputation is on the line. Sure with that many emails there must be something like. None of these amount to proof. Indeed as it stands it doesn't even amount to evidence. Just more pure hope. Remember the burden of proof is not on Hillary here so unless you need something more than smoke.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most valid explanation.

There is a reason to get a warrant to look at the emails, what would you have done, do a metadata search of the laptop, see their are state,gov and emails linked to the Clinton private server, see there are 650,000 emails, would you have done nothing? - given all emails and devices with emails were suppose to have been turned over under the penalty of perjury?

Are you saying you would have covered this up?

RobertKK · 31-10-2016 09:06PM

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps some high level GOP politicians negative feelings about Trump. Wouldn't look good for the GOP or Trump either.

I think it would just reinforce his anti-establishment tag.

K-9 · 31-10-2016 09:10PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, depending on which side one was on, he did a great job or he did an awful job. I thought it was a bit strange as I didn't understand the system, but didn't realise until the past few days he had overstepped his reach when he said there would be no prosecution which was the job of the Justice Department.
It probably added to Trump arguing the system was rigged - probably as rigged as any election in a western democracy is. But it was not good how the FBI dealt with the whole Clinton email scandal, I still think it was strange.

Yeah time will tell. I think they must be fairly certain for what they did.

Well the system is rigged because of Super PAC's and the Citizens United case but that's a whole other debate. That issue only seems to raise its head when the other side exploit it, not enough people are bothered otherwise.

gosplan · 31-10-2016 09:11PM

Christy42 wrote: »

This is indeed a near perfect definition of lota of nothing. We have claims, a may earlier on. An ah sure it must be something if his reputation is on the line. Sure with that many emails there must be something like. None of these amount to proof. Indeed as it stands it doesn't even amount to evidence. Just more pure hope. Remember the burden of proof is not on Hillary here so unless you need something more than smoke.

Unfortunately in politics sometimes there isn't a burden of proof. Sh1t sticks.

Hillary has been targeted for over 2 decades.

It's amazing that there's still so little on her.

Amerika · 31-10-2016 09:13PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I think it would just reinforce his anti-establishment tag.

Depends on what is said about him, I guess.

And no wonder Hillary pushed for early voting in the swing states as it favors democrats. Get them to vote before they know what they’re actually voting for and before they have a chance to change their minds. Brilliant!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/us/politics/early-voting-trump-clinton.html

cnocbui · 31-10-2016 09:22PM

K-9 wrote: »

This is the same Comey who was accused of political bias for months up to this decision?

It was a brave step for him to take, time will tell if it was a stupid one.

Comey's a brave one all right. On the one hand he advises the government not to name Russia as meddling with emails because it is too close to the election and then much, much closer to the election, he goes and makes innuendos about Clinton and emails.

Most people doing a compare and contrast are surely going to be wondering at the motivation behind the clear discrepancy.

With people well knowing the mutual admiration between Trump and Putin and how the latter has clearly been assisting the former, they might come to the conclusion that a partisan political agenda could explain it.

This election really is going to go down in History under the 'Infamy' heading.

FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI's name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former FBI official tells CNBC.

The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-comey-opposed-naming-russians-citing-election-timing-source.html

Chong · 31-10-2016 09:34PM

This has probably been posted already but jesus if this was all the truth:

https://twitter.com/hectormorenco

gosplan · 31-10-2016 09:44PM

Chong wrote: »

This has probably been posted already but jesus if this was all the truth:

https://twitter.com/hectormorenco

Especially the bit about how Trump 'risked his life' by running against the corrupt elites.

Manach · 31-10-2016 09:49PM

cnocbui wrote: »

Comey's a brave one all right. On the one hand he advises the government not to name Russia as meddling with emails because it is too close to the election and then much, much closer to the election, he goes and makes innuendos about Clinton and emails.

Well my understanding from reading experts like Krebs and Schneier that such attacks (on US data assets) have been ongoing from various nation stater or actors. But because of the nature of how the these occur, it is very difficult to ascribe definite blame to a party. Schneier in Data and Goliath gives the classic case of Estonia's cyberattack. Hence given the Tallin doctrine, that in theory could demand a physical attack for a proven cyber attack - then Comey's relucance is understandable.

Christy42 · 31-10-2016 09:55PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most valid explanation.

There is a reason to get a warrant to look at the emails, what would you have done, do a metadata search of the laptop, see their are state,gov and emails linked to the Clinton private server, see there are 650,000 emails, would you have done nothing? - given all emails and devices with emails were suppose to have been turned over under the penalty of perjury?

Are you saying you would have covered this up?

I am saying you don't have proof. Sure there might be something in there but there might be nothing. I see no proof she has done anything that wasn't the done thing for the sos.

All you have is a gut feeling that some wrong doing has occurred. That is generally not considered enough to take something as definitive evidence.
Edit: this has been going on for months. All we see is cries that a wolf may or may not exist repeatedly. AT some point you should have something concrete if you want to crucify someone.

cnocbui · 31-10-2016 10:00PM

Manach wrote: »

Well my understanding from reading experts like Krebs and Schneier that such attacks (on US data assets) have been ongoing from various nation stater or actors. But because of the nature of how the these occur, it is very difficult to ascribe definite blame to a party. Schneier in Data and Goliath gives the classic case of Estonia's cyberattack. Hence given the Tallin doctrine, that in theory could demand a physical attack for a proven cyber attack - then Comey's relucance is understandable.

From the link I posted:

"The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations. ... These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process."

According to the former official, Comey agreed with the conclusion the intelligence community came to: "A foreign power was trying to undermine the election. He believed it to be true, but was against putting it out before the election."

So Comey was doing the right thing while the rest of the US intelligence community were in the wrong?

I don't think his reluctance is understandable in the context you have put it, given what his actual views were.

Manach · 31-10-2016 10:10PM

cnocbui wrote: »

From the link I posted:
So Comey was doing the right thing while the rest of the US intelligence community were in the wrong?

I don't think his reluctance is understandable in the context you have put it, given what his actual views were.

But do you have any insight as to why this is so?
On one hand there are InfoSec industry experts saying, in general, that it is nearly impossible to attribute blame against the US intelligence agencies that gave us Iraqi WMDs.

nc6000 · 31-10-2016 10:56PM

I saw this earlier on Twitter. The woman is clearly a monster and would obviously want to cover up emails like this.

Overheal · 31-10-2016 10:58PM

nc6000 wrote: »

I saw this earlier on Twitter. The woman is clearly a monster and would obviously want to cover up emails like this.

:mad: She wants to bring in more refugees!

nc6000 · 31-10-2016 10:59PM

Here's a link to the tweet.

https://twitter.com/DanaSchwartzzz/status/793138754299002880

osmiumartist · 31-10-2016 11:03PM

nc6000 wrote: »

I saw this earlier on Twitter. The woman is clearly a monster and would obviously want to cover up emails like this.

Maybe Clinton could help Yemenis by not selling any more weapons to the country that's bombing them?

cnocbui · 31-10-2016 11:12PM

Manach wrote: »

But do you have any insight as to why this is so?
On one hand there are InfoSec industry experts saying, in general, that it is nearly impossible to attribute blame against the US intelligence agencies that gave us Iraqi WMDs.

Yes, I could give insight into Comey's inconsistency, I alluded to it previously - he is engaging in politics and trying to unduly influence an election in contravention of the Hatch act.

As for the InfoSec reference - better skillz?

cnocbui · 31-10-2016 11:13PM

Overheal wrote: »

:mad: She wants to bring in more refugees!

Donald, is that you?

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments