2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

K-9

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Think my post got missed in all that nonsense, and has also now been deleted, but.....has there been any talk on here about the Trump supporter who's been arrested for electoral fraud?

Shows how dangerous and misguided his rhetoric about the "widespread fraud" committed by Democrats really is.

Somebody did post about it, could well be in the electoral fraud thread.

Mr.Micro

The timing of the FBI investigations are surely odd. It could be seen as an attempt to change the election outcome. Since she is not going anywhere, surely such an investigation could wait until after the election?

Count Dooku

Who the hell would be "more likely" to vote for her after this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/30/post-abc-poll-finds-tight-presidential-race-with-mixed-reaction-to-fbis-review-of-clinton-e-mails/

Overheal

Count Dooku wrote: »

Who the hell would be "more likely" to vote for her after this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/30/post-abc-poll-finds-tight-presidential-race-with-mixed-reaction-to-fbis-review-of-clinton-e-mails/

People who think it's a ploy

Brian?

Count Dooku wrote: »

Who the hell would be "more likely" to vote for her after this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/30/post-abc-poll-finds-tight-presidential-race-with-mixed-reaction-to-fbis-review-of-clinton-e-mails/

People who see through the hyperbole and realise she's by far the more qualified and competent candidate for president.

RobertKK

An ABC poll that at one stage has Clinton 12% ahead of Trump, now have Clinton 1% ahead.
A NYT poll has Trump 4% ahead in Florida.
While another poll gives Clinton a commanding lead in North Carolina.

On CNN a few days ago, they asked if people were telling the truth to pollsters.
They had some expert or so called expert who said he analysed the polls and then online polls and came to the conclusion that Trump has a small silent vote of 1%.

On another program they used artificial intelligence to predict the result, and the result was a Trump victory.
Then an analysis of the stock market: it was found that in the 3 months before the presidential election that if the stock market was up, then the incumbent party won, if down the opposition won.
Currently the main indexes on the US stock markets are down 1% for the three months which indicate a Trump victory.

At the moment one would say Clinton will win, but momentum seems to be with Trump and the question is - has Clinton built up a big enough firewall with early voting given recent events and even the change in the polls before the latest FBI probe?

K-9

But what is there in the latest news to change minds on the emails anyway?

Nobody has a clue about what is actually in them.

RobertKK

K-9 wrote: »

But what is there in the latest news to change minds on the emails anyway?

Nobody has a clue about what is actually in them.

It just says, will we have 4 years of controversies with Clinton, like all the controversies that the Bill Clinton presidency suffered from.
Then Hillary did a press conference which only had three questions asked before she left it - the latest controversy just highlights a problem that Clinton has been doing worse than Trump in when it comes to trsut and honesty in polls.
When someone's actions when they were in power has been questioned and presumed over, then the Clinton campaign were all praise for Comey when it suited (Trump all complaints when it didn't) and now that unknown emails on her closest aides and her estranged husband Anthony Weiner's laptop is involved, and that are pertinent to the case...now all attack on Comey from Clinton or her people.
At the very least, after all the destroyed and missing devices, the lies and after all devices were suppose to have been handed over to the FBI.
It just adds to the trust and honesty problems that Hillary Clinton is suffering from.
We saw why she didn't want to release the Goldman Sachs private speeches as they just added to the 'say one thing to the public, another in private'.
Some polls say that anything up to 13% of people don't know who to vote for, I say many will not vote, but the latest events do not push people towards Clinton.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

An ABC poll that at one stage has Clinton 12% ahead of Trump, now have Clinton 1% ahead.
A NYT poll has Trump 4% ahead in Florida.
While another poll gives Clinton a commanding lead in North Carolina.

On CNN a few days ago, they asked if people were telling the truth to pollsters.
They had some expert or so called expert who said he analysed the polls and then online polls and came to the conclusion that Trump has a small silent vote of 1%.

On another program they used artificial intelligence to predict the result, and the result was a Trump victory.
Then an analysis of the stock market: it was found that in the 3 months before the presidential election that if the stock market was up, then the incumbent party won, if down the opposition won.
Currently the main indexes on the US stock markets are down 1% for the three months which indicate a Trump victory.

At the moment one would say Clinton will win, but momentum seems to be with Trump and the question is - has Clinton built up a big enough firewall with early voting given recent events and even the change in the polls before the latest FBI probe?

the 538 model still has her winning with 79% odds; 77% polls plus.

The MSM is in the business of making the race seem tighter than it is because it keeps viewers watching which keeps sponsors buying ads.still I suppose "artificial intelligence" isn't as bad as 2008 when wolf blitzer ripped off Star Wars with the CNN "holographic interviews" oh and their "magic wall" - just a big touch screen tv. Wow. Popcorn please

mrkiscool2

Overheal wrote: »

the 538 model still has her winning with 79% odds; 77% polls plus.

The MSM is in the business of making the race seem tighter than it is because it keeps viewers watching which keeps sponsors buying ads.still I suppose "artificial intelligence" isn't as bad as 2008 when wolf blitzer ripped off Star Wars with the CNN "holographic interviews" oh and their "magic wall" - just a big touch screen tv. Wow. Popcorn please

That's still a 10% gain for Trump since the letter was released on Friday and even they are admitting they won't get a full picture until mid-week. Clinton will most likely still win with the support she has but the undecided won't move to her now, she is tainted.

Also, love how she asked the FBI to release the information they have, how does she not understand an agency is not going to release details of an ongoing investigation to anyone?

Overheal

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

That's still a 10% gain for Trump since the letter was released on Friday and even they are admitting they won't get a full picture until mid-week. Clinton will most likely still win with the support she has but the undecided won't move to her now, she is tainted.

Also, love how she asked the FBI to release the information they have, how does she not understand an agency is not going to release details of an ongoing investigation to anyone?

With her being under investigation she has some right to know

mrkiscool2

Overheal wrote: »

With her being under investigation she has some right to know

She has a right to know what she is being investigated for. Also, if what she said is true, if she wasn't told about it before than the FBI fcuked up big time. But the FBI is under no obligation to disclose to her what information they have in the investigation. The only right she has is that if they do choose to prosecute for whatever reason, they have to inform her and disclose their evidence to her attorney. Apart from that they have no requirement to give her the information they have.

FISMA.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

That's still a 10% gain for Trump since the letter was released on Friday...

Actually, the poll you refer to was completed before the FBI announcement.
Thus, the FBI's effect on the case has yet to be seen.

Overheal wrote: »

With her being under investigation she has some right to know

No she doesn't. Disagree? Then cite the right.

Overheal

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

RobertKK

The FBI were looking for child sex emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
They came across a substantial amount of state.gov emails and emails had come from Hillary's private server, but the FBI have not looked at the content of the emails as they have no authority at this stage.

Timberrrrrrrr

RobertKK wrote: »

The FBI were looking for child sex emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
They came across a substantial amount of state.gov emails and emails had come from Hillary's private server, but the FBI have not looked at the content of the emails as they have no authority at this stage.

https://twitter.com/joshledermanAP/status/792076655338594304

Pro Hoc Vice

Overheal wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

Maybe it's late but I'm lost why there is a link to a definition on the civil law of discovery!

nc6000

cnocbui wrote: »

The version of events concerning the deleting of the emails I read is a bit different than what you seem to think happened.

The email service was provided by a private company. The server was not directly under the control of Clinton or her staff and wasn't physically accessible.

Several months before the FBI ever got involved a couple of Clinton's staff, one a lawyer, went through the emails flagging personal ones for purging and others for archiving. They then asked the company providing the email services to act. The person tasked to do the work didn't do as he was instructed. Months later When the FBI approached the company providing the server, a certain individual had an 'oh shít' moment and hastily went and did what he had been told to do months prior.

Why shouldn't she have her staff delete emails connected with organising Chelsea's wedding or which were similarly of a private nature?

Why didn't her campaign just say this then?

RobertKK

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

https://twitter.com/joshledermanAP/status/792076655338594304

Today is the 30th of October, that tweet is dated 28/10/2016.

The metadata from the laptop is reported to have emails from Hillary's server.

Trump just said there are 650,000 emails on the laptop.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

Today is the 30th of October, that tweet is dated 28/10/2016.

The metadata from the laptop is reported to have emails from Hillary's server.

Trump just said there are 650,000 emails on the laptop.

How does Trump know that there are 650,000 e-mails on the laptop?

RobertKK

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

How does Trump know that there are 650,000 e-mails on the laptop?

The Wall Street Journal reported it. Along with metadata showing state.gov emails and emails that came from Hillary's private server being on the laptop.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

The Wall Street Journal reported it. Along with metadata showing state.gov emails and emails that came from Hillary's private server being on the laptop.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fbi-to-search-650000-emails-on-weiners-laptop-in-clinton-probe-2016-10-30

"The review will take weeks at a minimum to determine whether those messages are work-related emails between Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide and the estranged wife of Weiner, and State Department officials; how many are duplicates of emails already reviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and whether they include either classified information or important new evidence in the Clinton email probe, which FBI officials call “Midyear.”

Timberrrrrrrr

RobertKK wrote: »

The Wall Street Journal reported it. Along with metadata showing state.gov emails and emails that came from Hillary's private server being on the laptop.

How did they get this?

RobertKK

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How did they get this?

They say their source is someone familiar with the case.

Metadata found on the laptop used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide, suggests there may be thousands of emails sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may-include-thousands-of-emails-linked-to-hillary-clintons-private-server-1477854957

Sweetemotion

Who deleted my post?

ancapailldorcha

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Who deleted my post?

I did. It was a reply to one which was deleted. Use the PM function if you have more questions please. Don't respond on thread.

FISMA.

Overheal wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

Discovery?

(1) Discovery is law, not a right.

(2) Discovery occurs at pre-trial, after formal charges.

The FBI is investigating, no charges have been filed. She has no right to interfere in their investigation.

Juding from the FBI's 302 on Clinton, she'd only forget.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

An ABC poll that at one stage has Clinton 12% ahead of Trump, now have Clinton 1% ahead.
A NYT poll has Trump 4% ahead in Florida.
While another poll gives Clinton a commanding lead in North Carolina.

On CNN a few days ago, they asked if people were telling the truth to pollsters.
They had some expert or so called expert who said he analysed the polls and then online polls and came to the conclusion that Trump has a small silent vote of 1%.

On another program they used artificial intelligence to predict the result, and the result was a Trump victory.
Then an analysis of the stock market: it was found that in the 3 months before the presidential election that if the stock market was up, then the incumbent party won, if down the opposition won.
Currently the main indexes on the US stock markets are down 1% for the three months which indicate a Trump victory.

At the moment one would say Clinton will win, but momentum seems to be with Trump and the question is - has Clinton built up a big enough firewall with early voting given recent events and even the change in the polls before the latest FBI probe?

Amerika had a post asking me who was cherry picking polls to make Trump look good on his boards. There have been a few others since then but this will do as a prime example of how mother to use polling data. You can't go out and pick the ones you like. It is pure confirmation bias.

With regards to the emails coming from the Clinton server can you also supply a link that doesn't use the word may. It is again pure hope from you that Clinton has done anything worse than previous secretarys or worse than Trump (the latter would be a massive bar given his own court cases and admission of sexual assault but however).

Pro Hoc Vice

FISMA. wrote: »

Discovery?

(1) Discovery is law, not a right.

(2) Discovery occurs at pre-trial, after formal charges.

The FBI is investigating, no charges have been filed. She has no right to interfere in their investigation.

Juding from the FBI's 302 on Clinton, she'd only forget.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16

In Ireland it is usually called Disclosure, according to the above link while headed discovery throughout it seems to be called Disclosure, can any US lawyer confirm what is it usually called in criminal law.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

Amerika had a post asking me who was cherry picking polls to make Trump look good on his boards. There have been a few others since then but this will do as a prime example of how mother to use polling data. You can't go out and pick the ones you like. It is pure confirmation bias.

With regards to the emails coming from the Clinton server can you also supply a link that doesn't use the word may. It is again pure hope from you that Clinton has done anything worse than previous secretarys or worse than Trump (the latter would be a massive bar given his own court cases and admission of sexual assault but however).

I think they have to use the word 'may' because what they are reporting is not in the open.


It is not pure hope from me, what you are doing is shooting the messenger. I could just have seen it and not reported.

My gut instinct is Hillary is very corrupt, and far more dangerous for the world.
I don't like either, they would not be my choices, and so I don't bother defending either candidate, but people here are entitled to be very defensive of Clinton or Trump.
I just don't believe the messenger should be shot.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sweetemotion

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I did. It was a reply to one which was deleted. Use the PM function if you have more questions please. Don't respond on thread.

I want to follow your rules, by not replying on the thread but can't seem to turn on the PM function in my profile?

RobertKK

The Justice department have obtained a warrant for Huma Abedin's emails.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

The Justice department have obtained a warrant for Huma Abedin's emails.

If they just obtained a warrant how did the Wall Street journal earlier report "as metadata on the device suggests there may be thousands sent to or from the private server that the Democratic nominee used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter." It would either seem they have not examined the laptop before the warrant or they did and to try and correct the illegal search now try to correct that possible illegal search.

frostyjacks

Surely no one in good conscience can vote for Hillary after this. That mask of respectability she's so carefully worked on all these years is slipping.

And the other person involved in this scandal, her campaign chairman, is married to a guy that enjoys sexting underage girls? This is Hillary's confidante? Two scorned women running America...er, no thank you.

Pro Hoc Vice

frostyjacks wrote: »

Surely no one in good conscience can vote for Hillary after this. That mask of respectability she's so carefully worked on all these years is slipping.

And the other person involved in this scandal, her campaign chairman, is married to a guy that enjoys sexting underage girls? This is Hillary's confidante? Two scorned women running America...er, no thank you.

Unlike Trump who is actually facing a case which alleges he actually had sex with a underage girl!

nc6000

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Unlike Trump who is actually facing a case which alleges he actually had sex with a underage girl!

Can you please post a link to a reputable source that backs that up?

I'm not defending Trump in any way but I think I saw elsewhere that that story was proved to be false.

RobertKK

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

If they just obtained a warrant how did the Wall Street journal earlier report "as metadata on the device suggests there may be thousands sent to or from the private server that the Democratic nominee used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter." It would either seem they have not examined the laptop before the warrant or they did and to try and correct the illegal search now try to correct that possible illegal search.

They were looking for child porn on the laptop, and they looked at the metadata which did not show the email contents but where emails originated from and where emails were sent to - probably to avoid wasting time looking at emails from say Amazon, the cell phone company, electric company etc. which would not be relevant.
This is how they found the Huma Abedin's emails which are said to be linked to Hillary's private server.
Emails were not looked at, but they are emails that were not previously disclosed when all hardware associated with the private server was suppose to have been handed over.

Sweetemotion

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Unlike Trump who is actually facing a case which alleges he actually had sex with a underage girl!

That is bull and you know it.

mrkiscool2

Someone correct me if I am wrong here but if classified emails are found in those emails, then surely, even if Clinton becomes president, she could be impeached as that would technically be treason, no?

B_Wayne

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That is bull and you know it.

He is facing such a case. He also has a fraud case coming up in the next few weeks.(You may recall that time he went on the offensive against the judge on the case in his campaign)

Pro Hoc Vice

nc6000 wrote: »

Can you please post a link to a reputable source that backs that up?

I'm not defending Trump in any way but I think I saw elsewhere that that story was proved to be false.

A federal judge in New York has ordered counsel for Donald Trump and the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein to appear in court along with the attorney for a woman referred to only as “Jane Doe” who alleges the Republican presidential nominee raped her when she was 13.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit?client=safari

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That is bull and you know it.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit?client=safari

Tell it to the federal judge who has made orders in the case. What exactly did I say was bull.

Pro Hoc Vice

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Someone correct me if I am wrong here but if classified emails are found in those emails, then surely, even if Clinton becomes president, she could be impeached as that would technically be treason, no?

There would have to be proof that Clinto knew that her aide was transmitting the e-mails over a unsecured system, in any event it would not be treason it would be serious but not treason.

Sweetemotion

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A federal judge in New York has ordered counsel for Donald Trump and the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein to appear in court along with the attorney for a woman referred to only as “Jane Doe” who alleges the Republican presidential nominee raped her when she was 13.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit?client=safari

That federal judge should go to the FBI with his findings.

A Jane Doe "who alleges"

Sounds like a made up story by the media to not, mention any names incase of a law suit.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That federal judge should go to the FBI with his findings.

A Jane Doe "who alleges"

Sounds like a made up story by the media too, not mention any names incase of a law suit.

You are incorrect the crime is statute barred for a criminal prosecution and Jan Doe or Roe (hence roe v wade) is often used in us cases to protect the identity of the person involved in matters involving sex rape abortion etc. Jane Doe is identified in court as she will have to give evidence but her identity can not be reported.

You accuse me of bull and you have no idea how the US system works.again I ask where did I write bull?

Trump has the presumption of innocence and he rightly should so too should Clinton.

RobertKK

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Someone correct me if I am wrong here but if classified emails are found in those emails, then surely, even if Clinton becomes president, she could be impeached as that would technically be treason, no?

If classified emails are on that laptop, unsecured - it was claimed that it is a Yahoo email account, Yahoo who were being hacked for two years before Yahoo told the public, then she and Abedin are in big trouble.
It would also say Hillary was so reckless with classified information that people who had no clearance to access classified information had access to classified information.
Hillary and Huma better hope there is no classified information on the laptop as others have gone to prison for a very long time for allowing classified US state secrets to be accessed by people who had no clearance to read such information.
Chelsea Manning who allowed US secrets to be seen by people not cleared to see the classified US information was found to be guilty of treason.
Impeachment would be the least of the problems, so yes technically she could be guilty of treason if that laptop has top classified secrets given Anthony Weiner had access to the emails.
All depends on what is on that laptop.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

If classified emails are on that laptop, unsecured - it was claimed that it is a Yahoo email account, Yahoo who were being hacked for two years before Yahoo told the public, then she and Abedin are in big trouble.
It would also say Hillary was so reckless with classified information that people who had no clearance to access classified information had access to classified information.
Hillary and Huma better hope there is no classified information on the laptop as others have gone to prison for a very long time for allowing classified US state secrets to be accessed by people who had no clearance to read such information.
Chelsea Manning who allowed US secrets to be seen by people not cleared to see the classified US information was found to be guilty of treason.
Impeachment would be the least of the problems, so yes technically she could be guilty of treason if that laptop has top classified secrets given Anthony Weiner had access to the emails.
All depends on what is on that laptop.

Exactly it all depends on what's on the laptop. A laptop that has been in law enforcements hands for soon time the FBI had a belief that there may be Clinton emails on it weeks ago yet they tell congress they are investigating even before the sought a warrant!

Sweetemotion

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You are incorrect the crime is statute barred for a criminal prosecution and Jan Doe or Roe (hence roe v wade) is often used in us cases to protect the identity of the person involved in matters involving sex rape abortion etc. Jane Doe is identified in court as she will have to give evidence but her identity can not be reported.

You accuse me of bull and you have no idea how the US system works.again I ask where did I write bull?

Trump has the presumption of innocence and he rightly should so too should Clinton.

No crime has been proven.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

No crime has been proven.

I never said it had but the crime of having sex with a minor must in the USA be prosecuted within a certain number of years of taking place so the crime is statute bared.

Also no crime has been proven against Clinton she like Trump remains innocent and calls for either to be locked up before a jury decides on guilt is unfair on both.