Clinton e-mailgate

Political discussions

How big a problem is this for Hillary in '16?

Meh, not a big deal
5
14%
Moderate, along the lines of Christie's Bridgegate
3
8%
Huge
22
59%
Pee in GATW's butt
7
19%
 
Total votes: 37

User avatar
DSUrocks07
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 5077
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:32 pm
I am a fan of: Delaware State
A.K.A.: phillywild305
Location: The 9th Circle of Hellaware

Re: RE: Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby DSUrocks07 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:58 pm

Skjellyfetti wrote:Was I blaming Bush? :?

Simply pointing out that Putin has schooled non-Democrats. He will school Trump, Hillary, Gary Johnson, and I can't even fathom how bad he would school Jill Stein.

But, you're right. It's verboten to criticize that last President. I'm sure all criticism of Obama will stop next January. :jack:

That doesn't sound like "Hope and Change" to me :coffee:

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
DSU's Clip of the Week (or until I feel like changing it)
phpBB [video]


@phillywild305 FB

houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 15092
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: RE: Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby houndawg » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:30 am

DSUrocks07 wrote:
Skjellyfetti wrote:Was I blaming Bush? :?

Simply pointing out that Putin has schooled non-Democrats. He will school Trump, Hillary, Gary Johnson, and I can't even fathom how bad he would school Jill Stein.

But, you're right. It's verboten to criticize that last President. I'm sure all criticism of Obama will stop next January. :jack:


That doesn't sound like "Hope and Change" to me :coffee:

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


Sounds more like big dumb flatfoots that don't have the wits to keep up with a smart crook. They haven't laid a glove on her in decades of trying - they're just to damn dumb to be running the country. Hell, who would have believed that they possessed the capacity to fvck up a Presidency that was all but gift-wrapped? :coffee:

Stupid conk fvcks. :ohno:
Subvert the dominant paradigm

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 16221
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: RE: Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby CID1990 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:27 am

houndawg wrote:
DSUrocks07 wrote:
That doesn't sound like "Hope and Change" to me :coffee:

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


Sounds more like big dumb flatfoots that don't have the wits to keep up with a smart crook. They haven't laid a glove on her in decades of trying - they're just to damn dumb to be running the country. Hell, who would have believed that they possessed the capacity to fvck up a Presidency that was all but gift-wrapped? :coffee:

Stupid conk fvcks. :ohno:


I like how you can spin the final liberal dive into total banana republicry as a conservative failure.

But given that conservatives truly are supposed to be the adults in the room I tend to agree with you
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 10935
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: RE: Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby GannonFan » Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:44 am

CID1990 wrote:
houndawg wrote:
Sounds more like big dumb flatfoots that don't have the wits to keep up with a smart crook. They haven't laid a glove on her in decades of trying - they're just to damn dumb to be running the country. Hell, who would have believed that they possessed the capacity to fvck up a Presidency that was all but gift-wrapped? :coffee:

Stupid conk fvcks. :ohno:


I like how you can spin the final liberal dive into total banana republicry as a conservative failure.

But given that conservatives truly are supposed to be the adults in the room I tend to agree with you


Well, with the GOP not functioning as an effective opposition party, the Dems are left to flounder on their own without proper bearings.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
Skjellyfetti
Anal
Anal
Posts: 11171
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
I am a fan of: Appalachian

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby Skjellyfetti » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:02 pm

Pretty good explanation of why Clinton wasn't charged in the IG report. I thought she should have been charged with obstruction at the very least - but, this is a pretty good argument and I'm swayed.

As summarized below, the Midyear prosecutors concluded that there was not a basis to prosecute former Secretary Clinton, her senior aides, or others under any of these statutes. The prosecutors cited the following factual conclusions from the investigation as critical to its recommendation not to prosecute:



None of the emails contained clear classification markings as required under Executive Order 13526 and its predecessor. Only three email chains contained any classification markings of any kind. These email chains had one or two para
graphs that were marked “(C)” for “Confidential” but contained none of the other required markings
, such as classification headers.


There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information. In the absence of clear classification markings, the prosecutors determined that it would be difficult to dispute the sincerity of these witnesses

stated beliefs that the material was not classified.


The senders and former Secretary Clinton relied on the judgment of employees experienced in protecting sensitive information to properly handle classified information.


The emails in question were sent to other government officials in furtherance of the senders

official duties. There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton intended that classified information be sent to unauthorized recipients, or that they intentionally sought to store classified information on unauthorized systems.


There was no evidence that former Secretary Clinton had any contemporaneous concerns about the classified status of the information that was conveyed on her unclassified systems, nor any evidence that any individual ever contemporaneously conveyed such concerns to her.


Although some witnesses expressed concern or surprise when they saw some of the classified content in unclassified emails, the prosecutors concluded that the investigation did not reveal evidence that any U.S. government employees involved in the SAP willfully communicated the information to a person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retained the same.


The senders used unclassified emails beca
use of “operational tempo,”
that is, the need to get information quickly to senior State Department officials at times when the recipients lacked access to classified systems. To accomplish this, senders often refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to avoid transmitting classified information.


There was no evidence that Clinton set up her servers or private email account with the intent of communicating or retaining classified information, or that she had knowledge that classified information would be communicated or retained on it.

In addition to these facts as described by the prosecutors, various witnesses told us that one reason it was difficult to establish intent was that the mishandling of
classified information was a persistent practice at the State Department. These practices made it difficult for the Midyear team to conclude that particular individuals had the necessary criminal intent to mishandle classified materials.
According to Prosecutor 4, “
[T]he problem was the State Department was so screwed up in the way they treated classified information that if you wanted to prosecute Hillary Clinton, you would have had to prosecute 150 State Department
people.”
Based on facts evincing a lack of intent to communicate classified information on unclassified systems, the prosecutors concluded that there was no basis to recommend prosecution of former Secretary Clinton or the senders of classified information under Sections 793(d) or (e). In addition, as described in Chapter Two, prosecutors reviewed the legislative history of the gross negligence provision in Section 793(f)(1) and court decisions impacting the interpretation of it. The prosecutors noted that the congressional debate at the time the predecessor to Section 793(f)(1) was passed indicated that conduct charged under the
provision must be “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just a little short of being willful.”

The prosecutors also reviewed military and federal court cases and previous prosecutions under Section 793(f)(1), and concluded that they involved either a defendant who knowingly removed classified information from a secure facility, or inadvertently removed classified information from a secure facility
and, upon learning this, failed to report its “loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction.”
In addition, based on a review of constitutional vagueness challenges of Sections 793(d) and (e), the Midyear prosecutors observed
that “the government would very
likely face a colorable constitutional challenge to the statute if it prosecuted an individual for gross negligence who was both unaware he had removed classified
information at the time of the removal and never became aware he had done so.”

The prosecutors concluded that based on case law and the Department’s
prior interpretation of the statute, charging a violation of Section 793(f) likely required evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified
information “knowingly” included the classified information or transferred classified
information onto unclassified systems (Section 793(f)(1)), or learned that classified information had been transferred to unclassified systems and failed to report it (Section 793(f)(2)). Applying this interpretation, the prosecutors concluded that there was no evidence that the senders of emails knew that classified information had been improperly transferred to an unclassified system, or that former Secretary Clinton acted in a grossly negligent manner with respect to receiving emails determined to contain classified information. According to information reviewed by the OIG, the prosecutors also considered whether the decision to conduct official business using a personal server could itself constitute gross negligence, but concluded that there was no evidence that former Secretary Clinton ever considered the possibility that classified information would be present in unclassified emails or on her private email server.

Distinguishing military prosecutions
for “grossly negligent” mishandling
, the prosecutors also noted that there was no evidence that classified emails were provided to or discovered by people who were unauthorized to receive them. The prosecutors
stated, “[A]ll of the emails containing information subsequently
determined to be classified were sent for work purposes and were delivered to
State Department or other U.S. government officials.”
Regarding Section 1924, the prosecutors stated that the statute requires proof that an individual knew of the removal of classified information and intended to retain that information in an unauthorized location, and that such proof was lacking. The prosecutors cited the absence of classification markings on the emails sent by the senders, with the exception of the three emails forwarded to Clinton containing paragraph markings denoting Confidential information, as well as the lack of evidence that the senders knowingly took classified information and sent it in unmarked emails over unclassified systems. The prosecutors similarly concluded that former Secretary Clinton did not recognize or have reason to believe that the information sent to her contained classified information. Prosecutors cited Clinton

s reliance on the judgment of senior aides and other State Department staff, their attempts to talk around sensitive information in unclassified emails, and her testimony that she did not have reason to question their use of unclassified systems to send that information. The prosecutors concluded that the evidence was insufficient to charge former Secretary Clinton under Section 1924. The prosecutors also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which prohibits the willful concealment, removal, or destruction of federal records. They concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that former Secretary Clinton or her senior aides intended to conceal records, citing testimony that these witnesses expected that any emails sent to a state.gov address would be preserved. The prosecutors acknowledged that this testimony was undercut by former Secretary Clinton

s admission that she sometimes communicated with her senior aides using their personal email accounts, as well as an email she received from former Secretary of State Colin Powell at the beginning of her tenure outlining his use of personal email. However, the prosecutors noted that Section 2071 had
“never been used to prosecute individuals for attempting to avoid Federal Records
Act requirements by failing to ensure that government records are filed
appropriately.”
Finally, the prosecutors evaluated whether Mills and Samuelson intentionally deleted emails during the culling process used to separate former Secretary Clinton’s “personal” and “work-related” emails for production to the State Department. They concluded that there was no evidence that emails intentionally were deleted by former Secretary Clinton’s lawyers to conceal the presence of classified information on former Secretary Clinton’s server, particularly because some of the emails produced as “work-related” later were determined to contain
highly classified, compartmented information.


He goes on to analyze their decision on page 260 and agrees with their conclusions. It's pretty long and the formatting is hard to copy and paste.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3818065 ... estigation
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 14995
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby JohnStOnge » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:36 pm

The bottom line of the IG report appears to be that, though there was some questionable individual behavior, there is no evidence that the FBI or the Justice Department acted in a biased manner.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 10418
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby SDHornet » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:18 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:The bottom line of the IG report appears to be that, though there was some questionable individual behavior, there is no evidence that the FBI or the Justice Department acted in a biased manner.

Wrong bottom line since it's missing the specific language (which matters in the legalese), read the first 3 pages of the executive summary jelly linked above to get the exact language. This is from page iii (PDF pg 4):

There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.

Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable. The broader impact of these text and instant messages, including on such matters as the public perception of the FBI and the Midyear investigation, are discussed in Chapter Twelve of our report.


In summary:
Image

User avatar
Pwns
Level4
Level4
Posts: 5285
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Friggin' Southern
A.K.A.: FCS_pwns_FBS (AGS)

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby Pwns » Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:24 am

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/stat ... 1101582336

Hey you dumb cunt, I guarantee you gmail has better security than your in-home email server. And there probably wasn't even classified information like that was in your emails. :lol:
We get the government we deserve. :nod:

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 16221
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby CID1990 » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:31 am

Pwns wrote:https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1007376361101582336

Hey you dumb cunt, I guarantee you gmail has better security than your in-home email server. And there probably wasn't even classified information like that was in your emails. :lol:


That’s the thing-

Comey gets tagged by the IG for using his gmail for official business.

The only rule you can run afoul of there (assuming you don’t transmit classified info) are Federal records rules... because those aren’t your emails... they belong to the public.

But it is hardly wha5 the issue was with Clinton, she knows it, but panning the false narrative is all she has
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
Col Hogan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 10431
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:29 am
I am a fan of: William & Mary
Location: Republic of Texas

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby Col Hogan » Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:57 pm

New FBI logo...

Image
“Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Aristotle

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 16221
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby CID1990 » Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:33 pm

Everybody expected Clinton to win

Including the FBI- it was the safe bet

Look at ALL of this through that lens...

If Clinton HAD won, a lot of these agents would have been sending their own archived texts to the AG (who would still be Lynch) if they were negatively scrutinized as a result of their work on the email scandal

It happens at every agency in the executive branch too - every time the keys change hands

"Look! I'm loyal!"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 10418
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby SDHornet » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:51 pm

CID1990 wrote:Everybody expected Clinton to win

Including the FBI- it was the safe bet


Look at ALL of this through that lens...

If Clinton HAD won, a lot of these agents would have been sending their own archived texts to the AG (who would still be Lynch) if they were negatively scrutinized as a result of their work on the email scandal

It happens at every agency in the executive branch too - every time the keys change hands

"Look! I'm loyal!"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Best part was Comey made his July announcement because he wanted to absolve hillary of the whole email situation before she became president...then Comey reopened the investigation and made the late October announcement because he didn't want it to look like the FBI was withholding info, and besides, hillary was up in the polls and was going to win anyways....

...then Trump wins....whoops. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now we have all this stuff coming to light (and whatever else might trickle out) heading into the midterm.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

User avatar
Pwns
Level4
Level4
Posts: 5285
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Friggin' Southern
A.K.A.: FCS_pwns_FBS (AGS)

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby Pwns » Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:31 am

When Trump won I think there was a lot of people in both Trump's campaign and the FBI that said "oh ****". The shady people in Trump's team probably thought they were gonna get boat-raced and they wouldn't be looked at under microscopes, and the latter knew with Hillary as president everything the FBI did would be masterfully swept under the rug.
We get the government we deserve. :nod:

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 14995
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby JohnStOnge » Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:43 am

CID1990 wrote:Everybody expected Clinton to win


I didn't. I was hopeful, but I didn't think it was a lock by any means. If you want I can link the post I made the night before the election expressing that sentiment. I was VERY concerned that Trump could win.

Now, I do think that at the point just before Comey dropped his Weiner bomb 11 days before the election her chances looked better.

I've said it before but to me the perceptions surrounding that election are interesting. I can remember that when Romney was running against Obama there was belief that Romney had a chance. I think the perception of Clinton as a lock exceeded the perception of Obama as a lock over Romney.

But when you look at the actual polling data it was clear that there was a LOT more confidence in Obama beating Romney than there was in Clinton beating Trump. I can remember that the 538 forecast just before the election reflected 90% confidence that Obama was going to win. That's quite at the Gold Standard as far as confidence levels go. The Gold Standard is 95% confidence. But 90% confidence is acceptable sometimes.

I don't remember the 538 forecast showing more than in the low 80%s confidence range for Clinton beating Trump. Just before election it was 71%. There is no WAY anybody who understands what confidence levels mean would say anything other than "too close to call" in a situation like that.

I think what was happening is that pundits looked at what an atrocity Trump is and just couldn't believe enough people would vote for him to allow him to win.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 16221
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby CID1990 » Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:57 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:
CID1990 wrote:Everybody expected Clinton to win


I didn't. I was hopeful, but I didn't think it was a lock by any means. If you want I can link the post I made the night before the election expressing that sentiment. I was VERY concerned that Trump could win.

Now, I do think that at the point just before Comey dropped his Weiner bomb 11 days before the election her chances looked better.

I've said it before but to me the perceptions surrounding that election are interesting. I can remember that when Romney was running against Obama there was belief that Romney had a chance. I think the perception of Clinton as a lock exceeded the perception of Obama as a lock over Romney.

But when you look at the actual polling data it was clear that there was a LOT more confidence in Obama beating Romney than there was in Clinton beating Trump. I can remember that the 538 forecast just before the election reflected 90% confidence that Obama was going to win. That's quite at the Gold Standard as far as confidence levels go. The Gold Standard is 95% confidence. But 90% confidence is acceptable sometimes.

I don't remember the 538 forecast showing more than in the low 80%s confidence range for Clinton beating Trump. Just before election it was 71%. There is no WAY anybody who understands what confidence levels mean would say anything other than "too close to call" in a situation like that.

I think what was happening is that pundits looked at what an atrocity Trump is and just couldn't believe enough people would vote for him to allow him to win.


John, I’m going to help you out here -

“Everybody thought Hillary was going to win” is a generalization... another way of saying “conventional wisdom was that Hillary was going to win”

But we all know what you think... your brain is laid out before us in the form of gigabytes of Internet forum sputum

But ok... thanks for weighing in
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris

User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 13753
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby BDKJMU » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:53 pm

Comey to the Krauts:
Comey: Hillary Clinton Still Doesn’t Understand Why She Was Under FBI Investigation
https://ntknetwork.com/comey-hillary-cl ... stigation/
Houston: Made JMU Football Great Again.
28-2, 27-1 vs IAA, 17-0 at Bridgeforth, 17-0 vs the CAA.
1st Yankee/A-10/CAA team ever to go undefeated in league play in back to back seasons.

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 14995
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby JohnStOnge » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:57 pm

SDHornet wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:The bottom line of the IG report appears to be that, though there was some questionable individual behavior, there is no evidence that the FBI or the Justice Department acted in a biased manner.

Wrong bottom line since it's missing the specific language (which matters in the legalese), read the first 3 pages of the executive summary jelly linked above to get the exact language. This is from page iii (PDF pg 4):

There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.

Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable. The broader impact of these text and instant messages, including on such matters as the public perception of the FBI and the Midyear investigation, are discussed in Chapter Twelve of our report.


In summary:
Image


You know, I heard Rush Limbaugh making that same argument about "documentary." The problem is that the report said there was no documentary OR testimonial evidence. If you do what that woman did and act like the report just said "documentary" you are being intellectually dishonest. And I'm afraid the conservative side has been doing that sort of thing with disturbing frequency lately.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 14995
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby JohnStOnge » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:00 pm

CID1990 wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
I didn't. I was hopeful, but I didn't think it was a lock by any means. If you want I can link the post I made the night before the election expressing that sentiment. I was VERY concerned that Trump could win.

Now, I do think that at the point just before Comey dropped his Weiner bomb 11 days before the election her chances looked better.

I've said it before but to me the perceptions surrounding that election are interesting. I can remember that when Romney was running against Obama there was belief that Romney had a chance. I think the perception of Clinton as a lock exceeded the perception of Obama as a lock over Romney.

But when you look at the actual polling data it was clear that there was a LOT more confidence in Obama beating Romney than there was in Clinton beating Trump. I can remember that the 538 forecast just before the election reflected 90% confidence that Obama was going to win. That's quite at the Gold Standard as far as confidence levels go. The Gold Standard is 95% confidence. But 90% confidence is acceptable sometimes.

I don't remember the 538 forecast showing more than in the low 80%s confidence range for Clinton beating Trump. Just before election it was 71%. There is no WAY anybody who understands what confidence levels mean would say anything other than "too close to call" in a situation like that.

I think what was happening is that pundits looked at what an atrocity Trump is and just couldn't believe enough people would vote for him to allow him to win.


John, I’m going to help you out here -

“Everybody thought Hillary was going to win” is a generalization... another way of saying “conventional wisdom was that Hillary was going to win”

But we all know what you think... your brain is laid out before us in the form of gigabytes of Internet forum sputum

But ok... thanks for weighing in


Oh, I agree that the "conventional wisdom" was that. What I'm telling you is that the actual polling data did not support the "conventional wisdom" and that I realized that.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image

User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 10418
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby SDHornet » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:10 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:
SDHornet wrote:Wrong bottom line since it's missing the specific language (which matters in the legalese), read the first 3 pages of the executive summary jelly linked above to get the exact language. This is from page iii (PDF pg 4):



In summary:
Image


You know, I heard Rush Limbaugh making that same argument about "documentary." The problem is that the report said there was no documentary OR testimonial evidence. If you do what that woman did and act like the report just said "documentary" you are being intellectually dishonest. And I'm afraid the conservative side has been doing that sort of thing with disturbing frequency lately.


Nothing to see here...move along...

User avatar
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 45775
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina
A.K.A.: Shameless Street Dog

Re: Clinton e-mailgate

Postby Ibanez » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:27 am

JohnStOnge wrote:
SDHornet wrote:Wrong bottom line since it's missing the specific language (which matters in the legalese), read the first 3 pages of the executive summary jelly linked above to get the exact language. This is from page iii (PDF pg 4):



In summary:
Image


You know, I heard Rush Limbaugh making that same argument about "documentary." The problem is that the report said there was no documentary OR testimonial evidence. If you do what that woman did and act like the report just said "documentary" you are being intellectually dishonest. And I'm afraid the conservative side has been doing that sort of thing with disturbing frequency lately.

I don't think you can read the text messages, written by the man leading both FBI investigations, and think he does not have a bias that will influence him. Gowdy is 100% right.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17


Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 89Hen, Chizzang, HI54UNI, Pwns and 40 guests