Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

A few points:

1. We should not lose sight of the fact that since the advent of the Internet, all SoS have used their own personal servers because the Federal government has such crappy systems no one wants to use them. Clinton's "abuse" is no where near the top if one believes any of this behavior is an abuse of power.

Gotta raise the bovine scatology flag. The "everybody does it" argument does not survive in the face of the evidence:

1. No State Department head (probably no government employee) ever exclusively used a private email server for both private and public email messages.

2. The private server was not encrypted for two months after Sec. of State Clinton commenced using it.

3. Bryan Pagliano, the individual in charge of “security” and maintenance of the server, originally installed it for the Clinton Foundation and other private family email users.

4. That same individual was hired at State to “moonlight” in maintaining Clinton’s private server. Experts claim a team of people is needed to run such a site. The three supervisors of this individual at State did not even know he was working on Clinton’s private server.

5. Clinton was told early on she should not (nor should any government employee) use her private Blackberry for State business. She was warned it could be hacked into and used as a listening device. She said she understood. She nevertheless continued using it throughout her tenure at home and abroad.

6. When the first FOIA for her email messages was initially submitted she responded there were none.

7. Only after the Benghazi controversy heated up, did she admit there were over 30,000 email messages concerning State Department Business. She unilaterally claimed another 30,000 plus emails were private. Side note: Public officials normally don’t have the luxury of deciding which email messages are public business, as opposed to private matters.
8. She stated there were no classified documents on the private email survivor.

9. Over 2,000 classified email chains were found on the server. Clinton claimed they were all classified after the fact. This is not true. A unspecified number were in fact classified (or of higher classification) at the time they landed on her server. Clinton herself authored emails that contained classified material.

10. Clinton’s claim of convenience in using one device relates to the 7th floor at State in which she worked. They offered to put in a terminal for her to check and send private email messages from her 7th floor office. Clinton does not use desktop computers and declined the workaround.

11. Clinton did what Clinton wanted to do despite FOIA regulations, security concerns, etc. She wanted to bring her private Blackberry into her office and use a single device abroad.

And that is exactly what she did. Any other government official engaging in such widespread misconduct would be fired, possibly prosecuted, and would lose her security clearance.

The emails in question were created by a Constitutional officer, the Secretary of State; they were not created by the private person, Hillary Clinton. Therefore, the emails are public property, and Clinton doesn’t get it to treat them like private property. That is the first abuse of power in this context, but there are many others. The fact that she deleted everything off of it is the next abuse, but that doesn’t begin to fully encompass the entirety of it.

The primary issue that FBI investigators are looking at is whether or not Hillary Clinton knowingly retained, transmitted, or deleted classified information from her private server. And as these leaks demonstrate, communicating this type of information on a relatively insecure private server puts highly classified government secrets at risk by making them be susceptible to hackers and spies. Mishandling classified information is a federal crime under Section 1924 and Section 793 of Title 18 US Criminal Codes and Procedures. A violation of Section 1924 is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and up to a year in prison, while a violation of Section 793 is a felony punishable by a fine and up to ten years in prison.

On Jan. 29, three days before the Iowa Caucus, the State Department announced that it had discovered at least 22 emails on Clinton’s private server which it deemed to be “Top Secret” and could not be made available to the public. A few emails have been classified at a level some consider to be above "Top Secret", called SAP or Special Access Program. Sources in the State Department have said that at least two of these emails surround the movement of North Korean missiles and the specifics of a drone operation.

Hillary Clinton and her aides not only violated numerous federal criminal statutes, but may have conducted a cover up to hide incriminating evidence – the likes of which forced Richard Nixon to resign as President. She will either be indicted or impeached and her administration, should it come to pass, will operate within the context of her crimes. You and I know the GOP will never let it go. If they went all the way for a blue stained dress, imagine what they'll do with a violation of Sections 1924 and 793 of Title 18 USC?

Then again, the entire Democratic establishment has sold their souls and burned their boats to prevent an unseemly retreat from HRC and so it's win or die trying. And heaven help any of them who want to opt out of the circular firing squad. Who will play the role of John Dean in this reprise, I wonder?

The leaked emails also provide proof of what the Bernie kids have known all along - the DNC colluded with mainstream outlets to heavily favor Clinton. “Our goals in the coming months will be to frame the Republican field and the eventual nominee early and to provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC,” reads an email dated May 26, 2015, referencing the former secretary of state by her initials, posted by “Guccifer 2.0” — after the Romanian hacker who allegedly accessed Clinton’s private email server multiple times. One of the strategies listed for “positioning and public messaging” states, “Use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”

The leaked emails show a meticulously plotted coordination between DNC narratives touting Clinton, rather than Sanders, as if she had been the presumptive nominee from the outset — precisely as activists and fair elections advocates had suspected. Under the heading “Tactics,” the document states, “Working with the DNC and allied groups, we will use several different methods to land these attacks” — including, under the subheading, “Reporter Outreach”:

“Working through the DNC and others, we should use background briefings, prep with reporters for interviews with GOP candidates, off-the-record conversations and oppo pitches to help pitch stories with no fingerprints and utilize reporters to drive a message.” And under “Bracketing Events,” the email states: “Both the DNC and outside groups are looking to do events and press surrounding Republican events to insert our messaging into their press and to force them to answer questions around key issues.”

Most revealing is a document whose conclusion reads in part, “Our goal is to use this conversation to answer the questions who do we want to run against and how best to leverage other candidates to maneuver them into the right place.”

And irony or ironies, isn't that a restating of "The Lektrode Thesis" without the colorful (wink) language? And here y'all are pickin' on the poor fellow when in the end it looks like he had it about right all along .

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Great analysis Woodsman!

If this were a Republican I would just as critical. Come to think of it I was! In 1974 I was very early is suspecting Nixon and openly critical of him; taking a risk surrounded by 20 other older, conservative associates. But I was proven correct.

As Americans was have to point out illegal and unethical behavior, even if it is by someone whose philosophy we share.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Gotta raise the bovine scatology flag. The "everybody does it" argument does not survive in the face of the evidence:

As I said before, this is the equivalent of the global warming issue. Your attempt to convince with evidence that mostly amounts to hearsay and anecdote, is, well, unconvincing. Everybody does it is not my assessment, it's the official assessment of the Office of Inspector General. And it's not just the Secretaries of State, it's nearly everyone in the government. And, of course, your entire argument is based upon the false assumption that email is an official federal record. That was not true until 2014.

Like all the other fake Clinton controversies stirred up by the right, this one will also fade away except for the true believers who just can't stop scaring the children with tales of the HRC boogey man. The report is linked here:

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

As I said before, this is the equivalent of the global warming issue...

Yes, agreed. A brilliant analogy. I guess it's up to each of us to decide who are the deniers and who speaks in fact - those who deceptively insist it's all a hoax or nefarious plot and breezily dismissed with ad-hominems or those forced to plod along in the realm of evidence. Time will tell and everyone would do well to exercise patient detachment and discernment as this plays itself out.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Your weak defense falls apart on this alone:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hacker-gu...lintons-server

You never conduct classified work on an unsecure connection. Woodsman already posted a long list of what Gufficer discovered.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Your weak defense falls apart on this alone...

You never conduct classified work on an unsecure connection.

Someone should have told four star general and ex-Secretary of State, Colin Powell:



Your memo never got to him. Apparently it was above his pay grade.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

PBS does not agree with your assessment:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/why-clintons-private-email-use-is-deemed-more-serious-than-predecessors

Nor does this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...526-story.html

Hillary's defenders are like the conservatives that tried to argue with me in the spring and summer of 1974 that Nixon wasn't involved with Watergate.

As Ben Bradlee said to me at a luncheon in the late 1980's:

"We love to find low doings in high places"

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

PBS does not agree with your assessment:

Not my assessment, it's the official government assessment. Good to know you were once right in '74.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Not my assessment, it's the official government assessment. Good to know you were once right in '74.

An assessment you quote selectively in order to advance your candidate, SF. The very next paragraph makes the critical distinction between Powell's actions and Clinton's:

Secretary Clinton employed a personal email system to conduct business during her tenure in the United States Senate and her 2008 Presidential campaign. She continued to use personal email throughout her term as Secretary, relying on an account maintained on a private server, predominantly through mobile devices. Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the server was located in her New York residence.14

I understand the season makes us so focused on "winning" and maybe that's what motivated you to avoid the subsequent paragraphs. But those without a horse in the race might be interested in reading further as rest of the report adds important context that makes the distinction between Powell's use of private email and Clinton's far more stark:

In his interview with OIG, Secretary Powell explained that, when he arrived at the Department, the email system in place only permitted communication among Department staff. He therefore requested that information technology staff install the private line so that he could use his personal account to communicate with people outside the Department.144 He described his email usage as “daily,” though OIG was unable to determine how many emails he actually sent and received during his tenure. Various DS and IRM staff told OIG that, before Secretary Powell arrived at the Department, employees did not have Internet connectivity on their desktop computers. The Department’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Under Secretary for Management during Secretary Powell’s tenure reported to OIG that they were aware of Secretary Powell’s use of a personal email account and also noted the Secretary’s goal was to provide every Department employee with similar Internet and email capabilities at their desktops. The current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, who were Department employees during Secretary Powell’s tenure, also were both aware of the Secretary’s use of a personal email account and recall numerous discussions with senior staff throughout the Department about how to implement the Secretary’s intent to provide all employees with Internet connectivity.

However, it is not clear whether staff explicitly addressed restrictions on the use of non-Departmental systems with Secretary Powell. For example, at the beginning of Secretary Powell’s tenure, the Department had an outright prohibition on both the installation of privately owned computers in Department facilities and the transmission of SBU information on the Internet. 145 By 2002, the Department had established the requirement to connect to the Internet only on OpenNet.146 The CIO and Under Secretary for Management during Secretary’s Powell’s tenure reported to OIG that they believe that these issues were addressed, either by installing a firewall to protect the Secretary’s Internet connection or providing the Secretary with a Department laptop. They also reported having multiple discussions with Secretary Powell about the Department’s implementation of FISMA requirements. In contrast, current DS and IRM officials who worked at the Department during Secretary Powell’s tenure are unsure about the exact configuration of Secretary Powell’s systems and whether staff addressed applicable restrictions with the Secretary. However, they reported to OIG that the Department’s technology and information security policies were very fluid during Secretary Powell’s tenure and that the Department was not aware at the time of the magnitude of the security risks associated with information technology.

Contrast that to the report's take on Clinton's tenure:

By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the Department’s guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated. Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the Department revised the FAM and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not doing so. Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives. Secretary Clinton used mobile devices to conduct official business using the personal email account on her private server extensively, as illustrated by the 55,000 pages of material making up the approximately 30,000 emails she provided to the Department in December 2014. Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so. During Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM also instructed employees that they were expected to use approved, secure methods to transmit SBU information and that, if they needed to transmit SBU information outside the Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to non-Departmental addresses, they should request a solution from IRM.148 However, OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution, despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU.

Similarly, the FAM contained provisions requiring employees who process SBU information on their own devices to ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are maintained to protect the confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption of SBU information with products certified by NIST.149 With regard to encryption, Secretary Clinton’s website states that “robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.”150 Although this report does not address the safety or security of her system, DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by FISMA and the FAM.

In addition to interviewing current and former officials in DS and IRM, OIG interviewed other senior Department officials with relevant knowledge who served under Secretary Clinton, including the Under Secretary for Management, who supervises both DS and IRM; current and former Executive Secretaries; and attorneys within the Office of the Legal Adviser. These officials all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff. These officials also stated that they were unaware of the scope or extent of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account, though many of them sent emails to the Secretary on this account. Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff also testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi that she was unaware of anyone being consulted about the Secretary’s exclusive use of a personal email address.

In that respect, the "everybody does it" defense seems appropriate at first glance inasmuch as in 2001 Powell appears to have violated existing policy. That being said, he had an exceedingly good motivation as State’s byzantine internal systems made it impossible to do his job. Powell told the people in charge of the Department’s IT system 1) what he was doing, 2) ordered them to fix the system to make the workaround unnecessary, and 3) did it via a Department-installed laptop in his office. By the time Clinton was Secretary, Powell's directives to modernize IT systems had been implemented, only Clinton chose to employ her own private systems and told no one until its discovery, and then directed staff to cease discussions about it.

Powell's motivations and openness must be contrasted with Clinton’s evolving explanations and continuing secrecy. Her justifications for why she set up a private server in her basement used her personal devices to do government business have been, let's say, a bit more fluid and evolving. None of them have been as straightforward and reasonable as Powell’s. By the time she took office—eight years after Powell did so—the Department’s IT was considerably improved, based on Powell’s orders, thus obviating Powell’s rationale. Additionally, policies were much more stringent and clearly defined. Yet, whereas Powell went out of his way to be above board about failing to comply with policy, Clinton simply ignored it.

It takes only a garden variety sort of intellectual stubbornness to argue that the actions of previous Secretaries are equivalent to Clinton's. But to be convincing, one has a harder task in making folks believe the IT environment of 2008 was the same as in 2001 when Powell was Secretary. While a partisan might have little problem throwing it into the memory hole, the rest of us require considerably more effort of to forget the bad old days of IT back when Colin Powell was SecState and AOL CDs clogged our mailboxes. By the time Clinton took office, broadband was ubiquitous and instead of the inordinate amount of time and effort it used to take to make the hodge-podge of IT system meet our needs, (often requiring folks to resort to personal equipment), we just turned the darn things on and went to work.

It's partisanship, I get it. And believe me, I empathize. The realization of just how vulnerable HRC is to serious legal sanction makes her supporter's panicked resort to double-think understandable. But none of it changes the increasingly growing body of evidence that Clinton knowingly committed a crime by hosting her email on a private server located in her home, whereas Powell (or any other Secretary) never did.

I think it's clear the evidence you selectively put forth as exculpatory winds up damning Clinton. I know she's your girl and you've got much riding on her, but she's damaged goods and by your decision to highlight only those bits of evidence you consider exculpatory, I'm pretty sure you know how bad it is for her.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

I think it's clear the evidence you selectively put forth as exculpatory winds up damning Clinton. I know she's your girl and you've got much riding on her, but she's damaged goods and by your decision to highlight only those bits of evidence you consider exculpatory, I'm pretty sure you know how bad it is for her.

While it's quite unlikely we'll ever agree regarding her culpability, there's more likelihood we agree on possible outcomes - not our reaction to those outcomes, just the possible outcomes themselves. I'll list them in order of severity. To be clear, I don't see any of these outcomes as positive for the campaign.

1. The FBI does not have enough evidence for gross negligence to recommend indictment. In this case, email-gate turns into a political football. Fox News will not let up their "investigation", Julian Assange will Wikileak through November and Bush's Brain will concoct a strategy of evil genius. I suspect this is where we are today. In this scenario, Clinton wins.
2. The FBI recommends indictment and DOJ does not indict. While not the most severe, this is the worst outcome. It proves everything everyone in the Sanders campaign has said for over a year, the system is rigged from top to bottom. In this scenario Trump wins and worse than that, I have to admit you're correct...
3. The FBI recommends indictment and DOJ empanels a Grand Jury. Clinton drops out of the race due to health reasons and her VP runs for president. To understand if this outcome is likely, watch who she names as VP. If it's a John Kerry type, I'll be very concerned. If it's a Booker or Warren type, not so much. In this scenario, coin flip. There are too many unknowns.

In any event, I suspect the next president is one term and a younger and more progressive candidate emerges to run in 2020.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

in scenario #3 i don't think it's the vp nominee who becomes the candidate. they'll fiddle the rules and parachute biden into the role.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

from scott adams:


Un-Hypnotizing a Rabid Anti-Trumper


When you encounter a rabid anti-Trumper, ask her what are the biggest concerns of a potential Trump presidency.


If “Supreme Court nominee” is one of the top objections, discontinue your persuasion for ethical reasons. This person has put some thought into the decision and has a legitimate opinion that is at least partly based on reason. I don’t recommend changing that person’s mind. [jk- i think changing that person's mind would be very hard.]


But if a person’s main objections to Trump include any the following four reasons, I would consider it ethical to apply persuasion.


Objection 1: Trump is a loose cannon who might offend other countries and maybe even start a nuclear war.


Objection 2: Trump is terrible at business because he has several bankruptcies.


Objection 3: Trump is a racist.


Objection 4: Trump is anti-women and anti-LGBT


If any of those four objections are behind an anti-Trumper’s opinion, you have ethical license to persuade, so long as you are sticking to facts and adding context. I’ll show you how to do that with each objection.


Objection 1: Trump is a loose cannon who might offend other countries and maybe even start a nuclear war.


Persuasion: Trump has five decades of acting rational in business dealings, and getting along with people all over the world, including China and Russia. By now you would have heard stories of Trump being a loose cannon in his business dealings if such a thing had happened. We are hearing no stories of that nature. And people don’t suddenly change character at age 70.(That last sentence is the important one.)


How risky is Trump? Consider that Trump has never had an alcoholic beverage. He was against the Iraq war. He doesn’t want boots on the ground in Syria. He wants a strong military to discourage war. Trump personally gains nothing from war, but he has a lot to lose, including every building with his name on it.


Putin already seems to like Trump. They are similar characters in terms of their persuasion talents. And it wouldn’t hurt to be on good terms with Russia while we go after ISIS. Trump seems to have that relationship covered.


Trump has been negotiating with the Chinese for years, with no problems yet. And the Chinese leaders are not children. They got their positions by being great deal-makers, like Trump. They might not want to negotiate against Trump, but they aren’t afraid of his personality type. Trump often tells us that his first bid in any negotiation is super-aggressive. China knows it too. They are not naive. They can tell the difference between a negotiator and a madman.


Objection 2: Trump is terrible at business, as proven by his several bankruptcies.


Persuasion: Ask how many bankruptcies Trump has had. Most people say between 5-10. Then ask how many entities Trump has his name on. The answer is about 500. Then ask if that is a good performance for an entrepreneur who is often trying things in new fields.


(Asking questions in that fashion is good persuasion technique. It removes the adversarial frame and gives the person a sense of coming to a new conclusion without pressure.)


Then explain how licensing works. Trump puts his name on various products and he gets paid even if the product or company does poorly in the end. That’s an example of Trump taking the LEAST risk in a deal. The other parties take larger risks and frequently fail. Trump gets paid either way. All parties to the deals have lawyers who review everything. Trump isn’t taking advantage of people with his licensing deals. Licensees are knowingly accepting the riskier side of the deal because they also have the biggest potential upside.


Trump doesn’t like risk. We see it in lots of ways. For example, Trump has never been in a physical fight. He asked his wives to sign prenups. He creates separate entities so some can go bankrupt without bringing down the rest. He licenses his name so he gets paid even if the company buying the license does not make a profit. And he diversifies his portfolio to reduce exposure to any one risk.
Based on everything we see, Trump consistently tries hard to avoid risk in everything he does. And people don’t change character at age 70.


The exceptions to Trump’s risk-avoidance include some of the provocative stuff he is saying during the campaign. That behavior looks risky to most observers, but it was exactly what got him the Republican nomination. Evidently, Trump takes risks when doing so makes sense.


Objection 3: Trump is a racist.


Trump has never mentioned race beyond pointing how how many African-Americans and Latinos support him. Ask your anti-Trumper to offer evidence otherwise. Then point out…


Mexico is a country, not a race.


Islam is open to all races.


If the topic of Judge Curiel comes up, point out that all human beings are biased by their life experiences. Ask anti-Trumpers if they think Curiel would be comfortable at his next family gathering if his verdict favors Trump. (Notice the question form of persuasion again.)


Acknowledge that Trump was offensive when he attacked the judge’s parental connections to Mexico. But note that it is also good persuasion and good legal strategy. It puts the judge in the tough spot of either siding with Trump or appearing biased if he does not.


Then point out that only the Democrats are talking about race. And all of that race talk has been divisive. Trump has literally never said a negative thing about race during this election.
(Professional pundits will talk about Trump’s so-called “racist dog-whistles,” but normal voters do not mention it. They don’t know what it means.)


Objection 3.1: But Trump wants to discriminate based on religion!


Persuasion: Clarify to the subject of your persuasion that Trump only wants to discriminate against non-citizens. That is literally the job description of a president.


For context, point out that Islam is unique among religions in that it includes an order from God that Muslims should overthrow any government that is not compatible with Islam. Moderate Muslims around the world ignore that part of the religion, but refugees are coming from places where it is considered mandatory.


I don’t think other religions have a mandatory requirement to overthrow the government. So comparisons to other religions are nonsense. And the job of the president includes knowing when to make exceptions.


If you think we can screen Muslim immigrants well enough to stop all of the terrorists and future revolutionaries, just think about any job in which you had coworkers. Remember how incompetent some of them were? Those are the types of people screening immigrants. Does that feel safe to you?


Objection 4: Trump is anti-women and anti-LGBT


Persuasion:
Trump is the only candidate calling out Islam for its followers’ views on women and the LGBT community.


Trump wants women to have the right to own guns to protect themselves. [jk- i must add something from louis c.k. - the most dangerous thing for women is men; the most dangerous thing for men is heart disease.]


Trump is the only candidate concerned about crimes against women that are perpetrated by illegal immigrants from Mexico.


Trump has a long business record of promoting women to executive positions in his company. He was doing it years before it was fashionable.


The women in his personal life – including his ex-wives – seem to like him.


Trump is offensive in the way he has talked about women. But keep in mind that Trump has offended nearly everyone at some point.


The way to know your persuasion is working is that your subject will change the topic instead of addressing your point.


Example:


You: Mexico is not a race.


Subject: Well, Trump also had bankruptcies.


Don’t allow the topic to change. Instead, say again whatever you said just before it did. Make each point about three times, with slightly different wording each time. After the third restatement of your point, without an objection from your subject, allow the topic to change. It means you won.


Let me know how it works out.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

It takes only a garden variety sort of intellectual stubbornness to argue that the actions of previous Secretaries are equivalent to Clinton's. But to be convincing, one has a harder task in making folks believe the IT environment of 2008 was the same as in 2001 when Powell was Secretary.

In 2003 or 2004, I was doing work related to the Common Access Card being used/evaluated by the U.S. Navy and U.S. Army. They were quite far along in their deployment of a secure e-mail system (e-mail messages could be signed and encrypted using an RSA key stored on a smart card, which is what the Common Access Card is). I find it very difficult to believe that four or five years later, the Secretary of State, a very high-ranking position, could not ask for and get a government-issued, government-configured notebook computer that uses a government-run IT infrastructure with strong encryption technology. The cost to deploy such a thing for a group of people is negligible.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

in scenario #3 i don't think it's the vp nominee who becomes the candidate. they'll fiddle the rules and parachute biden into the role.

Yes, agree, "a John Kerry type...". They will know soon and will adjust strategy if this possibility is high. That's why the VP candidate is important. Change will not come easily or quickly.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

btw, santafe, i think you are too sanguine in dismissing hillary's email problem. and, unlike woody, although i despise hrc i'm not ready to vote for trump, if only because of the supreme court.

however, in following the news about the e-mails a bit [i am not fascinated by it] i conclude that there's a significant issue there: it's clear she set up her system to keep control of her communications and hide it from foi requests and congressional fishing expeditions. it's only the benghazi hearings, bizarre and endless and politically twisted as they have been, that led to the uncovering of her private server and the machinations it represents. otherwise it's likely she would have gotten away with hiding her communications for a good long time.

bernie's "i'm sick and tired of your damn emails" is not really an adequate response. nor is "everybody did it." "move along, there's nothing to see here" is what it boils down to.

i agree with your analysis that the most devastating blow to the democrats would be the fbi report recommending indictment around the time of or following the democratic convention, followed by dithering by the administration. i disagree with your analysis that the email server is just a phony issue.

it may be overblown, i'm not in a position to judge. but whether overblown in the press, it may involve felonies. we know that immunity has been given to 1 or 2 staffers involved in the setup and maintenance of the system. that is only done to get information to indict higher ups.

i'm not sure that hillary herself and her supporters are really as sanguine as they want to appear. i'm not sure if they believe their own b.s., but i would suspect that at least some of them, under those cheery exteriors, are really worried about the legal issues here. if they aren't, imo they should be.