US Election Discussion Post 31/10/16

Written By: - Date published: 5:55 am, October 31st, 2016 - 132 comments
Categories: us politics, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , ,

In order to free up Open Mike and Daily Review for other conversations we are asking that all discussion, posting of links etc on the US election go in this daily dedicated thread rather than OM or DR.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

There will continue to be author-written posts on the US election as well, usual rules apply there too.

132 comments on “US Election Discussion Post 31/10/16 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Morrissey 1
    31 October 2016 at 6:15 am

    In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots
    by GLENN GREENWALD, The Intercept, Oct. 12, 2016

    DONALD TRUMP, FOR reasons I’ve repeatedly pointed out, is an extremist, despicable, and dangerous candidate, and his almost-certain humiliating defeat is less than a month away. So I realize there is little appetite in certain circles for critiques of any of the tawdry and sometimes fraudulent journalistic claims and tactics being deployed to further that goal. In the face of an abusive, misogynistic, bigoted, scary, lawless authoritarian, what’s a little journalistic fraud or constant fearmongering about subversive Kremlin agents between friends if it helps to stop him?

    But come January, Democrats will continue to be the dominant political faction in the U.S. — more so than ever — and the tactics they are now embracing will endure past the election, making them worthy of scrutiny. Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow.

    To see how extreme and damaging this behavior has become, let’s just quickly examine two utterly false claims that Democrats over the past four days — led by party-loyal journalists — have disseminated and induced thousands of people, if not more, to believe. On Friday, WikiLeaks published its first installment of emails obtained from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Despite WikiLeaks’ perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC’s favorite ex-intelligence official, Malcolm Nance, within hours of the archive’s release, posted a tweet claiming — with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive — that it was compromised with fakes….

    Read more….
    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/

    • Ad 1.1
      31 October 2016 at 7:34 am

      “Democrats are the dominant political faction”?

      Republicans control the Senate, the Congress, most state legislatures and governorship, have 2/3 of the money in allied Superpacs, and have more shareholder friends in banking, commerce, media, and military than the Dems will ever have.

      Give me a break.

      • Andre 1.1.1
        31 October 2016 at 7:53 am

        Note that a sparsely populated rural state (which tend to be strongly Republican) has the same two senators as a populous mostly urban state (which tend to be Democrat). This mean the “natural” Senate split is somewhere around 56 Repugs 44 Dems.

        The House got so gerrymandered in 2010 that the Dems need around a 6% margin over the Repugs in nationwide voting just to get even numbers of Representatives in the House. The earliest opportunity to fix that will be the 2020 redistricting cycle. Obama has said he’s taking on fairer redistricting as a post-presidency project.

        • Ad 1.1.1.1
          31 October 2016 at 8:11 am

          Redistricting is the US’s own version of ethnic cleansing.
          The demarcations in old-south states are just ridiculous along back-white population dominance.

          If I were Obama I would spend more time with a Clinton presidency getting Citizens United overturned.

          Obama would make a pretty interesting Supreme Court nomination.

          • Andre 1.1.1.1.1
            31 October 2016 at 8:27 am

            Obama seems a fairly energetic fellow. No reason he couldn’t have a go at both issues if he was of a mind to.

            But realistically, the evidence so far seems to suggest the big money unleashed by Citizens United doesn’t seem to have bought as much influence as feared. Or maybe that’s just because the big-money candidates have just become even more obvious nutsos than before.

            Yeah, Obama as a Justice would be interesting. But I suspect he would feel he can accomplish a lot more outside the tight restraints of the Supreme Court.

      • Siobhan 1.1.2
        31 October 2016 at 10:43 am

        You would think with so much money and influence they could recruit/buy/breed better quality candidates for the Presidency than their usual nutters.
        And I’m not even talking about Trump. Though the fact that he’s the nominee speaks volumes about Republican ‘Power’.

  2. Paul 2
    31 October 2016 at 6:22 am

    This is the sort of news the New Zealand media should be telling.
    (This is an article as much about our cultural values as about Trump.)

    What is the worst thing about Donald Trump? The lies? The racist stereotypes? The misogyny? The alleged gropings? The apparent refusal to accept democratic outcomes? All these are bad enough. But they’re not the worst. The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he’s the man in the mirror.

    We love to horrify ourselves with his excesses, and to see him as a monstrous outlier, the polar opposite of everything a modern, civilised society represents. But he is nothing of the kind. He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire. Trump is so repulsive not because he offends our civilisation’s most basic values, but because he embodies them.>The Man in the Mirror

    http://www.monbiot.com/2016/10/28/the-man-in-the-mirror/

  3. Richard Rawshark 3
    31 October 2016 at 8:41 am

    http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/the-us-town-preparing-to-go-gun-crazy-if-hillary-clinton-wins/ar-AAjCg25?li=AA59FU&ocid=spartandhp

    any recommendations I can get for a really good pop corn machine that can be delivered oh. say by about mid way through the election results…

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      31 October 2016 at 9:43 am

      Gun sales have been hitting record levels during the Obama years anyway. Some big US gun makers (like Ruger) have had times where they have had multi-month backlogs of orders they cannot make weapons fast enough.

      • joe90 3.1.1
        31 October 2016 at 9:54 am

        Despite record sales gun ownership is the lowest in forty years with a mere 3% of the population owning more than half of all firearms in the US.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/

        • David C 3.1.1.1
          31 October 2016 at 12:42 pm

          there is a slight problem with your logic there…

          What has happened to all the guns? where have they gone?

          • joe90 3.1.1.1.1
            31 October 2016 at 12:54 pm

            Ít ain’t my logic it’s a fact. The number of gun owners has fallen but the number of guns individual owners possess has risen,

            Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every American adult, according to the most definitive portrait of US gun ownership in two decades. But the new survey estimates that 133m of these guns are concentrated in the hands of just 3% of American adults – a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each.

            The unpublished Harvard/Northeastern survey result summary, obtained exclusively by the Guardian and the Trace, estimates that America’s gun stock has increased by 70m guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.

            https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/19/us-gun-ownership-survey

            • David C 3.1.1.1.1.1
              31 October 2016 at 1:50 pm

              Joe90

              and here I thought you wrote “gun ownership is the lowest in forty years ”

              but now you are telling me in fact there are more guns owned in the USA not less?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                31 October 2016 at 1:52 pm

                Do you think you’re being clever by pretending to have severe comprehension problems?

              • Andre …
                31 October 2016 at 1:55 pm

                The percentage of people that own guns is the lowest in 40 years. But within that smaller proportion of gun owners there are some nutters that own a huge arsenal, and the size of those arsenals is increasing.

          • Macro 3.1.1.1.2
            31 October 2016 at 1:15 pm

            🙄
            I think you’re the one with the logic deficit David. It is obvious.
            A “small” number – around 3% of the US population (about 1 million people out of a total population of 324,000,000+) hold a growing arsenal of guns. These people are fascinated with them. They just want more and more.
            e.g. Your ordinary american family
            This was last years xmas card from the blonde Senator in the centre, holding that weapon that is intended to blow one to smithereens to her constituents – a republican redneck and proud of it..

      • CLEANGREEN 3.1.2
        1 November 2016 at 6:33 am

        Yes CV everyone seems to ignore the elephant in the room don’t they.

        While Obama and his clan love top say they are the political party of choice for global peace they have such lax firearms laws akin to the wild west outlaw days they are breeding civil war THEMSELVES EH!
        Check this out.
        https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/fbi-notes-reveal-security-concerns-over-hillary-clinton-aide-huma-abedin/

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/312211/

        Huma Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood Ties Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/312211/

        Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/312211/

        So my previous post on Muslim infiltration into the Obama administration was correct it seems??????

        I was given a post by a US informant last month by an informant that several important US Government positions were given the nod by Obama that were actually filled by a startling number of Muslims are in actual fact infiltrating the Obama administration, and it was alarming many of the US population when we see all around the globe that governments are clamping down on our Freedoms due to radical Muslim activities by allowing deep intrusion into our daily lives by NSA and “Five eyes” surveillance programs is now bearing fruit showing the infiltration is correct now.

        IMPRENT claimed to be false earlier and requested I retract the article and apologise claiming it was a racist article I posted, but now it seemed to be 100% correct now so perhaps Imprent may show that this is now actually true also it seems by the latest evidence that FBI director James Comey picked up stuff on this;

        Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/312211/

        https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/fbi-notes-reveal-security-concerns-over-hillary-clinton-aide-huma-abedin/

  4. Richard Rawshark 4
    31 October 2016 at 8:45 am

    For humours sake, if civil war broke in America, which I doubt it will(as in a proper civil war), unlike the previous civil war there are no two organized armies. No generals, or governments leading it, it would be what? a bunch of rednecks driving round with guns in pickups drinking bud and shooting at government buildings.?

    • Puckish Rogue 4.1
      31 October 2016 at 8:50 am

      Probably won’t come to that but if it did there’d be a lot of damage done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

      also:

      There are 21.8 million veterans as of 2014, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

      http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/11/10/veterans-day-data-boot-camp

      • Richard Rawshark 4.1.1
        31 October 2016 at 8:56 am

        Small arms survey too, so that’s not all the AR-15 etc.. crikey..,perhaps they should slow down the alchohol production in the states in the coming week. Just in case.

        Drunk rednecks

        Or Drunken Russians I don’t know which is worse.

        I’ve had first hand experience dealing with 10,000 us navy men and women on leave in Rhodes Greece when an aircraft carrier and two support frigates docked for whatever they call it, go get pissed time.

        They are fucxking lunatics drunk.

        BTW you really have no concept of just how god damn large a US aircraft carrier is until you see one in a harbour. I est the top of it, very top, not deck, is higher out of the water than the sky tower.

        The deck would be what 6-8 stories above the water?

        Like a mile long.

        • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1.1
          31 October 2016 at 9:07 am

          Actually its not as bad as you think because AR-15s are considered small arms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms

          So those numbers encompass basically anything you can legally buy

        • Andre 4.1.1.2
          31 October 2016 at 9:13 am

          Um, exaggerating a wee bit there Richard. The biggest container ships are quite a bit larger than the biggest aircraft carriers. But still only a quarter mile long.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSCL_Globe

          • Richard Rawshark 4.1.1.2.1
            31 October 2016 at 9:31 am

            Well this was it

            It was the Theodore Roosevelt

            Keel Laid: October 31, 1981
            Christened: October 27, 1984
            Commissioned: October 25, 1986

            Builder: Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, Va.
            Propulsion system: two Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors,
            four steam turbines, four shafts, 260,000 shp (194 MW)
            Lengths, overall: 1.092 feet (332.85 meters)
            Flight Deck Width: 252 feet (76.8 meters)
            Area of flight deck: about 4.5 acres (18211.5 m2)
            Beam: 134 feet (40.84 meters)
            Draft: 37.7 feet (11.3 meters)
            Displacement: approx. 101,000-104,000 tons full load
            Speed: 30+ knots
            Planes: 90 fixed wing and helicopters
            Crew: Ship: 3,200 ; Air Wing: 2,480
            Armament:
            – four MK-38 Mod 2 25mm Machine Gun Systems (MGS)
            – two Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers
            – two MK-57 Mod 3 NATO Sea Sparrow launchers
            – two MK-15 20mm Phalanx CIWS
            Homeport: San Diego, CA.

            Still 1000ft’s long.

            lol area of flight deck in acres…

            The USA, not one reactor, TWO, the americans been watching too much “tool time” more power…

            • Richard Rawshark 4.1.1.2.1.1
              31 October 2016 at 9:43 am

              Right SLI motherboard arrived today so i’m powering down for a bit, wish me luck laters my anarchists.

            • dukeofurl 4.1.1.2.1.2
              31 October 2016 at 12:32 pm

              Crew as shown is 5K+, other support ships would only be 1k max. maybe 2K max onshore at one time most likely less.
              Cruise ships would exceed that easily as I remember Rhodes could have up to 6 at one time.- say 8K passengers.

        • Wayne 4.1.1.3
          31 October 2016 at 9:13 am

          A US aircraft carrier is about 100,000 tonnes, 1,100 ft long, maybe 200 ft above the water at max height with100 aircraft including 60 combat aircraft and around 5000 crew.

          They will never visit New Zealand since all US aircraft carriers are nuclear powered, and probably also have nuclear weapons on board.

          So, yes they are large, but no more so than the larger cruise liners that visit Auckland, and many other New Zealand ports

          • Richard Rawshark 4.1.1.3.1
            31 October 2016 at 9:40 am

            Now, remember I left from NZ in 89 that was my first sight of BIG. So you can imagine the shock and awe as I saw that entering Rhodes Island at Rhodes and drop anchor with 2 large Frigates accompanying her.

            Then the place was just, I can’t describe it, taken over by it seemed at the time millions of sailors in white uniforms, praying on every woman they saw, and when I say preying. I saved a few girls hides over that time let me tell you, with an exit out the back of the bar I ran. Or just a plain fuck off leave her alone or i’ll smash you with this, holding a rather big bat.

            Thanks the US for having MP’s they really are good those guys at controlling there,,drunkin shipmates if you need them to sort out a issue..

          • dukeofurl 4.1.1.3.2
            31 October 2016 at 1:24 pm

            Cruise liners large ?

            No contest. Warships are measured by deadweight or ‘water displaced’, while cruise ships are by volume much like most container ships. ( known as GT)

            eg Ovation of Seas, one of the largest cruise ships 166,000 GT is only 12000 DWT.
            http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/details/ships/imo:9697753

    • joe90 4.2
      31 October 2016 at 9:15 am

      guns in pickups drinking bud and shooting at government buildings.

      A bunch of Pathans driving around with Kalashnikovs in Toyota technicals smoking kush have kept the US machine at bay for the better part of two decades..

  5. joe90 5
    31 October 2016 at 9:05 am

    The tiny fisted fascist really does have a thin skin.

    Donald Trump’s campaign requires volunteers to sign a contract that forbids them from criticizing the Republican presidential candidate, his family members, any Trump businesses or products, or his campaign. The six-page contract, reviewed in full by the Daily Dot, theoretically lasts for the entirety of a volunteer’s life.

    http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/donald-trump-volunteer-contract-nda-non-disparagement-clause/

    • Lanthanide 5.1
      31 October 2016 at 9:16 am

      Trump just likes having grounds to sue people, so he can threaten it.

      • dukeofurl 5.1.1
        31 October 2016 at 1:27 pm

        Unenforcebale!
        As they are volunteers there is really ‘no contract’. Even an employment contract can only last 6-9 months once you leave.

        • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1
          31 October 2016 at 1:48 pm

          Contract law in the US is not the same as NZ.

          • Andre 5.1.1.1.1
            31 October 2016 at 1:50 pm

            Wouldn’t be surprised if there were significant differences on a state to state basis. Especially for something like this where there’s no “consideration” for the volunteers.

          • dukeofurl 5.1.1.1.2
            31 October 2016 at 4:13 pm

            Yes they have a constitution that would bar a lot of the provisions
            “It’s hard to think of a contract more blatantly unconstitutional than a never-ending agreement to not disparage a political candidate, and impossible to imagine a judge enforcing a contract like this. In case anyone missed that point, Daily Dot reporter Patrick O’Neill spoke to employment lawyer Davida Perry about the contract. She described it as “really shocking,” adding, “I guess [Trump] doesn’t know about the First Amendment.”

            “Contracts that bar disparagement, disclosure, or competition are common in business deals but generally can’t be applied to uncompensated volunteers. (Some states, notably California, don’t allow most non-compete deals even in employment contracts.
            Yes as I thought, volunteers arent same as paid employees.

            http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/revealed-the-trump-campaign-nda-that-volunteers-must-sign/

  6. Puckish Rogue 6
    31 October 2016 at 9:17 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11738246

    Its not looking good for Clinton but as someone that enjoys making predictions, in this instance, I really can’t call this one

    • GregJ 6.1
      31 October 2016 at 8:11 pm

      A lot may depend on where the Johnson supporters actually vote when they get in the privacy of the booth. You would think they would tend to break towards the Republicans if they choose to not follow through with their voting intention from the polls (although I have no idea – I can’t find any in-depth analysis of a “2nd preference” for Johnson supporters).

      If you look at the state by state polls at the moment in a large amount of the states where Clinton is leading she is still anywhere from 5 to 10% behind the numbers Obama got in 2012. For example in Pennsylvania she is currently ahead by 46% to 41% with Johnson on 6%. Obama won PA with 52%. Even on the West Coast her numbers are still hovering 5-7% below Obama’s numbers.

      It really appears to be getting quite a lot closer as Republicans start to coalesce behind Trump (cf. the backlash Paul Ryan is getting from Republicans over his failure to campaign for Trump in the last few weeks).

  7. Chooky 7
    31 October 2016 at 9:23 am

    Good discussion on Trump Foundation vs. Clinton Foundation…corruption, Saudi Arabia, foreign policy and abuse of power

    ‘New poll: 34 percent ‘less likely’ to vote for Clinton after new email revelations’

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/30/new-poll-34-percent-less-likely-to-vote-for-clinton-after-new-email-revelations.html

    From The Independent from Polls before FBI announcement:

    ‘Latest polls show Trump closing in on Clinton amid fall-out from FBI emails bombshell’

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/new-polls-trump-gaining-florida-emails-fbi-bombshell-clinton-a7387831.html

    More WikiLeaks:

    ‘#PodestaEmails23: WikiLeaks releases new mails from Clinton chair’

    https://www.rt.com/usa/364741-clinton-podesta-emails-released/

    • joe90 7.1
      31 October 2016 at 9:31 am

      Remember those James O’Keefe bombshell videos that were going to destroy the Clinton campaign?.
      /

      Trump Foundation’s largest payout ever was $264,631 — for renovations at a Trump hotel

      http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/revealed-trump-foundations-largest-payout-ever-was-264631-for-renovations-at-a-trump-hotel/#.WBY9Y3_Jyxc.twitter

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        31 October 2016 at 10:05 am

        Clinton Inc

        MSNBC discussion panel says: Doug Band (long time Clinton lieutenant from Bill Clinton’s White House days) brags that he shook down Clinton Foundation corporate donors in order to benefit Bill Clinton personally.

        Doug Band states via a wikileaks email that he benefitted Bill Clinton to the tune of US$66M personally via in kind services (eg hospitality, first class travel, holidays), highly paid speaking engagements, big dollar board chairmanships, advisory engagements, private business opportunities etc.

        Chelsea Clinton herself raised concerns about these conflicts of interest, describing Doug Band’s role in the Foundation as “hustling”.

        Commentators on the MSNBC show describe the Clinton activities as demonstrating a clear “ethical and moral deficit” despite there being no clear definitive evidence of (criminal) quid pro quo.

        Relief work in Haiti was used as an opportunity to spread money to the Clintons and to Clinton associates.

        Worth watching if you want to understand how the Clinton Foundation “circle of enrichment” makes a mockery of those who still claim that the Clinton Foundation is a top class charity.

        • McFlock 7.1.1.1
          31 October 2016 at 12:44 pm

          Interesting.
          Firstly, the 12 page memo in question argues that Teneo leveraged its client base (who were interested in getting WJC) to get donations to the CF/CGI, not the other way around.

          Secondly, within a few months of Teneo being formed, which seems to be a consolidation of a couple of consultants, Chelsea Clinton had raised the apparent conflict of interest and it was being discussed at board level, before being resolved.

          So, where’s the benefit/conflict? Either WJC is leveraging charity donors to hire him for speaking engagements (which is weird), or it’s the other way around (which is fair enough – ‘want me, donate to the cgi’). More likely, by handling both CF and WJC business, the consulting group gets a bigger fee for the for-profit business rather than CF donations.

          Or maybe it’s just the appearance of a conflict that matters, because some nutbars are guaranteed to add chocolate sauce to a pudding and call it a pile of shit.

          • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1
            31 October 2016 at 3:01 pm

            Or maybe it’s just the appearance of a conflict that matters, because some nutbars are guaranteed to add chocolate sauce to a pudding and call it a pile of shit.

            Would you classify Hillary Clinton’s State Department giving major Clinton Foundation donors (“Friends of BIll” “FOB”s) expedited priority access to Haiti reconstruction and disaster relief funds as “the appearance of a conflict” or “chocolate sauce to a pudding”?

            And while you are at it, remind me again how many stars the Clinton Foundation scores in charity audits.

            • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1.1
              31 October 2016 at 3:11 pm

              oh, expedited priority access to relief funds, that must be really bad for disaster relief.

              Except they didn’t.

              And obviously you remember that the CF is well regarded by charity assessors on the amount of funds that go directly to verifiable relief work. But you still keep trying to roll that diamond in shit.

              • Colonial Viper …
                31 October 2016 at 3:22 pm

                So it’s merely chocolate sauce to you then? From your link:

                Those emails show only that well-connected people [i.e. people well connected to the Clintons] saw their offers of help put on a fast track. Neither the emails nor a search of government contract databases show that the government gave contracts to any of those people or their firms to help in Haiti.

                • McFlock …
                  31 October 2016 at 3:33 pm

                  So the State Department had tangible offers of help more quickly than otherwise.

                  It did not alter its disbursement decisions based on where those offers came from.

                  Your claim of “priority access” to the funds was complete bullshit, because they had no access to any funds.

              • Colonial Viper …
                31 October 2016 at 3:30 pm

                From Zero Hedge:

                Of course, this directly contradicts comments that Bill Clinton previously made to CBS’ Charlie Rose just last month when he assured voters that “nothing was ever done for anybody because they were contributors to the foundation, nothing.”

                The article also reveals emails which suggest that FOB’s and Clinton Foundation donors got ahead of the queue not just for things like contract access, but also for logistics approvals and airport landing slots in Haiti.

                Again, just chocolate sauce to you is it McFlock?

                http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11/new-emails-reveal-friends-bill-got-special-access-state-haiti-recovery-contracts

                • McFlock …
                  31 October 2016 at 3:37 pm

                  lol zerohedge.

                  Oh, and the only reason you’re quibbling about what order the aid got to Haiti in is because your claim about state department funds was bullshit.

                  You slide around so much you should get lube with that chocolate sauce. Have yourself a real party.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    31 October 2016 at 3:43 pm

                    Oh, and the only reason you’re quibbling about what order the aid got to Haiti in is because your claim about state department funds was bullshit.

                    And you say that based on what? Politifact writing an article on a little snapshot of political evidence around what Pence said on one day?

                    That article you quoted fully agrees that Friends of Bill/Clinton foundation donors were given “fast track” status in the State Dept process.

                    In case you didn’t notice, that in itself is government corruption.

                    lol zerohedge.

                    I invite anyone interested in the “circle of enrichment” known as the Clinton Foundation to read the Zero Hedge article in full, and to follow the links that it provides.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2016 at 3:55 pm

                      your claim about state department funds was bullshit.

                      And you say that based on what?

                      This:

                      Those emails show only that well-connected people saw their offers of help put on a fast track. Neither the emails nor a search of government contract databases show that the government gave contracts to any of those people or their firms to help in Haiti.

                      Now you might argue that the “fast track” for offers was corrupt, and that there should be a formal RFP/tender period for emergency aid.

                      And if those offers had been accepted because they were needed urgently, the citizens of Haiti would have been grateful for the period of delay as procurement followed a rigorous process that would have satisfied you during this election campaign. I suspect that process would have involved contracts being co-signed by Trump and Putin /sarc

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    31 October 2016 at 3:54 pm

                    Ron Fournier on MSNBC:

                    – the motivation for Clinton having a private server is to do with the “circle of enrichment” around the Clinton Foundation.
                    – long time Democrats and Clinton associates had expressed similar concerns for a long period of time
                    – Clinton allies believed that the Clinton’s own activities were undermining public trust
                    – If not an exact quid pro quo then very close to it
                    – Today’s critics of Clinton, the wider scope of Clinton Foundation activities and Hillary’s secret server are echoing what the Clinton team has been saying internally for some time

                    http://freebeacon.com/politics/ron-fournier-clinton-used-secret-server-protect-circle-enrichment/

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2016 at 3:59 pm

                      lol

                      Again, what’s the alleged scam here – that WJC was saying “you can’t donate to the clinton foundation unless you hire me as a speaker”?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 October 2016 at 4:13 pm

                      Continue looking away from the obvious McFlock, but if insiders like Chelsea Clinton and Doug Band understood how the Clinton Foundation was being used/abused with multiple conflicts of interest, maybe you could to.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 October 2016 at 4:20 pm

                      that would be an “I can’t even make shit up on this one”.

                      My suspicion is that CC was concerned that DB’s company might have an apparent conflict of interest in that the same agent worked for WJC and CF, and that a clear separation of interests was required for demonstrable integrity (not least of which because some people like inventing shit about the Clintons – they know exactly what to expect).

    • Colonial Viper 7.2
      31 October 2016 at 9:49 am

      Real Clear Politics average of polls now only +4.3 for Clinton. And this is before the FBI announcement from 2 days ago have had a chance to affect the polls.

      Two weeks ago was +7.1 for Clinton.

      ABC News poll plummeted from +8 and +12 for Clinton a week or so back to just +3 for Clinton now.

      • McFlock 7.2.1
        31 October 2016 at 12:52 pm

        fivethirtyeight has Trump’s chances of victory surging over 7% in the past week to almost 22%…

        • dukeofurl 7.2.1.1
          31 October 2016 at 1:45 pm

          You do know that fivethirtyeight is now owned by ESPN.

          Its just a sports betting odds maker which delves into politics. But their ‘models’ are really derived from large numbers of players and games results which doesnt translate well into the ‘big game’ which only has one result every 4 years

          • McFlock 7.2.1.1.1
            31 October 2016 at 2:02 pm

            It does, however, actually base its odds on electoral votes rather than popular vote.

            It also aggregates surveys, including the ones CV mentioned.

            Just because it’s owned by ESPN doesn’t mean it suddenly switched to bookies’ odds.

            • dukeofurl 7.2.1.1.1.1
              31 October 2016 at 4:16 pm

              More money in sports stats
              http://fivethirtyeight.com/sports/

              Not suddenly switched thats their business model- sports

              • McFlock …
                31 October 2016 at 4:22 pm

                And the notable absence on that page: anything about politics.

                • GregJ …
                  31 October 2016 at 10:56 pm

                  Electoral Vote has a brief article entitled “About Those Odds-of-Winning Projections” here.

                  When it comes to projecting the outcome on November 8, there is really only one question: How accurate are the polls? If they are correct (or even close), then Donald Trump’s chances of winning are 0.0%.

    • Psycho Milt 7.3
      31 October 2016 at 10:26 am

      ‘New poll: 34 percent ‘less likely’ to vote for Clinton after new email revelations’

      As with advertising, they wouldn’t bother with this kind of innuendo if it didn’t work. Shortly before the election, you release a “we may have to investigate the candidate for this” announcement, they take a hit in the polls, and after the election you release a much-less-well-publicised announcement that it turned out there was nothing in it after all and no investigation was needed.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      31 October 2016 at 9:53 am

      Not long ago Clinton running mate Kaine praised Comey as having the highest standards of integrity, and described Comey as being a wonderful and tough career public servant.

      • Pasupial 8.1.1
        31 October 2016 at 10:31 am

        CV
        You would be more convincing if Kaine wasn’t so obviously struggling to keep a straight face during that Fox interview. Others who don’t have to present a benevolent image on the campaign trail are more scathing of Comey:

        “Democratic Ranking Members on the relevant committees didn’t receive Comey’s letter until after the Republican Chairmen. In fact, the Democratic Ranking Members didn’t receive it until after the the Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Jason Chaffetz, tweeted it out and made it public.”

        This is disturbing, but not surprising… The strange events of October 29 are further confirmation that Republican politicians like Chaffetz are using their office not to do the people’s business, but to target a single Democrat for destruction, using any means necessary.

        http://shareblue.com/jason-chaffetz-tweeted-comeys-letter-before-democrats-even-saw-it/

        department staffers told Comey that Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates opposed sending the letter. They told Comey in no uncertain terms that under the circumstances, the letter ran counter to the longstanding policy about politically sensitive investigations…
        Matthew Miller, the former chief spokesman for the DOJ under Lynch’s predecessor, Eric Holder, condemned the letter in the strongest terms on Friday. But Comey has been condemned by veterans of Republican administrations as well. One of them, George Terwilliger III, the deputy attorney general for the last two years of the George H. W. Bush administration, was particularly baffled by Comey’s move…

        If Comey’s improper comment on ongoing investigation changes polls, @FBI reputation as apolitical will never recover cause of his screwup.

        http://www.liberalamerica.org/2016/10/29/fbi-director-comey-ignored-dojs-warning-releasing-info-hillary-email/

        [edit: and this:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?_r=0%5D

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1
          31 October 2016 at 10:40 am

          Just pointing out that senior Democrats had no problem with Comey’s professionalism and integrity two or three months ago when Comey decided that Clinton should not face prosecution over her private email server and demonstrated mishandling of classified information.

          Although of course today they have a massive problem with Comey.

          • Pasupial 8.1.1.1.1
            31 October 2016 at 11:13 am

            No, people did have a problem with Comey back in July too, it’s only the candidates that had to grin and bear it:

            In a case where the government decides it will not submit its assertions to that sort of rigorous scrutiny by bringing charges, it has the responsibility to not besmirch someone’s reputation by lobbing accusations publicly instead. Prosecutors and agents have followed this precedent for years.

            In this case, Comey ignored those rules to editorialize about what he called carelessness by Clinton and her aides in handling classified information, a statement not grounded in any position in law. He recklessly speculated that Clinton’s email system could have been hacked, even while admitting he had no evidence that it was. This conjecture, which has been the subject of much debate and heated allegations, puts Clinton in the impossible position of having to prove a negative in response.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comeys-abuse-of-power/2016/07/06/7799d39e-4392-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html?utm_term=.c2293ca4803a

            But thanks for giving me the occassion to quote the following (I was only able to copy/paste the link above before my editing time expired):

            The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election.

            Such acts could also be prohibited under the Hatch Act, which bars the use of an official position to influence an election. That is why the F.B.I. presumably would keep those aspects of an investigation confidential until after the election. The usual penalty for a violation is termination of federal employment.

            And that is why, on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. I have spent much of my career working on government ethics and lawyers’ ethics, including two and a half years as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, and I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?_r=0

            • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.1.1
              31 October 2016 at 11:25 am

              No, people did have a problem with Comey back in July too, it’s only the candidates that had to grin and bear it:

              I was referring to senior Democrats not having a problem with Comey back in July.

              Yes, Republicans and other commentators, did raise concerns. In this case, the example you gave is the Washington Post saying that Comey did not treat Clinton fairly in July, despite recommending not prosecuting her.

              • Pasupial …
                31 October 2016 at 11:37 am

                That was not a Washington Post journalist’s words, rather some one who had been appointed to a senior DoJ position by Obama: “Matthew Miller was director of the Justice Department’s public affairs office from 2009 to 2011”. His problem was with not Comey following due process, rather than the recommendations themselves:

                In several instances, Comey made assertions that are outside the authority of the FBI. He inserted himself into a long-standing bureaucratic battle between the State Department and the FBI and intelligence agencies, making claims about classification practices at the State Department that do not fall under his jurisdiction. He raised the possibility of administrative sanctions that could be taken, another decision that is not his to make — any such sanctions, if appropriate, would be decided by the State Department, not the director of the FBI…

                The entire exercise seemed designed to protect Comey’s reputation for integrity, while not actually demonstrating integrity. Real integrity is making a decision, conveying it in the ordinary channels, and then taking whatever heat comes. Generations of prosecutors and agents have learned to make the right call without holding a self-congratulatory news conference to talk about it. Comey just taught them a different lesson.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  31 October 2016 at 12:03 pm

                  His problem was with not Comey following due process, rather than the recommendations themselves:

                  Well, if Comey had followed “due process” and actually believed in the “extreme carelessness” (which in legal speak = gross negligence) that he says Clinton handled classified materials with, he would have put Clinton’s case file on DOJ head Loretta Lynch’s desk with an FBI recommendation to prosecute, and left it up to his employer, the Department of Justice, to make the final call – as per due process.

                  • Pasupial …
                    31 October 2016 at 12:35 pm

                    If he; “actually believed in the “extreme carelessness””, then yes that would have been reasonable. But it didn’t seem that Comey did believe this, as evidenced by the fact he didn’t do that. The problem is that instead he chose to smear Clinton in a public announcement. Once again I refer you to Miller’s July article:

                    In a case where the government decides it will not submit its assertions to that sort of rigorous scrutiny by bringing charges, it has the responsibility to not besmirch someone’s reputation by lobbing accusations publicly instead.

                  • dukeofurl …
                    31 October 2016 at 1:41 pm

                    No its not. You are just using Trump talking points
                    extreme carelessness does not equal grossly negligent.
                    There has to be intention for it to be grossly negligent.

                  • McFlock …
                    31 October 2016 at 1:54 pm

                    “extreme carelessness” (which in legal speak = gross negligence)

                    Not at all.

                    In fact, “extreme carelessness” is a deliberate avoidance of an accusation of any legal offence.

                    But Comey can leave it up to trumpeting google lawyers like you to join the non-existent dots between a vague description and a specific offence.

              • joe90 …
                31 October 2016 at 11:42 am

                Harry Reid accuses Comey of a disturbing double standard with a clear intent to aid one political party over another, saying his actions may have broken the law.

                https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwC_eYBXYAA7HEh.jpg

                https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwC_eYEWcAAUDh7.jpg

                • Manuka AOR …
                  31 October 2016 at 1:34 pm

                  Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, wrote a scathing letter to James Comey on Sunday, warning that the FBI director may have broken the law by making public the review of the new emails and accusing him of partisan interference in an election.

                  “Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another,” Reid wrote.

                  “My office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election. Through your partisan action, you may have broken the law.”

                  The Hatch Act limits the political activity of federal employees, for instance barring them from seeking public office or using their authority “or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election”.

                  In a brief letter to congressional leaders on Friday, 11 days before the election, Comey said he did not yet know whether the newly discovered emails were pertinent or significant.
                  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/30/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-fbi-director-comey-emails

          • North 8.1.1.1.2
            31 October 2016 at 12:34 pm

            Not your finest analysis CV @ 8.1.1.1. Point is that this is not August. This was 11 days out from the election. Apples and oranges so to speak.

            Natural justice and immeasurably important constitututional considerations require that if Comey feels bound to report, arguably in breach of governance convention…….then he must do better than – ’emails emails emails……(here’s the personal saver)…….they may prove insignifcant to the investigation concluded in August’.

            Freedom to simply ‘announce’ with nothing more is a charter for one individual malevolently to muddy constitutional waters and personally influence an election outcome. Not that I point to Comey as one such individual but specifically and generally, there is a valid constitutional question here. The existence of settled convention is not for nothing.

            “Although of course today they have a massive problem with Comey.”

            How dishonest, petty and facile of you to conclude your comment in that way CV. Underlines your ever more loudly exhorted moral commitment to Trump. What’s that about given your self-appointed bombastically executed role as the supreme, impeccable leftie around here ? A major question all on its own. Seemingly advisedly you fail to acknowledge the Trump campaign’s post-August attacks on Comey and the FBI and its of-late “rigged rigged rigged !” cries.

            Apples and oranges CV……with a couple of kilos of your now ubiquitous selectively chosen lemons thrown in. Must say the CV of old has withered. Suffering a tragic moral switch on the scale of Richard Prebble and Christopher Hitchens are you ?

          • dukeofurl 8.1.1.1.3
            31 October 2016 at 1:30 pm

            Trump was calling Comey and FBI corrupt a few weeks back.

            Now they are not ?

          • Lanthanide 8.1.1.1.4
            31 October 2016 at 1:51 pm

            “Although of course today they have a massive problem with Comey.”

            Yes, it is sensible to update your views and opinions about the world and people when new evidence comes to light. For example, Comey’s initial approach to the email situation was unorthodox (normally the FBI does not comment on investigations), but he figured due to the national interest in the case that he should say more – and it was a good thing to do at the time, and some people have praised him for that (others haven’t). Now, however, making a bland non-statement 11 days before the election, is quite a different matter, and really brings his judgement into question.

            To stick to your original opinions in the face of new evidence foolish in the extreme.

            Much as you’ve continued to defend Trump despite all the deplorable things he has gotten up to and bragged about. Most sensible people update their views based on new evidence – hence why Trump is no longer at 50/50 on the 538 model, as he did briefly achieve during the campaign several months ago.

    • xanthe 8.2
      31 October 2016 at 10:32 am

      I think the DNC screwed themselves. Had they not applied pressure on FBI to declare the email investigation “closed” (it wasnt but thats how it was spun) then comey would not have been put in the position of having to make this latest statement. Hoist by their own petard

      • Colonial Viper 8.2.1
        31 October 2016 at 10:44 am

        The Clinton campaign own goal around the email server goes back further than that according to wikileaks/BBC, and revolves around the senior Clinton team attempting to “get away with” having used a private email server:

        On the same day that news of a private email server broke, John Podesta, who later became her campaign chairman, emailed Neera Tanden, who worked for the Clinton campaign in 2008 and has remained a close adviser, to complain about Mrs Clinton’s “instincts”.

        “We’ve taken on a lot of water that won’t be easy to pump out of the boat”, he wrote in September 2015 as Clinton staff feared that Vice President Joe Biden would join the Democratic primary race.

        “Most of that has to do with terrible decisions made pre-campaign, but a lot has to do with her instincts,” he wrote, to which Mrs Tanden responded “”Almost no one knows better [than] me that her instincts can be terrible.”

        In the email exchange, Mr Podesta also complained that Clinton’s personal lawyer David Kendall, and former State Department staffers Cheryl Mills and Philippe Reines “sure weren’t forthcoming here on the facts here”. Mrs Tanden responds “Why didn’t’ they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy.”

        She later answered her own question saying, “I guess I know the answer. They wanted to get away with it.”

        http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370

    • Andre 8.3
      31 October 2016 at 11:42 am

      More useful non-partisan commentary on how badly Comey has handled this.

      http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/must-read–36

      • rhinocrates 8.3.1
        31 October 2016 at 1:20 pm

        Plus, he may have acted illegally.

        http://www.reid.senate.gov/press_releases/2016-10-30-in-letter-reid-says-comey-may-have-broken-the-law#.WBaNDuF95Xu

        In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government – a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity. The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.

        …

        As you know, a memo authored by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates on March 10, 2016, makes clear that all Justice Department employees, including you, are subject to the Hatch Act. The memo defines the political activity prohibited under the Hatch Act as “activity directed towards the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.”

        • Colonial Viper 8.3.1.1
          31 October 2016 at 1:29 pm

          Not sure why the Democrats are going with the well-worn Russian/Putin angle here. It is not going to help Clinton or Abedin. There are some 650,000 emails on Weiner’s laptop which need reviewing. This will take weeks or months to do, regardless of what happens to Comey.

          • dukeofurl 8.3.1.1.1
            31 October 2016 at 1:32 pm

            Search functions can cull those down to say 1000 in a day.

            • Colonial Viper 8.3.1.1.1.1
              31 October 2016 at 2:53 pm

              Hillary is said to have deleted around 33,000 emails. Each one of those missing emails would be of interest, would they not?

              • McFlock …
                31 October 2016 at 3:01 pm

                lol “is said”.

                So if they’re in the weiner-stash, search for “hildawg@deepstate” in the “from” field.

                Bam, there’s all the ones that could be “of interest” due to be being sent by HRC.

          • CLEANGREEN 8.3.1.1.2
            1 November 2016 at 6:49 am

            Yep CV this is what I witnessed back in 1973 when I as a kiwi was living in Canada in the shadow of the US election of Crooked Nixon, as after he was re-elected in 1973 he was still being investigated by FBI over the Waterhouse tapes ect’ and the rest is history that will repeat itself again with crooked Clinton also.

      • North 8.3.2
        31 October 2016 at 4:05 pm

        Andre…….the email in your link @ 8.3 (“email” Oh God, sorry) – is well, well worth a read. Authored by someone whom actually knows how and why the system is meant to work the way conventions say it should. Won’t satisfy the Creeping Virus of course but who’d be surprised about that ? Conventions, Natural Justice ?…….pfft ! “Easy win Trump November !”

        • Andre 8.3.2.1
          31 October 2016 at 4:34 pm

          Yeah its really tiresome the way the Creeping Virus immediately diverts everything with a diarrhoeic blast of Hillary-hate. When there really is an issue to be considered away from the partisan noise of whether Comey handled this appropriately, badly, or maybe even criminally badly.

  9. Andre 9
    31 October 2016 at 10:03 am

    How the military-industrial-complex keeps itself fat, dumb, and happy.

    “Although rarely discussed because of the focus on Donald Trump’s abominable behavior and racist rhetoric, both candidates for president are in favor of increasing Pentagon spending. Trump’s “plan” (if one can call it that) hews closely to a blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation that, if implemented, could increase Pentagon spending by a cumulative $900 billion over the next decade.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/tomdispatch-pentagon-government-military-spending

    Suppose Trump actually gets his stubby fingers on those military levers. Who really thinks he won’t feel the need to pull them? If only just to see what happens?

  10. Chooky 10
    31 October 2016 at 10:18 am

    This is a brilliant Overview History Retrospective of the Email Scandal

    ( with Clinton clips, interview Giuliani ( Former US Attorney), Trump clips, interview Newt Gingrich…and others)

    ‘Hannity 10/28/16 FBI Reopens Hillary Clinton Email Investigation [Judge Jeanine Pirro Interview]’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euWEK6rETN8

    ( conclusion: rather than Comey being unfair to Clinton just before an Election he should have acted much sooner…Comey and first FBI investigation went too softly, softly…coverup…evidence destroyed by Clinton and FBI… many FBI agents disgusted with how FBI at the top handled the scandal…massive conspiracy to protect President…corruption at the highest State levels…theory Comey forced to act now and reopen the inquiry because of what WikiLeaks has )

  11. joe90 11
    31 October 2016 at 10:28 am

    Wolf?.

    Oh, and just FYI the two primary oppo hits I'm talking about aren't the child rape trial story. Sorry!— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) October 30, 2016

    @TheRickWilson Honest question: why do you and Frank Luntz know what this is but not dems? Dems not talking? Is it McMullin that has them?— Jaymes Winn (@jaymeswinn) October 30, 2016

    @jaymeswinn They know.— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) October 30, 2016

    • Puckish Rogue 12.1
      31 October 2016 at 12:47 pm

      Imagine drawing the short straw on that, pretty sure I wouldn’t want to be rummaging around in his emails

      • Andre 12.1.1
        31 October 2016 at 12:52 pm

        Judging by some of the stuff you post here, I would have thought it would totes be your thing.

        • Puckish Rogue 12.1.1.1
          31 October 2016 at 1:09 pm

          Not quite sure how you link what I post with underage solicitation but whatever floats your boat I guess

  13. joe90 13
    31 October 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Trump asked, what do you have to lose?.

    • North 13.1
      31 October 2016 at 12:57 pm

      Says it all about that weird ugly creature. ‘You got nothing to lose and anyway, it’s all about ME. ME ME ME ME ME !!!!! Do it ! For…….well you know.

  15. whateva next? 15
    31 October 2016 at 2:04 pm

    As I have just posted on another thread,
    It’s simply come down to choosing between a corrupt male, or a corrupt female.

    • Manuka AOR 15.1
      31 October 2016 at 2:59 pm

      “Republicans have one path to victory in this election and it’s called false equivalency. They can’t deny Trump is horrible. It’s on tape. So they want voters to believe Hillary is just as bad, and in pursuit of that goal they have a very powerful ally: lazy people. People who like to say, ‘they’re all bad.’ Because when you say that, you don’t have to do any homework. Say they’re all the same and then you can sound justifiably jaded by the entire process when really — you just don’t know anything.” – Bill Maher: http://www.towleroad.com/2016/10/false-equivalency/

      • whateva next? 15.1.1
        31 October 2016 at 3:11 pm

        sorry, I can’t agree, the elitism and corruption to maintain that, is just as distasteful as Trump’s appalling attitude to any one isn’t a rich white bloke

        • Manuka AOR 15.1.1.1
          31 October 2016 at 3:44 pm

          I know this will not affect your attitude, but I’m putting this here for the record:

          “Trump launched his campaign with fraud, as the Trump Tower crowd that interrupted him 43 times with applause on June 16, 2015, consisted of actors paid fifty bucks apiece,” David Cay Johnston, an investigative reporter who has covered Trump since the 1980s and is the author of The Making of Donald Trump, wrote earlier this week.

          From that book, Trump:
          1. Boasts of sexually assaulting women.
          2. Used illegal immigrants and mob to build Trump Tower.
          3. Caught Illegally not paying sales taxes.
          4. More evidence of federal income tax fraud.
          5. Claiming $916 million in tax losses, but not paying bills.
          6. Trump University was another massive con job.
          7. Paying off prosecutors via political donations to avoid charges.
          8. Using his foundation for other illegal expenses. (at least 9 times)
          9. A lifetime of hiding behind secret settlements when sued. (Trump has been sued 4,500 times and has a history of dragging out cases until the other side quits, or reaching a settlement in which those suing are sworn to secrecy )
          10. Doing business with other known criminals. eg, “Trump wildly overpaid two mob hitmen known as ‘The Young Executioners’ for a tiny plot of New Jersey land”

          What’s lost in the media frenzy over the FBI investigation is that Clinton’s mishandling of several dozen emails simply cannot be compared to Trump’s outrageous history of bending or breaking the law, and getting away with it. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/10-ways-trump-broke-the-law-and-got-away-with-it-putting-the-latest-clinton-email-media-frenzy-in-perspective/

  17. xanthe 17
    31 October 2016 at 2:09 pm

    anyone wanna take odds that if trump wins, his victory speach will contain the phrase “hillary clinton” ..dramatic pause.. “your fired !”

    seems a sure winner to me 🙂

    • Puckish Rogue 17.1
      31 October 2016 at 2:16 pm

      I wouldn’t be surprised if she got immunity from prosecution

      • McFlock 17.1.1
        31 October 2016 at 2:20 pm

        I’d be moderately surprised if she needed it.

        Not, like, “omg!!!” shock, but more “raised eybrow and ‘oh really?'” level of surprise.

        • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1.1
          31 October 2016 at 2:45 pm

          Yeah I don’t think this investigation is going to go anywhere but then it doesn’t need to after the election

          Still a weeks a long time in politics so there might be another twist still to come

          • McFlock 17.1.1.1.1
            31 October 2016 at 2:50 pm

            god forbid. We went through the wardrobe some time during the primaries, I shudder to think what will happen next…

            • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1.1.1.1
              31 October 2016 at 3:14 pm

              Tin foil hat time but…do you think that if something is found on one of his devices, something that could lead to jail time, he might consider spilling any beans he might have about Clinton in return for immunity/lesser time at a minimum security jail?

              • McFlock …
                31 October 2016 at 3:22 pm

                sorry, who – weiner?

                If it’s jail-time stuff, I would be surprised if he had anything that big on HRC… as it were… oh dear.

                I don’t think he would have any beans… oh dear.

                this really is quite difficult to talk about while avoiding double entendres.

                Anyway, I’d be surprised if HRC got jailed for anything. If the source was Weiner to offset some serious charges, I’d be more shocked than surprised that HRC did anything so serious as to be weightier than traditional “illegal shit on your computer” offences.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  31 October 2016 at 3:38 pm

                  In that case I change my prediction to Huma Abedin to taking the blame and resigning

                  Speaking of double entendres, its been a spectacular… rise and fall for the Weiner (aka Carlos Danger)

                  • dukeofurl …
                    31 October 2016 at 4:24 pm

                    Resign? She is Vice chair of Clintons campaign, shes separated from Weiner. If Clinton loses shes out of a job

      • whateva next? 17.1.2
        31 October 2016 at 4:42 pm

        Nixon was elected and then impeached, in that order.

  18. joe90 18
    31 October 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Remember, all those average Americans are lapping this shit up because they have less than $1000 in the bank.

    WATCH: #Trump claims that as president, Hillary will let in 650 million refugees and “triple the size of our country in one week" pic.twitter.com/Pnw3dki01A— Correct The Record (@CorrectRecord) October 31, 2016

    https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/792911363832111105

  19. grim 19
    31 October 2016 at 4:26 pm

    google “pathological lying” 🙂

  20. Manuka AOR 20
    31 October 2016 at 4:41 pm

    Today’s illustration for this post – love it 🙂
    Leunig – good for the soul

  21. adam 21
    31 October 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Will, you star.

  22. grim 22
    31 October 2016 at 5:26 pm

    While most people have been focusing on the email FBI case, the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation continues, inside trading, tax avoidance, pay to play, treason, Rico’s all round, Regime change for profit,

    it’s all coming out, be an interesting week, if the lights don’t go out.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.