US Gen. Election Thread VI: You've Got E-Mail

[New Chalcedon]

we know the emails on Weiners laptop were on on clintons server because they were to huma and hillary, and where are huma and hillary's emails located? On the private sever.

http://gothamist.com/2016/10/29/anthony ... c5-1296853

from the article

"According to Newsweek, the emails in questions wound up on Weiner's laptop because Abedin would occasionally forward emails from her State Department email address to her clintonemail.com or personal Yahoo email addresses. Abedin did this because Hillary Clinton preferred to read printed emails on paper, and Abedin found printing from those email address was easier than doing it using government servers. The FBI is now looking into whether Abedin mishandled any classified emails she may have been in possession of. Criminal charges would only be warranted, though, if she was found to have purposefully and knowingly mishandled the emails, or if she intended to leak them. .... "

If Ms. Abedin did that, then she did the wrong thing. But Newsweek's article admits that that's speculation on its part, as well as on the FBI's. They also say this:

The truth is much less explosive. There is no indication the emails in question were withheld by Clinton during the investigation, the law enforcement official told Newsweek, nor does the discovery suggest she did anything illegal. Also, none of the emails were to or from Clinton, the official said.

Also, how does what Abedin did show Clinton to be lying?

If the FBI had already had them it would have had them from the server, they didn't. they have some of them, not all.

They don't know that - legally, they can't know that, because they still haven't gotten the warrant to search through them. They might suspect it, they might even believe it (they could even be right), but the only way they can know it is to go through the emails...which they can't yet. And until they can and do go through them, it's speculation on their parts.

which is what the times article said.

That's what the Times article said - but the WaPo's Glenn Kessler says his source told him three emails. That's the range of possibilities, which again establishes that this is all speculation, even on the FBI's part.

It is pretty safe to assume that any of the thousands of emails they are looking at to Huma are from the clintonmail,com server,

Why? It's far from unheard of for one person to have many different email addressed - hell, for awhile I had five, and I was just a student! One personal, one general-professional, one for the University I was studying at, and one for each of the places I was teaching.

In fact, it's not a safe assumption at all. From the Newsweek article:

This new evidence relates to how Abedin managed her emails. She maintained four email accounts—an unclassified State Department account, another on the clintonemail.com domain and a third on Yahoo. The fourth was linked to her husband’s account; she used it to support his activities when he was running for Congress, investigative records show. Abedin, who did not know Clinton used a private server for her emails, told the bureau in an April interview that she used the account on the clintonemail.com domain only for issues related to the Secretary’s personal affairs, such as communicating with her friends. For work-related records, Abedin primarily used the email account provided to her by the State Department.

So, no. Abedin has four email accounts, of which the clintonemail.com domain account is only one. So we don't know which (if any) of the emails on that laptop are relating to Clinton's private server at all.

So yes we know.

Your own sources have admitted that they're nothing but speculation. So no, we don't know anything - not yet - which is one of several reasons it was grossly irresponsible for Comey to send that letter in the absence of hard facts. Especially this close to an election, which contravenes decades-long Justice Department policy to do nothing that could be perceived as being "for" or "against" a particular candidate. It's why Trump's civil fraud lawsuit hearings were postponed until after Election Day, along with the grand jury hearing to consider indicting him for child rape.

Hillary is a liar, has lied all along about the server, orginally saying there were no confidential emails on it,

Comey himself conceded that the confidential emails were improperly marked such that even an expert wouldn't be certain that they were classified. Specifically, they had no identifying marking in the header, title or subject matter, only at the end of some paragraphs. So no, it's not a "lie" on Clinton's part - because the emails were improperly marked, she was honestly unaware that they were classified. And what's more, you or I would have been unaware of it at the time, too.

she lied about what was on it,

How?

whether she turned over all the emails to the FBI,

They've found three emails that she didn't turn over. Three. None of which are among the most problematic in the bunch. Three in tens of thousands sounds like an honest mistake to me.

and lied about what colin powell told her about the server

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/colin-po ... d=41570285

"....
"Her people have been trying to pin it on me," Powell told People at an event in the Hamptons in New York this weekend.

"The truth is, she was using [the private email server] for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did," he told the magazine

.... "

Colin Powell says that she lied about what he said. He also said that Saddam Hussein was developing bio-weapons, and used fake "anthrax vials" as props at a UN hearing to push that case. Incidentally, the Powells maintained a charitable family Foundation during his tenure as Secretary of State, as well as taking large donations from corporations such as Enron, yet no-one is suggesting that it was improper for him to do so. Why?

Hillary would not know the truth if it was wearing a large sign saying "truth" on it and bit her on the teat.

I will stand by my belief that comely knows he got played by hillary, and this disclosure is payback for that.

And I will stand by my belief that Comey knows no such thing, because he wasn't.

Just as an aside. One of the problems for me in chatting with you, and its not your fault. You give very detailed responses. Properly responding back to you really requires being on a desktop where i can have multiple windows open and do research, searches, and stuff can be rewritten. 95% of the time I am on my phone and use this site as an informal political chat site, for discussion, not for research and formal debate. So if it seems that sometimes i am being flippant to you it is not my intent. It is just that i generally dont have the time or resources to respond to you fully and properly.

also if i misspell something or someones name, its a fat fingers on a tiny phone thing

Fair enough - RL always comes first. I'll try to be understanding

[Bombadil]

It was a blow in the culture wars against the GOP, when the 'good old days, upstanding religious right' lost out to a couple of pot-smoking liberal hippies.. they're symbolic of that shift.

Why did Hillary in particular become so reviled though? Policy? Surely there were other Baby Boomer politicians in 1992 who were farther left and more incendiary in their rhetoric than the Clintons. Policy-wise they were downright centrists, they're criticized today for enacting NAFTA and approving of Congress' repeal of Glass-Steagall.

It can't logically be the sex scandals. Republican politicians who have sex scandals like Newt Gingrich seem to be forgiven by conservatives unless they turn out to be gay (i.e. Mark Foley). Even disgraced Democrats like Anthony Wiener and Eliot Spitzer only seem to become jokes for a while and then go away unless they remain in power. Furthermore the scandal was around Bill, not Hillary.

Or is it really as simple as the old boys' clubs being somehow intimidated by a woman with a law degree? Or a woman who shows some backbone? Given the Reagan-era conservatives' attitudes towards Margaret Thatcher, I'm not sure I would entirely believe that.

Well the other Baby Boomer politicians weren't elected President so I guess the Clintons became the top dog symbols. In terms of Hillary I'm really going to have to say it is the fact she's female, look how the Right hate Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren.. outspoken, smart women receive particular vitriol - and one could argue Sarah Palin received the reverse if you don't buy into the idea she was simply a moron.

Thatcher was a conservative wet dream, and the US tends to have a weird reverence for UK PMs, Blair was loved, Churchill has a bust in the White House I think.. Cameron perhaps not so much but he fucked a pig so.. actually I just think Obama has shown less reverence to UK PMs in general.

The culture wars were a big news item in the 90's as I remember. If you think back, the GOP had owned the presidency effectively since Kennedy, with the Dems only taking 8 years out of 28 from '64 to '92, and both those were one-term deals. The Clinton's were a huge jolt to the Right and embodied the very worst of their fears, jazz-loving, pot-smoking, lefty intellectuals.. and popular.. so take that, add to the fact she's female and boom..

[Corrian]

So I saw a Why Is This Still A Thing? segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and it was about voting day being on a Tuesday....

Thinking about it...why the hell IS that still a thing?

[New Chalcedon]

It was a blow in the culture wars against the GOP, when the 'good old days, upstanding religious right' lost out to a couple of pot-smoking liberal hippies.. they're symbolic of that shift.

Why did Hillary in particular become so reviled though? Policy? Surely there were other Baby Boomer politicians in 1992 who were farther left and more incendiary in their rhetoric than the Clintons. Policy-wise they were downright centrists, they're criticized today for enacting NAFTA and approving of Congress' repeal of Glass-Steagall.

It can't logically be the sex scandals. Republican politicians who have sex scandals like Newt Gingrich seem to be forgiven by conservatives unless they turn out to be gay (i.e. Mark Foley). Even disgraced Democrats like Anthony Wiener and Eliot Spitzer only seem to become jokes for a while and then go away unless they remain in power. Furthermore the scandal was around Bill, not Hillary.

Or is it really as simple as the old boys' clubs being somehow intimidated by a woman with a law degree? Or a woman who shows some backbone? Given the Reagan-era conservatives' attitudes towards Margaret Thatcher, I'm not sure I would entirely believe that.

Back in the 90s, Hillary Clinton was that most disgusting creature of all to conservatives: a politically-active spouse. Cast your mind back to Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan, even Rosalynn Carter (who was more politically active than she let on, but played the part of the passive First Lady in public) and so on - you'd have to go all the way back to Eleanor Roosevelt to find a First Lady who was nearly as overtly political a person as Hillary Clinton. And Eleanor Roosevelt was loathed by the Right for most of FDR's Presidency for also breaking the mold of a decorative Presidential hostess, a social butterfly who'd pamper the wives of visiting dignitaries while The Men would do all of the important business.

All of which leaves aside the fact that until the Clintons entered the White House, she was the breadwinner of the family (she earned far more from her Rose Law practice than he did as Governor of Arkansas), as well as a caring mother to their daughter. Basically, in 1993, the previous First Ladies had all attempted (with varying degrees of success) to be seen as the embodiment of genteel femininity/motherhood, whatever the realities of their behind-the-scenes influence. Hillary was only the second (Roosevelt being the first) to say, "Fuck that noise - I am woman, hear me roar!", and they hated her for it.

Why did the same people who hated Clinton love Thatcher? Thatcher was a vocal anti-feminist. She claimed that because she made it, any woman who was willing to roll up her sleeves could make it too - therefore, the system was self-evidently fair, which meant that those powerful men held their positions rightfully. She validated their worldview and their standing and their politics at every turn, while Clinton and other Democratic female politicians usually challenge them.

[Bombadil]

So I saw a Why Is This Still A Thing? segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and it was about voting day being on a Tuesday....

Thinking about it...why the hell IS that still a thing?

It's AMERICAN goddamit and changing America is probably what those liberals want, or Mexicans.. to stop it being the NUMBER 1 NATION ON EARTH. God knows it's part of the global banker conspiracy to change it to, like, a Sunday, God's Day.. because they're closed on that day.

What are you, a foreigner?

[Ashmoria]

So I saw a Why Is This Still A Thing? segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and it was about voting day being on a Tuesday....

Thinking about it...why the hell IS that still a thing?

because it takes great effort to amend the constitution and there is no big reason to change it now.

if it were something easy to change we probably would have changed it but its not easy so we haven't.

[Zurkerx]

Here's a map a friend made and show me for what he thinks:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/EDRPe

Quite frankly, this is really an optimistic outlook for Trump, one I doubt severely. He's basing it of on the fact there are a kit if angry people, the polls are wrong (He's thinking of Bernie Sanders like surprise like he did in Michigan), not as many people won't come out for Clinton due to her lack of trust, and that this is the year of the anti-establishment candidate.

[United States of Natan]

Go Hillary!!!

[Ashmoria]

Go Hillary!!!

one more week.

did you know you can still volunteer to make phone calls for Hillary?

[Bombadil]

So I saw a Why Is This Still A Thing? segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and it was about voting day being on a Tuesday....

Thinking about it...why the hell IS that still a thing?

because it takes great effort to amend the constitution and there is no big reason to change it now.

if it were something easy to change we probably would have changed it but its not easy so we haven't.

Wasn't Presidents Day moved to better suit shopping, a couple other days too I believe, depends on the will I suppose..

[Ashmoria]

because it takes great effort to amend the constitution and there is no big reason to change it now.

if it were something easy to change we probably would have changed it but its not easy so we haven't.

Wasn't Presidents Day moved to better suit shopping, a couple other days too I believe, depends on the will I suppose..

bunches did. but that wasn't a constitutional thing.

[Bombadil]

Wasn't Presidents Day moved to better suit shopping, a couple other days too I believe, depends on the will I suppose..

bunches did. but that wasn't a constitutional thing.

Is voting on Tuesday constitutional? I mean 'is it in The Constitution' or just a law that can be easily changed?

[Ashmoria]

bunches did. but that wasn't a constitutional thing.

Is voting on Tuesday constitutional?

I think it is.

let me check.

oops I guess it isn't.

well then why don't we change it??

[Bombadil]

Is voting on Tuesday constitutional?

I think it is.

let me check.

I might.. just might have checked already thus rhetorical..but then I wasn't sure of the exact definition of 'constitutional' so edited just in case.,

[Sonnveld]

We're a week and a half into our 2.5-week "Election Day" here in Oregon. I voted last Friday and voted Progressive straight down the ballot.
I refuse to believe the poll numbers on Jill Stein. She was polling 2%, true, but that was four months ago, before the DemExit after the DNC. Our local GP Chapter went from 3 members to 14 literally overnight, a 400+% increase. Most of my fellow Berniecrats — and by most, I mean 90% — went Green in the wake of Philly. I personally only know 1 Berniecrat that tipped to Hillary and it's possible he was a plant all along.
With the firing of Huma from the Clinton campaign, there's some concern about the nagging "Lolita Express" scandal nipping at Bill Clinton's heels. I'm not convinced of that, since it's something Alex Jones and Infowars are pounding at, but it would explain where David Brock got the child p r o n they attacked the Sanders Facebook pages with last summer.

[Ashmoria]

We're a week and a half into our 2.5-week "Election Day" here in Oregon. I voted last Friday and voted Progressive straight down the ballot.
I refuse to believe the poll numbers on Jill Stein. She was polling 2%, true, but that was four months ago, before the DemExit after the DNC. Our local GP Chapter went from 3 members to 14 literally overnight, a 400+% increase. Most of my fellow Berniecrats — and by most, I mean 90% — went Green in the wake of Philly. I personally only know 1 Berniecrat that tipped to Hillary and it's possible he was a plant all along.
With the firing of Huma from the Clinton campaign, there's some concern about the nagging "Lolita Express" scandal nipping at Bill Clinton's heels. I'm not convinced of that, since it's something Alex Jones and Infowars are pounding at, but it would explain where David Brock got the child p r o n they attacked the Sanders Facebook pages with last summer.

huma has been fired?

if david brock attacked sanders with child porn shouldn't he be in jail now?

anyway what are you hoping for for stein, what percentage do you think she'll get in Oregon?

[Freefall11111]

Trump: Clinton will let 650M immigrants into U.S.

And, no, he didn't misspeak and meant 650k.

[Ashmoria]

Trump: Clinton will let 650M immigrants into U.S.

And, no, he didn't misspeak and meant 650k.

I expect that he got that very good number from alex jones.

[Valaran]

Here's a map a friend made and show me for what he thinks:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/EDRPe

Quite frankly, this is really an optimistic outlook for Trump, one I doubt severely. He's basing it of on the fact there are a kit if angry people, the polls are wrong (He's thinking of Bernie Sanders like surprise like he did in Michigan), not as many people won't come out for Clinton due to her lack of trust, and that this is the year of the anti-establishment candidate.

It is indeed very optimistic. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are not seriously toss-ups at this stage. Colorado should be light blue at worst, as should North Carolina and New Hampshire - there is little to indicate that these states are significantly out of line with their polling averages, which places them all in the Clinton camp. Maine's 'main' vote, incidentally, should also be more solid blue, as should Virginia and Minnesota.

Note the contrast between all those, and how he painted the GOP states. Only swing states get pink for the Republicans, while even solidly blue ones get put as grey on that.

Even is polling is out by some 4-5%, this map still wouldn't be possible.

[AiliailiA]

So I saw a Why Is This Still A Thing? segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and it was about voting day being on a Tuesday....

Thinking about it...why the hell IS that still a thing?

because it takes great effort to amend the constitution and there is no big reason to change it now.

if it were something easy to change we probably would have changed it but its not easy so we haven't.

Saturday or Sunday would be better "election days", since weekend days are still the days when voters are least likely to have work commitments. But moving "the day" to a Saturday or Sunday would disadvantage other people. College students for instance, might have a regular weekend work commitment but be more free to vote on a tuesday. Working parents with a standing arrangement for childcare on weekdays, might have more difficulty voting on a weekend.

I think extending early voting — requiring polling places to be open for at least one week before the final day, by Federal law in every state — would provide equal opportunity to vote to everyone regardless of their work or family commitments. Or it could be two weeks, but I think one week would be sufficient to remove most of the disparate opportunity to vote.

I doubt many voters really want to leave it to the last day (the day when polls close) and even with a Tuesday closing day, the peak of daily voting would would probably be the weekend before, IF voters were assured there would not be long queues for early voting.

Polling stations open for a week, everywhere, I say. Make that the new tradition, something voters can rely on, and they will spread themselves out over the week for their own best convenience. It might even end up being cheaper that way.

[Ashmoria]

because it takes great effort to amend the constitution and there is no big reason to change it now.

if it were something easy to change we probably would have changed it but its not easy so we haven't.

Saturday or Sunday would be better "election days", since weekend days are still the days when voters are least likely to have work commitments. But moving "the day" to a Saturday or Sunday would disadvantage other people. College students for instance, might have a regular weekend work commitment but be more free to vote on a tuesday. Working parents with a standing arrangement for childcare on weekdays, might have more difficulty voting on a weekend.

I think extending early voting — requiring polling places to be open for at least one week before the final day, by Federal law in every state — would provide equal opportunity to vote to everyone regardless of their work or family commitments. Or it could be two weeks, but I think one week would be sufficient to remove most of the disparate opportunity to vote.

I doubt many voters really want to leave it to the last day (the day when polls close) and even with a Tuesday closing day, the peak of daily voting would would probably be the weekend before, IF voters were assured there would not be long queues for early voting.

Polling stations open for a week, everywhere, I say. Make that the new tradition, something voters can rely on, and they will spread themselves out over the week for their own best convenience. It might even end up being cheaper that way.

I agree. early voting makes it all much easier. I voted weeks ago.

[AiliailiA]

Note the contrast between all those, and how he painted the GOP states. Only swing states get pink for the Republicans, while even solidly blue ones get put as grey on that.

Even is polling is out by some 4-5%, this map still wouldn't be possible.

Yeah. New Mexico and Virginia are only lean Democrat, while Pennsylvania Michigan and Wisconsin are tossups?

I'd say "I want some of what they're smoking" except it's probably Trump™ smokable product and I don't want to take a few days out in the psych ward.

[Freefall11111]

Donald Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders.

I can't even. I just can't.

[Ashmoria]

Donald Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders.

I can't even. I just can't.

I cant believe you didn't know that already. there are just so many anti-trump things out there that it is impossible to keep track of them all.

[AiliailiA]

Saturday or Sunday would be better "election days", since weekend days are still the days when voters are least likely to have work commitments. But moving "the day" to a Saturday or Sunday would disadvantage other people. College students for instance, might have a regular weekend work commitment but be more free to vote on a tuesday. Working parents with a standing arrangement for childcare on weekdays, might have more difficulty voting on a weekend.

I think extending early voting — requiring polling places to be open for at least one week before the final day, by Federal law in every state — would provide equal opportunity to vote to everyone regardless of their work or family commitments. Or it could be two weeks, but I think one week would be sufficient to remove most of the disparate opportunity to vote.

I doubt many voters really want to leave it to the last day (the day when polls close) and even with a Tuesday closing day, the peak of daily voting would would probably be the weekend before, IF voters were assured there would not be long queues for early voting.

Polling stations open for a week, everywhere, I say. Make that the new tradition, something voters can rely on, and they will spread themselves out over the week for their own best convenience. It might even end up being cheaper that way.

I agree. early voting makes it all much easier. I voted weeks ago.

You're not the average voter though. Very few of the posters here are average voters, they're more aware and informed than the average voter.

Most of the votes will still be cast on "election day" — ie, the last day of voting — and in some cases that might be legitimate tradition. People might feel it's the right thing to make their final decision after hearing everything there is to hear, and I respect that. But some people (depending on their state) don't have the option of early voting, or it's really impractical because they have to travel a long way, or they're just not aware of the option.

It should become the new tradition, it should supplant voting on the last day, and to that end there should be a federal law requiring the early voting option in every state.

Btw, I am adamantly opposed to "postal voting only" as the method of voting. Have postal voting by all means, but in-person voting is the best way to protect the privacy of the vote for those whose vote is under threat of personal coercion, and voting fraud of the variety "sign this, and I'll give you money". Voting in person should be easy and pleasant (to which end, a market or festival should be encouraged nearby each polling station). Voting in person should still be the mainstream. Early voting in person is part of making it easy. For people who are not gregarious and whose idea of easy is "I can do it without leaving my home" there is postal voting, but we should strive to make in-person voting as easy and pleasant as possible because it is better than postal voting.

I may be tiring your patience now, but I think there is something to be said for government paying people to attend the polling station and participating in person. Not just easy and pleasant, but the voter goes home with more money than they took with them. A reverse poll tax!