Details of how Trump is our next president

[calmissile]

Already it is known that some of the info was from spy satellites, so, not only was the info gathered by the satellite put at risk, but the capabilities of what the satellite is capable of, may also have been disclosed (which is also classified, I gather).  Highly Classified

Reading about the security issue with the email server (that is the security of the OS and how it was configured) makes it clear that there was never any serious attempt to secure it.  True

Finally, I do wonder about this: the emails were provided, but, some of those documents had to have originally been Word or Excel or PDF documents. And they always have authorship and date created/date updated timestamps included in the "meta data" of the document. 

IF the emails were printed out, that information would not be provided... so what was the format of the info given to the investigators? 

My understanding (I could be wrong) is that basically they hooked up a high speed laser printer and printed them all out, thus inhibiting any of the metadata from being studied.  Clever, wans't she?  Hopefully, some of the original computer files were recovered.

[tfcrew]

First of all, I don't recall documents being rubber stamped "Classified".  They are stamped 'Confidentail', 'Secret', or 'Top Secret' or higher designations.  So while she might be correct that none were marked 'Classified' she is not saying none were marked with the proper level of classification.  Having followed the Clinton's for many years, this simple choice of words would seem typical of her lawyering to mislead and deceive.  You will notice that she is very careful with her words and I don't believe I have heard her state that none were marked Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret.  Instead she uses the deceiving term of classified.

 Top secret is the highest designation. Meaning that it could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security if it was released without authorization. This level needs to be reinvestigated every five years.
Correct that classified info is marked confidential, secret or top secret. She is telling the truth that no correspondence was marked 'clssified'  ..........slick

 

[BillyB]

Based upon the limited information realeased about Hillary's emails it is my best guess that she will be indicted.

The FBI can recommend indictment but it's up to Obama to tell his attorney general to follow the FBI's recommendation so don't expect Hillary to get in trouble.


Although there is said to be a culture in our government of other high level officials using private emails for government business but none of them erased 30,000 emails. It may never be know what all Hillary erased.


What is disappointing is Obama promised more transparency during his presidency yet it seems more things are done in a way it's difficult for the public to follow. Using government emails gives more opportunity for the public to watch what our government is doing and knowing they are watched, they are more likely to do a better job and less likely to fall down the path of corruption. Obama should also step up and say all these private emails his personnel are using are unacceptable and will take action to reverse the trend.

Correct that classified info is marked confidential, secret or top secret. She is telling the truth that no correspondence was marked 'clssified'  ..........slick

 

She's not dumb. She knew when she read certain emails, they were top secret yet she didn't stop the flow of those type of emails to her private email account.

[ML]

Analysis shows how, if Trump continues to get same percentage of votes as up to now, he will have the 1237 delegates before the convention starts.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/upshot/trump-cruz-kasich-republican-delegate-lead.html?_r=0

[LAman]

Analysis shows how, if Trump continues to get same percentage of votes as up to now, he will have the 1237 delegates before the convention starts.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/upshot/trump-cruz-kasich-republican-delegate-lead.html?_r=0

You know ML......can you imagine how different the world would be if 'IF'S" mattered???? The list/s are endless!!

[Faux Pas]

You know ML......can you imagine how different the world would be if 'IF'S" mattered???? The list/s are endless!!

If if's and's or but's were all candies and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas

[GatoMoon]

Can you give me text phone number in hell? 

[mendeleyev]

This is a fascinating article on how a Putin-Trump relationship might look if Mr. Trump were elected.

As an independent, I have yet to figure how I will vote. Hell will freeze over before I stoop so low as to mark a ballot for Clinton or Sanders, but I find myself without a home in the other party as well. That is all being said so that you will not think that there is an agenda behind posting this article.

I found the article fascinating because the author, the blog is called "no bs russia" seems to understand Putin fairly well. I tend to agree with many of his conclusions about the two men and their potential relationship, but again wish to stress that at this point I am not "for" any particular American presidential candidate.

http://nobsrussia.com/2016/03/17/not-gonna-happen/

[BillyB]

I found the article fascinating because the author, the blog is called "no bs russia" seems to understand Putin fairly well. I tend to agree with many of his conclusions about the two men and their potential relationship, but again wish to stress that at this point I am not "for" any particular American presidential candidate.

http://nobsrussia.com/2016/03/17/not-gonna-happen/

Just as Trump has changed his views on some immigration issues, he's changing his views about Putin. A recent online ad by Trump has lumped Putin and ISIS together as some of America's toughest opponents. Moscow is not happy.


http://news.yahoo.com/kremlin-criticizes-trump-ad-sees-demonization-russia-141348983--politics.html

[tfcrew]

Can you give me text phone number in hell?

[2tallbill]

Top secret is the highest designation. Meaning that it could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security if it was released without authorization. This level needs to be reinvestigated every five years.
Correct that classified info is marked confidential, secret or top secret. She is telling the truth that no correspondence was marked 'clssified'  ..........slick

 

They have classifications higher than top secret. SCI is for Sensitive compartmentalized
information and SAP special access programs, I know this from reading spy/action/thriller 
novels rather than working at some job.

[tfcrew]

They have classifications higher than top secret. SCI is for Sensitive compartmentalized
information .............

Release of such information would make our country look stupid and silly & would cause irreversible damage. Shudder to think

[ML]

Criteria

[Darth_Budda]

Trump,, will win,, I think..

Unless H.C. drops out of the race..

Or bernie wins big in California..

[Anotherkiwi]

Trump,, will win,, I think..

Unless H.C. drops out of the race..

Or bernie wins big in California..

Just to let you guys know - we have room for a few more refugees, although we're quite selective.  Those with beautiful FSU wives can book a place at the head of the queue - with extra points if they bring their unmarried sisters or daughters (of an appropriate age). 

[ML]

I am pleased to announce that I have chosen Governor Mike Pence as my Vice Presidential running mate. News conference tomorrow at 11:00 A.M.

[ML]

New swing-state polls released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University show Trump leading Clinton in Florida and Pennsylvania — and tied in the critical battleground state of Ohio. In three of the states that matter most in November, the surveys point to a race much closer than the national polls, which have Clinton pegged to a significant, mid-single-digit advantage over Trump, suggest.

The race is so close that it's within the margin of error in each of the three states. Trump leads by three points in Florida — the closest state in the 2012 election — 42 percent to 39 percent. In Ohio, the race is tied, 41 percent to 41 percent. And in Pennsylvania — which hasn't voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1988 — Trump leads, 43 percent to 41 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016-election/2016/07/trump-has-edge-in-key-states-225442#ixzz4EUXLzgS3
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[Brasscasing]

New swing-state polls released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University show Trump leading Clinton in Florida and Pennsylvania — and tied in the critical battleground state of Ohio. In three of the states that matter most in November, the surveys point to a race much closer than the national polls, which have Clinton pegged to a significant, mid-single-digit advantage over Trump, suggest.

The race is so close that it's within the margin of error in each of the three states. Trump leads by three points in Florida — the closest state in the 2012 election — 42 percent to 39 percent. In Ohio, the race is tied, 41 percent to 41 percent. And in Pennsylvania — which hasn't voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1988 — Trump leads, 43 percent to 41 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016-election/2016/07/trump-has-edge-in-key-states-225442#ixzz4EUXLzgS3
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

I think there's also another 2nd and growing problem for the Clinton campaign - Minority voters will be swearing up and down in public that they're not going to vote for Trump but have already decided that they will vote for him come election day.

In other words, it's not fashionable to say you're a Trump supporter right now even if you are. I believe there's even a term for this phenomenon but it escapes me.

Brass

[Larry1]

I think there's also another 2nd and growing problem for the Clinton campaign - Minority voters will be swearing up and down in public that they're not going to vote for Trump but have already decided that they will vote for him come election day.

In other words, it's not fashionable to say you're a Trump supporter right now even if you are. I believe there's even a term for this phenomenon but it escapes me.

Brass

I think it's called the Bradley effect.

[ML]

Couldn't find a good place to put this, and didn't want to start a new thread, so . . .

As I mentioned before, I am really disillusioned with even PBS with their very biased coverage of Donald Trump.

I used to have great respect for Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifil, but it is now gone.

I recorded last night's News Hour and the so called "Commander in Chief" Q & A hosted by Matt Lauer.

While eating our evening meal, we first watched the News Hour.  Judy fed the expert some of Donald's comments concerning Putin . . . and it didn't look good.  And the same with some other topics.

Then Judy had on two experts to talk about Donald's tax returns and his expertise in running businesses.  I about crapped when it was revealed that one of the experts was from the Washington Post and the other from Bloomberg.

Where the fock was the 'other side?'

Then I watched the Commander in Chief segment while Ochka had to go prepare some exam materials.

Yes, Donald said mostly the words that Judy fed to the expert, but . . . he elaborated extensively after those words to give a substantially different picture of what he really meant concerning Putin and related matters.

And the same with some of the other topics where Judy had fed some words to the experts.  She is really quite clever at looking impartial while 'feeding' just the right words out.

[Larry1]

Couldn't find a good place to put this, and didn't want to start a new thread, so . . .

As I mentioned before, I am really disillusioned with even PBS with their very biased coverage of Donald Trump.

I used to have great respect for Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifil, but it is now gone.

I recorded last night's News Hour and the so called "Commander in Chief" Q & A hosted by Matt Lauer.

While eating our evening meal, we first watched the News Hour.  Judy fed the expert some of Donald's comments concerning Putin . . . and it didn't look good.  And the same with some other topics.

Then Judy had on two experts to talk about Donald's tax returns and his expertise in running businesses.  I about crapped when it was revealed that one of the experts was from the Washington Post and the other from Bloomberg.

Where the fock was the 'other side?'

Then I watched the Commander in Chief segment while Ochka had to go prepare some exam materials.

Yes, Donald said mostly the words that Judy fed to the expert, but . . . he elaborated extensively after those words to give a substantially different picture of what he really meant concerning Putin and related matters.

And the same with some of the other topics where Judy had fed some words to the experts.  She is really quite clever at looking impartial while 'feeding' just the right words out.

It would help if you didn't think of most of these people as journalists but as Democrat operatives with bylines. They'll do whatever it takes to help their candidate win. They have typically put their fingers on the scales, but this year they would arrange to all jump in the air at the count of three and land hard on the scales.

[ML]

Today from realclearpolitics.com

Florida     Trump  0.1
Ohio        Clinton  0.3
Michigan  Clinton  5.6
Penn       Clinton  6.2
Virginia   Clinton  3.7
N.C.        Clinton  0.8
Georgia   Trump   2.0
N. H.       Clinton  5.0
Wisc.       Clinton  5.3
Iowa        Trump   0.8

Electoral College

Clinton   209
Trump    154
Toss-up  175

[jone]

The Clinton lead in some of the toss-up states will not be for long as some of these states have no polling data since Hillary began her slide.

[John of Hesperia]

The Clinton lead in some of the toss-up states will not be for long as some of these states have no polling data since Hillary began her slide.

Not to mention her 9/11 performance.

She will be lucky to make it to election day!

[jone]

Hillary's slide continues as both North Carolina and Nevada showing Trump in the lead in latest polls.  The reason RCP doesn't have Trump leading there is the average is including polls from August.

An interesting thing about two states:  Maine and Nebraska.  While the electoral college is made up of the number of House of Representatives and the two Senators from each state, these two states allow their Congressional Districts to nominate their electors.  Accordingly, Maine, while technically in the Clinton camp, will probably have one elector voting for Trump as he is up by 10% in that district.  Nebraska is solidly Republican so no split will occur there.

If more states used the divided formula, States that normally vote Red or Blue would get some love during the Presidential elections.   The only way we see either of the candidates in Los Angeles is when they come out here to fund raise.

I've noticed that RCP does not include the LA Times poll which shows Trump up by 6 points.  Such would skew the average, heavily, and show him up by two percentage points.  I guess it is an outlier poll.

I note, with some level of uncomfortablity, that should Trump win the election, chances are the Senate would remain with the Republicans (it is already leaning that way).   This would give Republicans both houses and the Presidency.  The only method for the Dems to block legislation would be the Filibuster.  That is a very poor way to govern.