FBI reopens case on Clinton private email server

Lash posted an opinion piece from an obviously biased source which I believe she accurately acknowledged.

You do exactly the same here very frequently, but from differently biased sources...

...but from differently biased sources. None of these things could be described as scholarly

I own up to being even more emotionally entangled in the result of the 2016 election — not because of any change in policy or ideology, but because of Donald Trump’s proposed shift in the very purpose of the presidency. His political theory, such as it is, is “us” vs. “them.” The “them” may be Republican elites, or liberal elites, or migrants or Mexicans or Muslims. Trump would be elected on the promise of fighting, rounding up, jailing or humbling any number of personal and political opponents. Take away this appeal, and there is nothing left but grasping, pathetic vanity.

...The single most frightening, anti-democratic phrase of modern presidential history came in Trump’s convention speech: “I alone can fix it.” A Trump victory would be a mandate for authoritarian politics. Trump’s ambitions would be bounded by strong legislative and legal institutions and by his own risible ignorance of real leadership. But a Trump administration would be a concession to the idea that America needs a little more China, a little more Russia, a little more “so let it be written, so let it be done” in its executive branch.

I never imagined that Republican leaders — many of whom I know and have respected — would fall in line with such dangerous delusions, on the theory that anything is better than Hillary Clinton. Most options are better than Clinton. But not all. And not this. The GOP has largely accommodated itself to a candidate with no respect for, or knowledge of, the constitutional order. Every constitutional conservative should be revolted. Those who are complicit have adopted a particularly dangerous form of power-loving hypocrisy.

Let's be clear here the FBI has stated that Hillary's server was exposed to at least 5 foreign National security agencies.

“As a lawyer, you would concede indictment is not only a term of art, it's a term of law and that's a big difference to use the expression likely indictment when all the reporting is to the contrary,” he said.

“Fine,” Conway replied. “It just doesn't change what's in voters' minds right now and you see in the your own polling, you see in the other polling, Brian, which is—even though the polls were tightening before last Friday's explosive announcement by Mr. Comey you see that voters are putting it in this large cauldron of impressions and images and individuals and issues from which they eventually make a choice.”

Despite a lack of evidence, Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) on Friday insisted that Hillary Clinton was facing indictment because “she’s hearing about it.”

Ellmers, a Donald Trump surrogate and the first congressional candidate endorsed by the Republican nominee, was interviewed about FBI investigations into Clinton’s private email server and the Clinton Foundation on CNN’s “New Day.”

“She is under—facing indictment,” Ellmers told host Chris Cuomo. “We’re in a situation where the Clinton Foundation—”

“No proof she's facing indictment,” Cuomo replied.

“There is proof,” she insisted.

“There isn't any proof,” Cuomo pushed back.

“There is.”

“What's the proof?” he asked.

“The proof is the FBI investigators,” Ellmers said. “This is coming out everywhere. I'm hearing about it. I don't really have all that many connections and yet I'm hearing about the investigation.”

More recently, another belief of mine has fallen by the wayside: that even if Trump managed to eke out a majority of delegates, the Republican elite would simply never give him the cooperation he would need to win. I suspected simple self-interest would dictate this. Trump is poison to the constituencies Republicans will need to win to stay viable in the long run, and allowing the party to be associated with him will have long-term costs. What’s more, a Trump presidency would likely court catastrophic blowback for the party. Not to mention, I assumed a significant number of Republicans, whatever their substantive policy disagreements with liberals, would recoil from Trump out of sincere loyalty to the Republican form of government. And some conservatives have. A handful of elected Republicans, like Ben Sasse, have withheld endorsements. Conservatives like Ross Douthat and David Frum (“The vote you cast is for the republic and the Constitution”) have defended a vote for Clinton as essential to preserve the sanctity of the democratic system from an American Putin.

But these holdouts are the rare exceptions — far more rare than I anticipated. However low my opinion of the Republican Party, it was not low enough. Mostly they have shuffled along or beavered away on Trump’s behalf as though everything is normal. The political apparatus of the Republican Party will not stop him.

...This is not a joke. This is one of the moments in history when the republic is at the brink.

LONDON — Big data crunched in a nondescript office more than 3,000 miles from the U.S. might just convince you to cast a ballot for Donald Trump.

In September alone, the Trump campaign paid British firm Cambridge Analytica $5 million to help target voters.

The company says it holds data on 230 million adults across the U.S. — and around 4,000 "data points" on each of them.

Using transaction information from loyalty cards, club and gym memberships and charity donations, it seeks to understand which way an individual might lean politically — and how to potentially change their mind.

"The more you know about someone, the better you can engage with them and the more relevant you can make the communications that you send to them, so our job is to use data to understand audiences," chief executive officer Alexander Nix told NBC News.

Mr. Trump is the Republican candidate, selected by Republicans in Republican primaries. The few identifiable policy pieces he has are Republican. He's brought a few ugly truths about modern Republicans into view - and that's good. People should own who they are supporting/voting for.

Sunday November 06, 2016
Will American politics survive Trump?

When Hillary Clinton made clear her intentions to run for US President, everyone knew this could be a historic election…one in which a woman could be elected to the Oval Office for the first time.

We had no idea how historic or unprecedented this election would become.

We had no idea that so many norms, conventions and codes of conduct — the very things that uphold the fairness, dignity and civility of political campaigns — would be thrown out the window.

We had no idea how much anger there was on the right — and also the left — just waiting to boil over and scald the political establishment.

The votes will be counted Tuesday night, but we still have no idea if by Wednesday morning, we'll have a clear winner, let alone an uncontested winner. And we have no idea when — or if — things will return to some kind of normal in the American polity.

Our panellists are:

Patricia Williams, professor of law at Columbia University and author of The Alchemy of Race and Rights, and Seeing a ColorBlind Future: The Paradox of Race.

David Frum, senior editor of The Atlantic Monthly magazine, and former George W. Bush speech-writer

Moustafa Bayoumi, associate professor of English at Brooklyn College, and author of How Does It Feel to Be a Problem: Being Young and Arab in America and This Muslim American Life: Dispatches from the War on Terror.

While not active in any Watergate activities per se, Gray was aware through his dealings with John Dean that the White House was concerned about what might be discovered from a full-field FBI investigation and explored what he could do to limit the investigation or shift it away from the Bureau’s jurisdiction.[15] As Dean wrote in his Watergate memoir “Blind Ambition,” he used Gray as a shill knowing that “we could count on Pat Gray to keep the Hunt material from becoming public, and he did not disappoint us. In fact, even though he thought of this as a political not criminal situation and that he was ultimately serving the President as the “nation’s chief law enforcement officer,” Gray would come dangerously close to collusion because he chose to be useful to the White House without asking the hard questions. Dean goes on to say, “I met Pat Gray secretly at his home in southwest Washington. We were both apprehensive about the meeting as we walked to a park and sat down on a bench overlooking the Potomac, discussing my request to obtain FBI 302s and AirTels on the Watergate investigation."[16]

Later, when the missing Hunt material came to light, Gray reportedly said to Dean, “Goddammit John. You have got to hang tight. Who else knows about it?” [17] By early July 1972, however, Gray had an alarming picture of the apparent conspiracy as conveyed to him by Vernon Walters and he changed tack. Although he arguably should have made it his business to know before helping Dean in any way, once he did know for certain that the White House was somehow involved, he was no longer a predictable and reliable ally they could count on.

Do you have any doubt that Attorney Genberal Lynch is also keeping President Obama (and likely the Clinton's as well) well informed about the ongoing FBI investigations today?

When Bill Clinton and AG Lynch found themselves "to their mutual surprise" in their private aircraft (hers was a government aircraft) nearby on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport, and met for 40 minutes or so 'discussing their grandchildren' , were you at all suspicious that there might be more involved than was disclosed?