Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Mike!]

A lot of us Hillary haters think she will likely win the election. You understand there is a difference between liking/disliking a candidate and thinking they are going to win/los the election, don't you?

Can we get an Amen!

 

[RobRoy]

Finally. Page 74—So, is Hillary Clinton done yet?

 

[The_Animus]

She should be, but like Trump, people keep supporting her anyway.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

What Russia's DNC Hack Tells Us About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Server

The Russians might benefit from knowing more about U.S. presidential politics, but the Holy Grail of Russian intelligence is uncovering compromising material that can be used to embarrass, manipulate or blackmail foreign political leaders.

If the DNC’s cyber secrets are open to Russian intelligence hackers, the odds are overwhelming that they have Clinton’s private emails as well, especially given that Clinton’s private server was a target of the highest value.

If Russian intelligence had hacked Clinton’s private server in early March of 2013 (or before), the Kremlin would have the trove of “private” emails Clinton destroyed and that U.S. officialdom and the public have never seen.

So while Russia’s breach of the DNC is worrisome, Putin’s real treasure trove might just be Clinton’s private emails.

Read more:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...y-clintons-private-email-server/#7d1a00853b2a (June 15, 2016)

The Russians used “spear phishing” as the method of penetration of the DNC data base.

Also, Crooked Hillary by her own admission, was a victim of a “spear phishing” email, which she thought was sent by someone in her inner circle:

Mrs. Clinton’s work-related emails as secretary of state, which have been made public as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, show that she received spam emails intended to try to lure her into clicking a malicious link. Those emails, known as “spear phishing” attempts, were traced to Russia, but it was not clear from the emails alone whether anyone clicked on those links or whether the security was compromised.

-- The New York Times (March 3, 2016)

 

[dudalb]

Then you have those of us who don't like Hilary very much,but think she is infinently superior to the alternative.
Even if Hilary is a crook,a crook as president is preferable to egotistical,narcissic,borderline psychotic with a very thin skin and who seems to be an authoritarian.

 

[wareyin]

Then you have those of us who don't like Hilary very much,but think she is infinently superior to the alternative.
Even if Hilary is a crook,a crook as president is preferable to egotistical,narcissic,borderline psychotic with a very thin skin and who seems to be an authoritarian and who also seems to be a crook.

ftfy

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The Russians used “spear phishing” as the method of penetration of the DNC data base.

Also, Crooked Hillary by her own admission, was a victim of a “spear phishing” email, which she thought was sent by someone in her inner circle:

What Russia's DNC Hack Tells Us About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Server
- Nothing.

Clinton email thread --->

 

[Bob001]

Then you have those of us who don't like Hilary very much,but think she is infinently superior to the alternative.
Even if Hilary is a crook,a crook as president is preferable to egotistical,narcissic,borderline psychotic with a very thin skin and who seems to be an authoritarian.

The worst problem with Hillary is that Trump could actually beat her.

Donald Trump can actually win if Clinton makes these four mistakes. Spoiler alert: She’s already making all of them.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...n-campaign-loses-defeated-donald-trump-213924

 

[wareyin]

The worst problem with Hillary is that Trump could actually beat her.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...n-campaign-loses-defeated-donald-trump-213924

Oh, good, an article about how terrified Dems are because Clinton's lead has "evaporated" against Trump. Too bad it came out last month, before all these recent double digit leads now that Clinton no longer has to fight Sanders and the Dems can unify to beat Trump.


eta: The article is also chock full of "original" political claims such as the idea that Governor Bill Weld (R) joining the Libertarian Party ticket, and thus siphoning Republican voters from Trump, will harm the Democratic ticket, somehow.

 

[Bob001]

Oh, good, an article about how terrified Dems are because Clinton's lead has "evaporated" against Trump. Too bad it came out last month, before all these recent double digit leads now that Clinton no longer has to fight Sanders and the Dems can unify to beat Trump.


eta: The article is also chock full of "original" political claims such as the idea that Governor Bill Weld (R) joining the Libertarian Party ticket, and thus siphoning Republican voters from Trump, will harm the Democratic ticket, somehow.

The argument is that the Libertarian ticket -- two generally respected ex-governors -- might draw votes from moderate Republicans who would otherwise hold their noses and vote for Clinton against Trump. Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham are two prominent Repubs who have announced that Trump will never get their votes. Whether that's enough to swing some of the swing states is a reasonable question.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

The Coming Constitutional Crisis Over Hillary Clinton's EmailGate

Clinton stated for the umpteenth time, “nothing I sent or received at the time was marked classified.” This dodge has been employed for a year as cover by Team Clinton.

It recently emerged that at least one of the emails she handed over to investigators under subpoena did in fact contain classified information and was marked as such.

This gives the lie to Clinton’s much-repeated mantra that she never sent or was sent anything marked classified in her unclassified, personal email while serving as our nation’s top diplomat. That is demonstrably false, we now know.

It’s difficult to see how the FBI can ignore such an obvious violation of the law. It likewise raises questions about what was in the 30,000 emails that Clinton decided to delete.

And in the unlikely event that nobody in our nation’s capital is willing to go public with exactly what Hillary Clinton did, it now seems the Russians may do so. It’s highly plausible that Russian intelligence services, among others, have many of Clinton’s emails, perhaps all of them, given how slipshod her security arrangements were.

Read more:
http://observer.com/2016/06/the-coming-constitutional-crisis-over-hillary-clintons-emailgate/ (June 15, 2016)

"Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange warns more information will be published about Hillary Clinton, enough to indict her in what he predicts will be “a very big year” for the whistleblowing website.

"About 32,000 emails from her private server have been leaked by Wikileaks so far, but Assange would not confirm the number of emails or when they are expected to be published."

Reference:
Wikileaks will publish ‘enough evidence’ to indict Hillary Clinton (June 13, 2016)

 

[wareyin]

The argument is that the Libertarian ticket -- two generally respected ex-governors -- might draw votes from moderate Republicans who would otherwise hold their noses and vote for Clinton against Trump. Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham are two Repubs who have announced that Trump will never get their votes. Whether that's enough to swing some of the swing states is a reasonable question.

This may come as a surprise, but the Libertarian Party is not going to get enough votes to get any electoral college votes. Because of that trivial fact, Republicans defecting from the R vote to an L vote will not harm the D vote. Democrats defecting would harm Clinton, which is why that argument is such a bad one.

Similarly, the article attempts to claim that because the Hispanic vote is "only" 62 to 23 in favor of Clinton, that she is in danger of losing said Hispanic vote to Trump.

Face it, the article is amazingly biased in interpreting doom for Clinton from things which are positive for Clinton.

 

[Garrison]

This may come as a surprise, but the Libertarian Party is not going to get enough votes to get any electoral college votes. Because of that trivial fact, Republicans defecting from the R vote to an L vote will not harm the D vote. Democrats defecting would harm Clinton, which is why that argument is such a bad one.

Similarly, the article attempts to claim that because the Hispanic vote is "only" 62 to 23 in favor of Clinton, that she is in danger of losing said Hispanic vote to Trump.

Face it, the article is amazingly biased in interpreting doom for Clinton from things which are positive for Clinton.

Well the last time around the media was trying to portray the race as 'too close to call' when places like 538 were pointing out that the polling data said Obama was going to cruise to a win. The media needs drama to fill those long months until November.

 

[Bob001]

Well the last time around the media was trying to portray the race as 'too close to call' when places like 538 were pointing out that the polling data said Obama was going to cruise to a win. The media needs drama to fill those long months until November.

I don't remember the media collectively calling it "too close to call." After all, 538 is part of "the media." The Republicans certainly thought they were coasting to victory. Surprise, surprise.

But I think it's a mistake to say compare today to 2008 and 2012. In those elections, a charismatic black candidate new on the scene drew supporters and increased turnout. A lot of people actively voted for Obama. But Hillary's primary asset is that she's not Trump. I don't think Hillary can take all of those Obama voters for granted, and if some frustrated blue-collar workers in swing states go for Trump, and if some moderates stay home, the race really could be competitive.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Federal court says Clinton server probe IS a "criminal investigation"

A federal judge has joined the White House press secretary is declaring that Hillary Clinton is the subject of a "criminal investigation" related to classified emails once housed on a private server she maintained in her house.

Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in a court order that "the privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential."

Read more:
The Daily Mail (June 14, 2016)

FBI Director James Comey: "We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do." (May 10, 2016)

White House press secretary Josh Earnest: "The criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference." (June 10, 2016)

Judge Emmet Sullivan: "The privacy interests at stake are high because the government’s criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing." (June 14, 2016)

"I think that the rules were not clarified until after I had left, because it had been the practice of others. There was certainly reason to believe -- which I did -- that what I practiced was in keeping with others' practices. And, uh, you know, that was what the practice had been and that's what I did, as well."

-- Hillary Clinton on This Week with George Stephanopoulos (June 5, 2016)

Crooked Hillary can't be trusted to safeguard classified information. And it's now looking more and more likely that she will be indicted for criminal "gross negligence" under the Espionage Act:

U.S. Code 18 section 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

 

[Travis]

I still don't get why calling it a "criminal investigtaion" means anything. That's what the FBI does. They investigate whether crimes were committed. Anything else would be a waste of their resources. But, and I can't believe I have to explain this, the existence of a "criminal investigation" does not mean a crime was committed. That would be the "investigation" part.

For example: when I stopped my neighbor from beating up his wife in the street I was investigated for assault. But eventually it was decided that stopping my neighbor from kicking his wife made me punching him not a crime. But for awhile there was a "criminal investigation" into me.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I still don't get why calling it a "criminal investigtaion" means anything. That's what the FBI does. They investigate whether crimes were committed. Anything else would be a waste of their resources. But, and I can't believe I have to explain this, the existence of a "criminal investigation" does not mean a crime was committed. That would be the "investigation" part.

"I say what I have said now for many, many months: It's a security inquiry."

-- Crooked Hillary on CBS Face the Nation (May 8, 2016)

 

[The_Animus]

I still don't get why calling it a "criminal investigtaion" means anything.

Why were the Clinton supporters and the Clinton campaign repeatedly insisting that it was a "security review" and that the FBI was investigating the server, not Clinton herself.

 

[RobRoy]

Why were the Clinton supporters and the Clinton campaign repeatedly insisting that it was a "security review" and that the FBI was investigating the server, not Clinton herself.

Apparently, they talked about just that distinction a few weeks ago:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/

Forgot the meat:

Clinton’s phrasing — calling it a "security inquiry" — is not necessarily wrong, said Mark Pollitt, former chief of the FBI’s computer forensics program. But it obscures the fact that an investigation can be both security-related and criminal.

 

[dudalb]

This may come as a surprise, but the Libertarian Party is not going to get enough votes to get any electoral college votes. Because of that trivial fact, Republicans defecting from the R vote to an L vote will not harm the D vote. Democrats defecting would harm Clinton, which is why that argument is such a bad one.

Similarly, the article attempts to claim that because the Hispanic vote is "only" 62 to 23 in favor of Clinton, that she is in danger of losing said Hispanic vote to Trump.

Face it, the article is amazingly biased in interpreting doom for Clinton from things which are positive for Clinton.

THIS. Republicans defecting to Johnson will hurt Trump..possibly enough to cost him some states,but will not hurt Hilary.And the number of disgruntled Democrats turning to Johnson will be miniscule.