Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

I single out this part. I think there is an important lesson here.

 

Opponent's will always oppose. Often opponents will exaggerate and distort. The media, much of it, is lazy. These things will not change.

 

So what to do. This is where I hope the thinking is. One can look for villains, but there will always be villains. It is more profitable to look for errors.

 

I am not a great bridge player. But also I am not awful. Despite what my partners might say. Books are helpful, but I think by far the most useful path to improvement is to look overe the hands that I have bid and played and dispassionately seek out my errors. If a partner analyzes a session of bridge and finds five of my errors and none of his own, I think he has the wrong focus. He might well be right about my errors, but the errors that he has the most control over are his own. Of course I have played with partners who make no errors. They are quite certain of this.

 

With the emails, Clinton came across as a lawyer. She is a lawyer, and the law was involved,so one might say of course she used her legal training. But she was running for office. Back in the Nixon days, a friend suggested that members of Nixon's inner circle be issued badges saying NYI. Not yet indicted. This friend was a Republican, I believe he voted for Nixon at least in '68, ,but he was also fed up with the legalisms.

 

At any rate, I strongly suggest to the Democratic leadership that they stop focusing on how unfair the world is and start looking at their own mistakes.

 

I do think that this hacking has to be most seriously addressed. Not just Russian hacking, and not just hacking of the DNC. Cybersecurity is an issue where the concern should be across the political spectrum.

 

I agree that the hacking is important - though not the most important aspect of this election season. I think we are at a critical point in history. Take, for example, the North Carolina governor's race. Instead of a peaceful transition from one governor to the next, the legislature passed and the incumbent signed into law legislation to remove much of the governor's powers from the incoming governor.

 

This is beyond sour grapes and goes along with the obstruct-at-any-cost Congress that held President Obama in such contempt.

 

These kinds of mindsets are of the kind held by zealots for their ideology. Ideological zealotry is our common enemy, regardless of our political affiliations. We are supposed to be self-governed; zealotry wants to rule.

[mikeh]

Despite all the hoots and howls to the contrary, I still think there is a reasonable chance that she is hiding something bad (although the odds seem to be decreasing all the time with all the crap coming out about foreign entities putting out fake news to help Trump.) However, it would be extremely difficult to convince me that the reason she scrubbed emails was anything to do with child sex.

You are amazing, in the worst sense of the world. This seems to be a common way of thinking for you. 'I know there is NO evidence for proposition X, but all my friends believe in proposition X so there has to be a real chance that proposition X is true, and I am going to vote an utterly incompetent, dangerous demagogue into power because, you know, Clinton really might have been running a child sex ring out of a pizza restaurant'

 

Do you even THINK about your beliefs? That was a silly question. If there is one thing that one can safely infer from your posts, it is that you don't seem able to think critically. No wonder the USA has just screwed itself. I'd just laugh if it weren't so important to the rest of the world.

[Winstonm]

You are amazing, in the worst sense of the world. This seems to be a common way of thinking for you. 'I know there is NO evidence for proposition X, but all my friends believe in proposition X so there has to be a real chance that proposition X is true, and I am going to vote an utterly incompetent, dangerous demagogue into power because, you know, Clinton really might have been running a child sex ring out of a pizza restaurant'

 

Do you even THINK about your beliefs? That was a silly question. If there is one thing that one can safely infer from your posts, it is that you don't seem able to think critically. No wonder the USA has just screwed itself. I'd just laugh if it weren't so important to the rest of the world.

 

To me the question is much broader than simply Kaitlyn's beliefs. I think the question reaches right to the heart of American democracy, and that is how do we reach the millions of people who confuse even-handedness with granting equivalency to rumor, innuendo, and pure propaganda? There can be no doubt that this occurs else Donald Trump would not be PEOTUS.

 

When you look at the numbers from the election and then the way that information was transmitted the picture starts to clear. The reality is that at least 2.8 million more voters cast votes for Clinton than for Trump.

 

The objective reality of that basic set of facts has been denied by Trump himself in a number of tweets where he falsely claimed: 1) He won in a landslide and 2) He also won the popular vote once you subtract the millions of illegal votes for Clinton. Amazingly, new online polls show that 52% of Republicans believe Trump's lies and think he also won the popular vote.

 

Both accurate information and factual distortions were reported as equivalent, tweeted, and retweeted. We were left to chose facts based on which side we believed.

 

IMO, we have reached a critical point in U.S. history - world history, really - a point where objective reality is being abandoned in favor of a form of tribal group think. It reminds me of Orwell's 1984 admonition "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows".

 

What is happening now is that the objective reality is no longer being granted. It is being denied as our basic starting point, and even more than denied it is being changed with claims that 2+2=3 today but we reserve the right to claim it will be 5 tomorrow if that is more advantageous. Without being able to state 2+2=4, and have everyone in agreement, how can there be freedom? Without objective reality, there is no critical thought; without critical thought, there are only ideological slaves.

[Kaitlyn S]

You are amazing, in the worst sense of the world.

Luv ya too, Mike ♡

[mike777]

I agree that the hacking is important - though not the most important aspect of this election season. I think we are at a critical point in history. Take, for example, the North Carolina governor's race. Instead of a peaceful transition from one governor to the next, the legislature passed and the incumbent signed into law legislation to remove much of the governor's powers from the incoming governor.

 

This is beyond sour grapes and goes along with the obstruct-at-any-cost Congress that held President Obama in such contempt.

 

These kinds of mindsets are of the kind held by zealots for their ideology. Ideological zealotry is our common enemy, regardless of our political affiliations. We are supposed to be self-governed; zealotry wants to rule.

 

 

Just for the record North Carolina legislature did not remove much of the governor's power. What they did do was petty and silly.

 

-----------------------------

 

 

As for all the hacking stuff, just another Obama scandal that the press will somehow blame Trump not Obama who actually is the President and the democrats who did little but turn away or appease yet again in regards to non domestic issues.

 

 

See Obama and the Dems mocking Romney.

[Winstonm]

Just for the record North Carolina legislature did not remove much of the governor's power. What they did do was petty and silly.

 

-----------------------------

 

 

As for all the hacking stuff, just another Obama scandal that the press will somehow blame Trump not Obama who actually is the President and the democrats who did little but turn away or appease yet again in regards to non domestic issues.

 

 

See Obama and the Dems mocking Romney.

 

You can't whitewash the symbolism of what the N.C. legislature did nor ignore how the Republicans in the U.S. Congress stonewalled the Obama administration once they had control.

[kenberg]

Just for the record North Carolina legislature did not remove much of the governor's power. What they did do was petty and silly.

 

-----------------------------

 

 

As for all the hacking stuff, just another Obama scandal that the press will somehow blame Trump not Obama who actually is the President and the democrats who did little but turn away or appease yet again in regards to non domestic issues.

 

 

See Obama and the Dems mocking Romney.

 

I suggest dividing responsibility this way:

Before Jan 20, Obama

After Jan 20: Trump

 

Not rigidly, as some inherited problems take time to resolve. I got very tired of the blaming of Bush after a couple of years of Obama, but some of it was indeed inherited. Details aside, I am fine with blaming Obama for lapses in cyber security before the upcoming inauguration and blaming Trump for what happens afterward.

 

I still hold out some hope that our leadership, in both parties, can see getting something done as more important than parceling out the blame when nothing gets done, but I suppose that is naive.

[cherdano]

I suggest dividing responsibility this way:

Before Jan 20, Obama

After Jan 20: Trump

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the US constitution, and adjust your rules of responsibility accordingly.

 

Snark aside, it's clear that McConell, as always, put party first when he refused to support the administration on making a bipartisan statement on the Russian hacking based on the intelligence shared senate leaders of both parties.

 

As I wrote in the "How to fix it?" thread, US democracy and governance has a lot of institutional problems. These problems wouldn't have become as disastrous without McConell, who realised that Senate Republicans can get away with blocking (almost) everything since voters will hold Obama responsible for the (lack of) results.

[kenberg]

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the US constitution, and adjust your rules of responsibility accordingly.

 

Snark aside, it's clear that McConell, as always, put party first when he refused to support the administration on making a bipartisan statement on the Russian hacking based on the intelligence shared senate leaders of both parties.

 

As I wrote in the "How to fix it?" thread, US democracy and governance has a lot of institutional problems. These problems wouldn't have become as disastrous without McConell, who realised that Senate Republicans can get away with blocking (almost) everything since voters will hold Obama responsible for the (lack of) results.

 

Sure. I over-simplified. A lot. Yes.

 

Some years back there was a lot of talk of the imperial presidency. The idea was that the role of the president had evolved to a stage where nothing could stand in his way. Another exaggeration, of course. But we do elect a president to lead, and we hold him/her (sooner or later a her, I trust) responsible for what happens. This is a reasonable arrangement. It is understood that there are difficulties. The president is supposed to deal with them. This is not perfect, but it is also not crazy. It works best when we elect good presidents.

 

Added: While having morning coffee I read this:

https://www.washingt...m=.70af9e46dc40

 

 

It illustrates the view I refer to. The intervention worked. Obama gets credit. Of course he had help. Of course there was resistance. But largely, Obama gets the credit. When things don't work, then he is held responsible. Credit for what works, blame for what doesn't, sure, it is more complicated than assigning either blame or credit to one person. But Truman had the right idea. The buck stops here, where "here" means at the desk of the president.

[Al_U_Card]

Sure. I over-simplified. A lot. Yes.

 

Some years back there was a lot of talk of the imperial presidency. The idea was that the role of the president had evolved to a stage where nothing could stand in his way. Another exaggeration, of course. But we do elect a president to lead, and we hold him/her (sooner or later a her, I trust) responsible for what happens. This is a reasonable arrangement. It is understood that there are difficulties. The president is supposed to deal with them. This is not perfect, but it is also not crazy. It works best when we elect good presidents.

 

Added: While having morning coffee I read this:

https://www.washingt...m=.70af9e46dc40

 

 

It illustrates the view I refer to. The intervention worked. Obama gets credit. Of course he had help. Of course there was resistance. But largely, Obama gets the credit. When things don't work, then he is held responsible. Credit for what works, blame for what doesn't, sure, it is more complicated than assigning either blame or credit to one person. But Truman had the right idea. The buck stops here, where "here" means at the desk of the president.

As CIC, a war-time president was to politically control the armed forces. The US has engineered a constant war-time state so this plays into the picture. As Trump changes the field from political class to business class subordinates, corporatists will have a direct line of control. This will disenfranchise the careerists in DC and likely have effects from within the party ranks. Interesting times to come...

[Al_U_Card]

 

 

Added: While having morning coffee I read this:

 

The economic legacy is what the video by Koo was all about. Japan had shown the effects of the massive housing bubble bust and "recovery" associated with typical central-bank methods. Koo shows what the ramifications are and how to fix them. Borrowing (for infrastructure programs) to keep the system running is key, NOT inflating the balance sheets of the banks.

[billw55]

You are amazing, in the worst sense of the world. This seems to be a common way of thinking for you. 'I know there is NO evidence for proposition X, but all my friends believe in proposition X so there has to be a real chance that proposition X is true, and I am going to vote an utterly incompetent, dangerous demagogue into power because, you know, Clinton really might have been running a child sex ring out of a pizza restaurant'

 

Do you even THINK about your beliefs? That was a silly question. If there is one thing that one can safely infer from your posts, it is that you don't seem able to think critically. No wonder the USA has just screwed itself. I'd just laugh if it weren't so important to the rest of the world.

I'm confused here mikeh. Kaitlyn clearly stated that she will not believe the child sex ring unless decisively convinced. You even quoted it. Why are you saying that she caters to this false belief?

 

As for HRC's emails, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to believe that she scrubbed them because there were things she did not want read by others. In fact I would say that is the most logical and obvious conclusion. Perhaps said things were merely personal communications. Perhaps not. Probably nobody will ever know.

[Winstonm]

I'm confused here mikeh. Kaitlyn clearly stated that she will not believe the child sex ring unless decisively convinced. You even quoted it. Why are you saying that she caters to this false belief?

 

As for HRC's emails, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to believe that she scrubbed them because there were things she did not want read by others. In fact I would say that is the most logical and obvious conclusion. Perhaps said things were merely personal communications. Perhaps not. Probably nobody will ever know.

 

I think this notion is ridiculous because HC had been hounded since Oct. 2012 by the Benghazi investigation and to think any attorney as sharp and experienced would leave incriminating e-mails on a private server and then rush to illegally have them removed after a subpoena for them was issued - and the subpoena wasn't issued until March 4, 2015. To think she was that stupid is an insult not only to her but to those who voted for her.

[billw55]

I think this notion is ridiculous because HC had been hounded since Oct. 2012 by the Benghazi investigation and to think any attorney as sharp and experienced would leave incriminating e-mails on a private server and then rush to illegally have them removed after a subpoena for them was issued - and the subpoena wasn't issued until March 4, 2015. To think she was that stupid is an insult not only to her but to those who voted for her.

I do not claim that the content she (may have) desired to keep hidden had anything to do with Benghazi. Or with any other specific topic, publicly known or not. I only say that the logical reason for mass deletion is to conceal something - perhaps things that are innocuous but personal.

 

At times I have had thousands of emails piled up in the deleted items folder at my job. It never once occurred to me to go in and delete them all in mass and wipe the space. This is something that is done for a reason. I don't claim to know HRC's reason, or to know that it was malicious. But I do think there is a reason.

 

 

[kenberg]

I think this notion is ridiculous because HC had been hounded since Oct. 2012 by the Benghazi investigation and to think any attorney as sharp and experienced would leave incriminating e-mails on a private server and then rush to illegally have them removed after a subpoena for them was issued - and the subpoena wasn't issued until March 4, 2015. To think she was that stupid is an insult not only to her but to those who voted for her.

 

I did vote for her. I do not feel the least insulted by what Bill said. I agree with what he said, although maybe not so much with your re-phrasing of what he said. As to HC being stupid, neither Bill nor I have said that. I do believe, and I said long ago, she handled the email matter very badly. And handled it badly from the very beginning. HC was a major party candidate for president. Huma Abedin was a top aide. Why, why, why on God's Green Earth would HA have been putting any HC emails about anything on AW's computer? Forget sexting. Imagine AW a perfect husband. Still! Could they not afford a computer for HA to store HC emails on? There was something about printing. HA's computer could not be configured to allow printing directly from her computer? If HA was to handle, or forward, or print, or whatever, email from HC, then HA needed a secure computer of her own, one set up to do whatever it is they wanted to do. The whole operation sounded like you might expect from the local PTA (no insult to PTAs intended here). Becky does stuff for a local book club. She uses her computer, not mine. Admittedly she does not have NSA level security apparatus on it. But it's for the book club. Let the Russkies hack it if they want to. I did not say "stupid", but I think she lacked good judgment. And really, I think that is a good part of what hurt her. People look at something like that and think "If she can't handle this problem effectively, should she be president?"

 

I repeat: The Dems need to start looking for their own mistakes.Or they couold just hire me to explain it all to them :)

[Al_U_Card]

I did vote for her. I do not feel the least insulted by what Bill said. I agree with what he said, although maybe not so much with your re-phrasing of what he said. As to HC being stupid, neither Bill nor I have said that. I do believe, and I said long ago, she handled the email matter very badly. And handled it badly from the very beginning. HC was a major party candidate for president. Huma Abedin was a top aide. Why, why, why on God's Green Earth would HA have been putting any HC emails about anything on AW's computer? Forget sexting. Imagine AW a perfect husband. Still! Could they not afford a computer for HA to store HC emails on? There was something about printing. HA's computer could not be configured to allow printing directly from her computer? If HA was to handle, or forward, or print, or whatever, email from HC, then HA needed a secure computer of her own, one set up to do whatever it is they wanted to do. The whole operation sounded like you might expect from the local PTA (no insult to PTAs intended here). Becky does stuff for a local book club. She uses her computer, not mine. Admittedly she does not have NSA level security apparatus on it. But it's for the book club. Let the Russkies hack it if they want to. I did not say "stupid", but I think she lacked good judgment. And really, I think that is a good part of what hurt her. People look at something like that and think "If she can't handle this problem effectively, should she be president?"

 

I repeat: The Dems need to start looking for their own mistakes.Or they couold just hire me to explain it all to them :)

I gather that Hil was snubbed by more "faithless" electors than Trump. Perhaps they too have that answer?

[Winstonm]

I did vote for her. I do not feel the least insulted by what Bill said. I agree with what he said, although maybe not so much with your re-phrasing of what he said. As to HC being stupid, neither Bill nor I have said that. I do believe, and I said long ago, she handled the email matter very badly. And handled it badly from the very beginning. HC was a major party candidate for president. Huma Abedin was a top aide. Why, why, why on God's Green Earth would HA have been putting any HC emails about anything on AW's computer? Forget sexting. Imagine AW a perfect husband. Still! Could they not afford a computer for HA to store HC emails on? There was something about printing. HA's computer could not be configured to allow printing directly from her computer? If HA was to handle, or forward, or print, or whatever, email from HC, then HA needed a secure computer of her own, one set up to do whatever it is they wanted to do. The whole operation sounded like you might expect from the local PTA (no insult to PTAs intended here). Becky does stuff for a local book club. She uses her computer, not mine. Admittedly she does not have NSA level security apparatus on it. But it's for the book club. Let the Russkies hack it if they want to. I did not say "stupid", but I think she lacked good judgment. And really, I think that is a good part of what hurt her. People look at something like that and think "If she can't handle this problem effectively, should she be president?"

 

I repeat: The Dems need to start looking for their own mistakes.Or they couold just hire me to explain it all to them :)

 

Why do we continue to look at Hillary and expect perfection? Compared to Donald Trump, the e-mail matter should not even register on the Richter Scale.

 

I'm not saying she was without fault or that she was even my first choice - all I'm saying is that it is ludicrous to continue to think that anything she could have done with her e-mail could not possibly have risen to the point where she was a poorer choice than Trump and to continue to think there is something there that would justify the vote for Trump is juvenile-like wishful thinking.

[jogs]

Why Trump won. My point of view.

 

WISC, MICH, OHIO and PENN.

 

Everyone expected Hillary to win these four states. Trump campaigned hard in these states. Trump criss-crossed back and forth many times in these states. Hillary ignored them. HRC was too busy fund raising in California and New York. She told layed off workers they will be retrained. High school grads over the age of fifty who lose their jobs can not and will not find jobs which pay as well as jobs they lost.

 

During the industrial age between 1945-85 those with a high school education did financially well. As the world transitioned into the info tech age this group has been left behind. The world strunk. Their jobs were outsourced to 3rd world countries which had less expensive workers. These blue collar workers include people who are white, black and Hispanic. Of course, posters on this board are all college grads and aren't left behind.

The democratic party took for granted the votes of blue collar workers from blue states. The republican party gave up trying for their votes. During the final two weeks up to the election the betting polls had Hillary favored by 68 to 75%. The political polls had her as high as 97%.

Trump campaigned and asked for blue collar workers to vote for him. Trump promised to save their jobs. Hillary promised to retrain them. Of course, Trump wont be able to save all the good paying jobs. He will be able to slow down the outsourcing. The democratic party colored this racist. So why would any high school grad vote for a party which obviously isn't interested in protecting their interest?

[Winstonm]

Why Trump won. My point of view.

 

WISC, MICH, OHIO and PENN.

 

Everyone expected Hillary to win these four states. Trump campaigned hard in these states. Trump criss-crossed back and forth many times in these states. Hillary ignored them. HRC was too busy fund raising in California and New York. She told layed off workers they will be retrained. High school grads over the age of fifty who lose their jobs can not and will not find jobs which pay as well as jobs they lost.

 

During the industrial age between 1945-85 those with a high school education did financially well. As the world transitioned into the info tech age this group has been left behind. The world strunk. Their jobs were outsourced to 3rd world countries which had less expensive workers. These blue collar workers include people who are white, black and Hispanic. Of course, posters on this board are all college grads and aren't left behind.

The democratic party took for granted the votes of blue collar workers from blue states. The republican party gave up trying for their votes. During the final two weeks up to the election the betting polls had Hillary favored by 68 to 75%. The political polls had her as high as 97%.

Trump campaigned and asked for blue collar workers to vote for him. Trump promised to save their jobs. Hillary promised to retrain them. Of course, Trump wont be able to save all the good paying jobs. He will be able to slow down the outsourcing. The democratic party colored this racist. So why would any high school grad vote for a party which obviously isn't interested in protecting their interest?

So why would any high school grad vote for a party which obviously isn't interested in protecting their interest?

Because re-training is the only hope for those folks.

 

Trump cannot deliver on a promise of restoring the past to the present. The biggest mistake made by Clinton was made by Bill when he neglected the effects of globalization on the Midwestern Democratic base - the retraining should have been part of NAFTA and been done years and years ago.

 

Now, we have to speak as adults with adult problems to solve - problems that cannot be solved quickly or easily - and this does not sit well with mid-westerners who still believe that there is a sky fairy who provides miracles.

 

That was Hillary's mistake. She talked to people as if they were adults. Trump talked to people as if they were idiots and they responded.

[kenberg]

Why do we continue to look at Hillary and expect perfection? Compared to Donald Trump, the e-mail matter should not even register on the Richter Scale.

 

I'm not saying she was without fault or that she was even my first choice - all I'm saying is that it is ludicrous to continue to think that anything she could have done with her e-mail could not possibly have risen to the point where she was a poorer choice than Trump and to continue to think there is something there that would justify the vote for Trump is juvenile-like wishful thinking.

 

I said I voted for her. Of course she is not perfect. Nor am I, nor anyone.

 

Bill's point was simple. She deleted and scrubbed because she did not want people reading what she, and others, had written.He did not mention Benghazi.

My point was simple.Her ineffective handling of the email problems cost her votes. Principally because it was so ineffective. Saying she was not perfect would be an understatement.

 

So Bill is being insulting and I am being juvenile. I am recommending a serious consideration of the possibility that Bill and I are correct. I am not claiming it to be the full story, but I do think these are pretty obvious truths, and acknowledging them is a good start.

[Winstonm]

I said I voted for her. Of course she is not perfect. Nor am I, nor anyone.

 

Bill's point was simple. She deleted and scrubbed because she did not want people reading what she, and others, had written.He did not mention Benghazi.

My point was simple.Her ineffective handling of the email problems cost her votes. Principally because it was so ineffective. Saying she was not perfect would be an understatement.

 

So Bill is being insulting and I am being juvenile. I am recommending a serious consideration of the possibility that Bill and I are correct. I am not claiming it to be the full story, but I do think these are pretty obvious truths, and acknowledging them is a good start.

 

I apologize if I came across as insulting as that was not my intention. Let me ask another way. Have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

 

A quick story. In my freshman year in college, I was at a church college and was not fitting in well at all. Near the end of the first semester, I had gone home for the weekend and when I returned to the dormitory there had been a fire. One fine Xtian lad looked me in the eye and said, "I know it was you. I know you did it."

 

How do you combat that? When there is no answer good enough to overcome the bias, how do you fight back?

 

I tell this because I think Hillary found herself in that kind of situation - not just last year but over years and years, dating back to Bill Clinton's run for the Presidency. I remember when I lived in Las Vegas going to listen to this guy named Larry Nichols who supposedly worked for the Clintons in Arkansas and he offered up all sorts of ghastly stories of Clinton conspiracies that would have required Bill to be 1/2 Superman and 1/2 Vito Corleone.

 

So, more to the point - what would you have had her do? Because she was Secretary of State she cannot have any personal secrets? If she doesn't want Fox News to twist every word into a conspiracy she should not eliminate personal e-mails?

 

Hillary is flawed. I understand. But this whole sub-thread started with Kaitlyn writing that Hillary must have been hiding something awful, Bill commented on MikeH's response, and I commented on Bill's take.

 

I personally think that anyone who seriously believes Hillary tried to hide something "bad" in her e-mails is being fed pablum by the anti-Hillary crowd's propaganda and fake news and has been influenced enough by it to believe her capable of such deceit.

 

If she had called Donald Trump a pig in an e-mail I wouldn't care but I would understand her wanting to be rid of it and not letting Fox get ahold of it; however, if she had a personal server connected to Moscow, I would care very much.

 

I'm all for finding the faults of the Democrats - continuing to support anti-Hillary propaganda does not lead to that end.

[Al_U_Card]

 

That was Hillary's mistake. She talked to people as if they were adults. Trump talked to people as if they were idiots and they responded.

And what if it was the other way around?

 

Apparently one man's grim reality is another's flight of fancy.

[kenberg]

I will have to be brief, I am heavily involved in another problem right now. With regard to Hillary, or any high official: But I have a strong preference for not recording every utterance. Not of me, not of anyone. We should be allowed to say things in a badly phrased way, we should be allowed to say things that we later think are not right at all. So I strongly sympathize with her desire to control her email. From the beginning I have felt it certain that this was her intent. Unfortunately, everything gets logged these days.

 

But my point was that once there was a credible legal demand that she turn stuff over, the sensible response would have been, and I guess I am repeating myself, to make damn sure that this is done so completely and with such clarity that she could with confidence assert: You have everything. The stuff showing up on the Wiener computer should not have happened because a. it never should have been there in the first place and b. it should have been turned over. When it did happen, her aide should have been summoned and told "What was there about give them everything that you did not understand?". If the aide persisted in this idea that she had no idea how it got there, she should have been fired on the spot. minor problems become major problems because someone is not doing his/her job. At the top level this is not supposed to happen. It really looked like sloppy management. Sloppy was the part that struck me, and I suspect I am not the only one.

[Al_U_Card]

I will have to be brief, I am heavily involved in another problem right now. With regard to Hillary, or any high official: But I have a strong preference for not recording every utterance. Not of me, not of anyone. We should be allowed to say things in a badly phrased way, we should be allowed to say things that we later think are not right at all. So I strongly sympathize with her desire to control her email. From the beginning I have felt it certain that this was her intent. Unfortunately, everything gets logged these days.

 

But my point was that once there was a credible legal demand that she turn stuff over, the sensible response would have been, and I guess I am repeating myself, to make damn sure that this is done so completely and with such clarity that she could with confidence assert: You have everything. The stuff showing up on the Wiener computer should not have happened because a. it never should have been there in the first place and b. it should have been turned over. When it did happen, her aide should have been summoned and told "What was there about give them everything that you did not understand?". If the aide persisted in this idea that she had no idea how it got there, she should have been fired on the spot. minor problems become major problems because someone is not doing his/her job. At the top level this is not supposed to happen. It really looked like sloppy management. Sloppy was the part that struck me, and I suspect I am not the only one.

I suspect that the Comey business was a maneuver on his part, playing both ends against the middle. Saving face with his FBI cohorts and if Hil wins, he did nothing "wrong" while should Trump win by some fluke, he would be off the hook with the new President.... win-win for him. Cynicism when applicable can be very accurate.

[mikeh]

I will have to be brief, I am heavily involved in another problem right now. With regard to Hillary, or any high official: But I have a strong preference for not recording every utterance. Not of me, not of anyone. We should be allowed to say things in a badly phrased way, we should be allowed to say things that we later think are not right at all. So I strongly sympathize with her desire to control her email. From the beginning I have felt it certain that this was her intent. Unfortunately, everything gets logged these days.

 

But my point was that once there was a credible legal demand that she turn stuff over, the sensible response would have been, and I guess I am repeating myself, to make damn sure that this is done so completely and with such clarity that she could with confidence assert: You have everything. The stuff showing up on the Wiener computer should not have happened because a. it never should have been there in the first place and b. it should have been turned over. When it did happen, her aide should have been summoned and told "What was there about give them everything that you did not understand?". If the aide persisted in this idea that she had no idea how it got there, she should have been fired on the spot. minor problems become major problems because someone is not doing his/her job. At the top level this is not supposed to happen. It really looked like sloppy management. Sloppy was the part that struck me, and I suspect I am not the only one.

She turned over everything that the subpoena required. Lost in all the noise and the chants of Lock Her Up is this basic fact. The subpoena, as I understand it, was for all government business related emails. Now, it is possible to suspect, with no evidentiary basis other than all the hate and lies thrown at her over other matters, that she deleted government emails, but the FBI had NO suspicion that such happened, at least not based on anything they said. Given that Comey was either incredibly naïve (and who the heck makes to FBI Director and is naïve?) or trying to hurt Clinton, I think it pretty reasonable to infer that the FBI knew damn well that there were no suspiciously deleted emails.

 

As for Weiner: wtf? There has been zero....zero....suggestion that there were ANY emails on his computer, from or to Clinton, that hadn't been disclosed or that should have been disclosed.

 

It just shows how devastating the FBI announcements were when one of the more level-headed posters on this site thinks that she had any control over what Weiner had, or that Weiner had anything that hadn't been disclosed or that she disobeyed a subpoena. It was a travesty: a triumph of the Big Lie by Trump and his surrogates, aided by the republican Director of the FBI