Friday, September 02, 2016

Election over. Trump became president today.

The Clintons were targeted for an attack by someone using TOR:
An unknown individual using the encrypted privacy tool Tor to hide their tracks accessed an email account on a Clinton family server, the FBI revealed Friday.

The incident appears to be the first confirmed intrusion into a piece of hardware associated with Hillary Clinton’s private email system, which originated with a server established for her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

The FBI disclosed the event in its newly released report on the former secretary of state’s handling of classified information.

According to the bureau’s review of server logs, someone accessed an email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor “exit nodes” — jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public internet.
Note the date. This occurred pretty much after her tenure as Secretary of State was over, though technically she retained the office for a few more weeks. Moreover, it wasn't even Hillary's account...

So there was an attempt to hack a server that belonged to a staffer for Bill Clinton at the very end of Hillary Clinton's tenure as SOS. I don't see how this is Hillary's fault. As I've mentioned in these pages several times, my old Yahoo account was once hacked, back in 2008. Was that my fault?

Nevertheless, the right wing press and the mainstream press is crucifying her.

She can't survive this. I know that the situation is utterly unfair. Nevertheless, she cannot survive this.

This pseudoscandal will be spun and spun hard, by conservatives and liberals alike, with the same tiny little pseudoscandalous points repeated over and over and over.

For chrissakes, why are those (c) markings still considered news? It's been months! And the news stories never tell readers there there were no classification marks in the headers, or that the data points in those three small paragraphs was deemed to be unimportant piffle that should never even have received a "confidential" marking.

Most Americans won't read the report or what Comey has actually said: His words exonerate her. Trump keeps saying that Hillary intentionally deleted 30,000 emails, but he's out-and-out lying. Trump never investigated the situation; Comey did -- and here's what Comey had to say:
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.
Hillary didn't try to hide anything. She did not delete work-related emails. Comey has proven that Trump is a liar.

But you know what? People won't pay attention to the details. Most people can't even follow the details.

Most people will seek a nice, simple summary of the situation -- and Donald Trump has one.
“Hillary Clinton’s answers to the FBI about her private email server defy belief," Trump said. 'I was absolutely shocked to see that her answers to the FBI stood in direct contradiction to what she told the American people. After reading these documents, I really don’t understand how she was able to get away from prosecution.”
None of this is true. There are no direct contradictions. If there were, the Clinton campaign would not have been on record as wanting those notes released to the public (which, in fact, they were).

I take no pleasure in saying that the election is over, but I don't see how Hillary Clinton can recover. Once again, as in 2000 and 2004, the Republicans are going to put an inferior candidate in office by smearing a good and decent public servant. But this situation is far more dire, because Trump is far more dangerous than Dubya.

I'm not the kind of guy who gets choked up easily, but I'm near tears. God knows I take no pleasure in saying any of this. The election is over and Trump won.
*rolls eyes* Oh, why don't you just add "The sky is falling!" while you're at it?

When you want to bury a story, you release it the Friday before a holiday weekend. The Rethugs would have seen to it that it was released at a better time if there was anything more than a big, fat nothingburger in it.

This is not 2000, and this is no longer the country of the DAWBs. If the Orange Grifter does "win", he will owe it to Putin's hackers--and they'll have to be better than the counter-measures of our national security establishment, which does NOT want the Grifter.
Truly I think you need to take a break from posting. I am really getting pissed off with this negative bullshit you are posting.
This is a big nothing, and I think you know it.
My advice, Joseph, is to take a break from the blog until after the election when Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the U.S.
The result has never,ever been in doubt this election. The GOP establishment doesn't even support Trump.
Ivory Billed Woodpecker is right. So am I.
Let me ask you, my friend. (And I do mean this in a friendly way.) When have I been wrong this season? God knows, in past cycles my predictions have not always proven spot on -- and yes, I have always tended to predict negative outcomes rather than positive ones.

But in this cycle, I was THE first writer, mainstream or fringe or anywhere in-between, who said that Putin was covertly working to put Trump in office. Here:

I dare you to find any writer before June 16 who was saying the things I said there. At the time, my suggestion was considered bizarre and off-the-wall. Now, it is widely accepted.

I also said from the beginning that there were links between the Bernie Sanders campaign and Roger Stone. Nobody believed me. Hell, I lost a friend over that one. Then we learned about Tad Devine, partner to Paul Manafort -- which puts him directly in the Stone orbit.

I told people that Bernie would never release his tax returns because something in his finances rendered him open to blackmail. People scoffed. Bernie supporters believed his lame assurances that the taxes would be made available within a very short time.

Well, the deadline kept getting extended, didn't it? I was right in predicting that the day would NEVER come.

When Hillary had a double-digit lead I was still predicting that Trump would catch up. People said I was nuts. Some people were talking about a 1972-style landslide. Well, here we are: Hillary is only 1.4 points ahead of Trump in the TPM poll aggregation.

I was talking about a made-in-Russia October Surprise in June and July, if memory serves. People scoffed then. Now, everyone expects what I expect.

During the primaries, I told BernieBros that Trump's ties to the neocons were far more profound than Hillary's. People practically spat in my face. Now we know that Trump is being advised by Joseph Schmitz and that he has the full support of Michael Ledeen and Sheldon Adelson, and that Trump intends to scuttle the treaty with Iran.

I could go on and on. The point is this: You may think that I'm bragging about my record as a Cassandra, but the honest fact is that I wish to hell I had NOT been right. At this point, crow would taste delicious.

Well, I'm now predicting that before the end of Tuesday, one or more of the major poll aggregator sites will put Trump ahead.

If I am wrong -- and I HOPE I am! -- I promise to be very gracious in my concession to you.

Will you do likewise if YOU are wrong?
did somebody hack into ABC and post this story. It can't be real. The description of Snopes surprised me.

Obama bans pledge of allegiance
So Apparently ABC did not bother to purchase the .co domain address, Gasp.
Madoka damn it, Joe, I'm not mad at you, though maybe I chose my words poorly in the first post on this thread, and so I sounded like I was. If that be the case, I apologize.

I'm worried about you. As I said, in a different way, last thread, I think you've (metaphorically) been hanging out with the wrong crowd, and it's starting to affect your mind adversely. Also, this constant anxiety is not good for your circulatory system.

I don't disagree that all the dirty tricks you mention are happening, or at least could happen. I just don't think there are enough voters who are both undecided, and gullible enough, that the dirty tricks would make the difference between victory and defeat for the Orange Grifter.

As I've mentioned before, my only real concern is Putin's gremlins hacking into the voting computers. (See? I don't deny the Putin connection.) We need to get rid of those Madoka-damned voting computers and go back to old-fashioned, publicly counted, paper ballots.
The average person planning to vote for Hillary is not paying any attention to the emails any more. They decided the emails do not matter and these additional stories don't change that. They don't read the conservative websites where they are parsing documents and claiming all kinds of things about Hillary's emails. This will not change the election because most people don't want to get involved with minute details about her emails. They stop paying attention when the subject comes up.

Trump is losing because the press has decided he is failing as a candidate. That is the only story that matters in this election.

You can be right about all of these details and utterly wrong about how they affect the election. You should have more faith in the average voter's desire to avoid thinking about anything complicated.
I was switching between cable networks for about 4 hours. Nothing but trump. With all the free publicity what is he needing money for
Here's a better summary of the FBI report than Trump's:

"[The FBI] report is pretty much an almost complete exoneration of Hillary Clinton.

"She wasn't prohibited from using a personal device or a personal email account, and others at state did it routinely.

"She's told the truth all along about why she did it. [Although she had multiple devices over four years, only one was used at a time.]

"Colin Powell did indeed advise her about using personal email shortly after she took office, but she chose to follow the rules rather than skirt them, as Powell did.

"She didn't take her BlackBerry into her office.

"She communicated with only a very select group of 13 people.

"She took no part in deciding which emails were personal before handing them over to State.

"She had nothing to do with erasing information on the PRN server. That was a screw-up on PRN's end.

"She and her staff all believed at the time that they were careful not to conduct sensitive conversations over unclassified email systems.

"And there's no evidence that her server was ever hacked."

Thanks to Kevin Drum:

Tweet this information to every person in the media you can think of, using this short link to my Facebook post. -
Reuters just reported that Trump's last FEC filing period shows he is not paying 10 of his top staffers. Manafort wasn't paid, and Kellyanne Conway wasn't paid. Another top aide was asked if he had been volunteering, and he said no, he just hadn't been paid on invoices sent to the campaign. A few have departed for SuperPACs where they have been paid, meanwhile, such as Chris Christie ($60k).

This is what a campaign does when it is strapped for cash. Well, normally, they lay off people, or as JEB! did, cut salaries across the board (but still pay everyone left something). Scrimping on paying top aides is most unusual.

Why polls tighten:

Early in the polling, the registered voters (RV) screen is used by most pollsters. Now, most use the likely voter screen (LV). This always favors the R side, since more of their voters are LVs. By itself, that is a 3-4% difference in the polls on the same electorate, without any change in sentiment.

Early on, the polling was always the two major party candidates head-to-head. Now it is increasingly a four-way poll, including Johnson and Stein. That further reduces the numbers relative to a head-to-head poll.

Some good part of the apparent decline in HRC's lead is from these two artifacts. All? Most? I cannot quantify it, but these are well known effects that must be taken into account before we can tell how much, if at all, the polling shows the electorate sentiment actually changed, or only apparently changed. However, had either been in effect in the early going, there would have been no double digit lead.

Deus ex machina D saver: the potential Latino turnout. Their normal turnout is among the lowest of any cohort. That past history is reflected in the weighting modeling of the prospective Latino share of the voting. What is also happening is a large registration effort among them in order to vote against Trump. 1,000 Puerto Ricans are moving to Florida a week (fleeing the economy down there). If the Latinos are motivated to turnout better, they can easily be 2% more of the final electorate than is projected, and that is not represented in the polling numbers. If Trump does not win Florida, his path to 270 is impossible.

Everybody whistle harder!


I don't see how HRC can win.
Everyone knows:
She lied about her husband's affair. (She didn't).
She lied about the terrorist attacked at Benghazi. (She didn't).
She set up her private email server in order to hide from the public her nefarious dealings with questionable characters. (She didn't).
She used her unsecured personal email server to send work related classified documents. She then deleted these emails to hide the evidence. (She didn't).
She used the Clinton Foundation donations for pay to play deals at the State Department and somehow benefited personally from these deals. (She didn't).
That her personal email server was hacked and classified documents were stolen. (It wasn't).
She lied to Congress about the emails. (She didn't).
That she lies about everything and cannot be trusted. (She has told the truth on every one of these incidences).

There is nothing that she can say or do to change these false beliefs. And each time she tries it just proves that she is telling the truth it proves that she is a lier.

However, the Clinton-smearing industry has been successful enough that if the Republican Party had not been taken over by its loony haters--so that an old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy, moderate Republican could still be nominated for President by the GOP--then that hypothetical moderate Republican probably would be running off with the election.
@W. Webber: The question is--how many of the people who believe the anti-Clinton smears are people who would vote for Clinton without them? I don't think there are many people who believe the crap (which you correctly identified as crap) who would ever vote for Clinton anyway.


(1) Ground game strength doesn't prove itself until Election Day.

(2) The debates haven't happened yet.

(3) Maybe Hillary's campaign is going to take some of their greater sum of money and buy the kinds of ads Joe suggested.

(4) Perhaps most importantly, the Corporate Media are biased toward the Orange Grifter because they want a horse race, for the sake of their precious ratings--but how many people take the Corporate Media seriously any more?
Joseph - Hi again! I stopped reading your blog through the primaries because of your views on Bernie Sanders. Thinking it'd be relatively safe here again by now, I popped in but still find you can't help but mention Bernie in a negative way, even though he's out of the picture, and supporting Herself as he promised to do from the start.

I decided to comment today, though, because what you are going to do, if not careful, is initiate a self-fulfilling prophecy. These do happen - it's not mere superstition. Take care!
oh gawd. I read al kinds of news, but i wouldn't read a single one of these email articles. Its only rapids and media, but the frame they are working on, Clinton lies, is effective.

Still Clinton won this election when the Republicans chose Trump in NH. It isn't even close.
"The poll, which was commissioned by America’s Voice and conducted by Latino Decisions, finds Hillary Clinton leading Donald Drumpf by 70-19 among Latinos. That’s worse than Mitt Romney’s 27 percent in 2012."

In other news.
In other words, Ivory Bill, if you fear the Russians can hack the vote, you're agreeing with Joseph. Just like 2000, the media narrative is needed to explain away the fraud.

What anonymous 1220 said: every channel is all Trump, all the time.

I do think XI is right, tho, about the latino vote. Joseph, make that Taco Tuesday image for election day, please!!!

Joseph, one thing I've learned about Americans since I moved back here about a decade ago, right in time for the financial crisis, which I foresaw and warned friends about, is that they pride themselves on a combination of banality, obliviousness and ahistoricity that they mistake for a stiff upper-lip, savviness and perspective.

People will call you chicken little because they don't want to feel anything about politics; because they don't have historical consciousness; and because they're afraid and can't process the fear. The fact is that a neo-fascist is rapidly climbing in the polls and has a shot at the presidency. We should all be properly alarmed. Americans have a hard time with that. It's one of the reasons a neo-fascist is rapidly climbing in the polls.

I think James Comey has committed treason against when he stated that public officials only carry truthful documentation on their social media devices, therefore hacking into them would be terrible for the United States.

Why don't our officials mix in contradictory info that only they can decipher and why is Comey telling the world that that is not the american way?

If its all a ruse, then what gives Comey the right to damage a presidential candidate's standing with the public for his ulterior motives?
Comey needs to be held accountable.
I was going to say you are being silly.

Then I read this piece in the nyt.

Dear lord, even the nyt wants her to lose.
WTF? Relax Chicken Little, doesn't matter what comes out. Heck, there could be an email addressed to Anon Hitman, here is a new target...this time at least steal his watch.


Hillary will just point out everyone has already gone over this material and no charges are being brought...cause nothing here is important.

Hey, checkout this new Weiner tweet...that's a real dick.

1 week later, nobody is talking about it except Alex Jones. ALL GOOD !!

I obviously (unlike everyone else here) don't think for 2 seconds Clinton is honest & clean and certainly not worth 10 grand a minute for anything she might utter BUT Trump cannot get elected and I am confident she knows how to make that happen (wink).

On Donald Trump's recent visit to a mainly black church congregation in the devastated city of Detroit, a Christian pastor gave him a prayer shawl.

That link goes to the video.

As the pastor unfolds the shawl, he refers to the disabled woman who had "the issue of blood" and who was healed when she touched Jesus's clothing. (Accounts are given in Matthew 9, Mark 5, and Luke 8).

The woman's faith made her whole again. Ring any bells?

Antichrist - False Messiah - Dajjal

Expect more of this.
Correction. And when she tries to correct these false beliefs, it's taken as more proof that she is a lier.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?