Trump to win?

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

How does Metadata work?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirh.../#7e4b2a445408

Metadata looks for key words. For example the FBI may have found such key words such as "Clinton", "classified", "Russia", and "drone attack" in the metadata, which would certainly suggest a much closer examination is needed.

The fact that it was found on Weiner's computer, and he doesn't have a security clearance is very bad. Even worse imagine the high risk websites pervert Weiner likely visited and the concern for National Security has to be sky high.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

it appears that it was only this afternoon that the fbi got the warrant it needed to go fishing in the emails on that laptop. they've said they don't think they'll be able to examine them all by election day.

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

it appears that it was only this afternoon that the fbi got the warrant it needed to go fishing in the emails on that laptop. they've said they don't think they'll be able to examine them all by election day.

So how did they know what was on there before this afternoon then? Am I misunderstanding something about how the US legal system is supposed to work?

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

So how did they know what was on there before this afternoon then? Am I misunderstanding something about how the US legal system is supposed to work?

I think both of you are trying to make sense of a political feeding frenzy. Someone(s) important on the Republican side got enough information to put Comey in a position where he felt he had to say something or face the end of his career as he knows it. Over the weekend it appears there's not much there, there and the Dems are skinning him alive. When the lions are hungry a wildebeest is going down.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

So how did they know what was on there before this afternoon then? Am I misunderstanding something about how the US legal system is supposed to work?

A source close to the Director alleges that when new emails that appeared to be related to Hillary's personal email server turned up in a computer used Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner, Comey jumped at the chance to reopen the investigation. It's said he could not resist mounting pressure by agents including his top deputies since he failed to recommend an indictment against Hillary. Comey reportedly worried that after the presidential election, Republicans in Congress would mount a probe of how he had granted Hillary political favoritism and Lynch and Obama are apparently furious with him for his effort to save face.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Same lies Bill Clinton peddled to us during his first 100 days. Can you hear how they rhyme with the present crisis?

Whatever. He did an excellent job by the way, it was a damn good 8 years. Then we get 8 years of the idiot Bush and Obama repairs the economy in the 8 years following. I get that you and the clan have trouble with pattern recognition and want to blow it up again but I'd rather not. I've several new business ideas and a stable government in the US will make any of them much easier to implement.

Here's the bottom line, everything your clan wants is going away. It's not just white privilege and Christian fundamentalist control going away, it's US privilege. Hopefully 51% of us will want to continue to move forward with the rest of the world. If like your great, (add a few greats here) grand-daddy you're doomed to repeat the past, best of luck to you brother, it's going to be a tough road.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

A source close to the Director alleges that when new emails that appeared to be related to Hillary's personal email server turned up in a computer used Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner, Comey jumped at the chance to reopen the investigation. It's said he could not resist mounting pressure by agents including his top deputies since he failed to recommend an indictment against Hillary. Comey reportedly worried that after the presidential election, Republicans in Congress would mount a probe of how he had granted Hillary political favoritism and Lynch and Obama are apparently furious with him for his effort to save face.

You paint Comey in a negative light I would not assume but other than that, this is the most likely case. The Dems will eviscerate him when/if this proves to have been a weak move. If nothing else, he's got at least one interesting book in his future.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

Whatever. He did an excellent job by the way, it was a damn good 8 years. Then we get 8 years of the idiot Bush and Obama repairs the economy in the 8 years following.

Whoa. While Bill Clinton had high approval ratings when he left office, with the benefit of hindsight he did not do an excellent job or even a good job. In the very early 2000s, I also thought he did a good job but as the housing bubble inflated and I started researching more of what the hell was going on, I realized that Clinton did not do a good job at all. By and large, a president's popularity is very closely tied to economic performance during his time in office and Clinton just happened to be the beneficiary of the tech stock bubble. Outside of the good feelings of an asset class bubble, what significant legislation did Bill Clinton see get passed that benefitted the U.S. and its citizens? I will refrain from stating all the negative things that have been repeated ad nauseum that he helped usher through.

You'll get no argument from me about George W. Bush. The man is an idiot and I can't believe Kerry was such a milksop that he wasn't able to prevent a second term.

That said, Obama has not repaired the economy. Barring utterly insanely bad legislation, the economy would have repaired itself at least as well as it has. Overall, I would say Obama has done a poor job, too, and I would argue he's done almost as poor a job as George W. Bush. Obama's only saving grace is he did not squander a few trillion dollars on a war on falsified premises. Meanwhile, Obama has done absolutely nothing to even try to put the fraudsters who caused the 2008 crash in jail and the people he appointed to key positions seemed to guarantee non-prosecution or obstruction thereof.

I was very surprised to read recently that William Black had offered to work for free to help prosecute the Wall Street frauds but no one took him up on his offer. Here you have an experienced regulator with a proven record of busting elite white collar crime willing to help clean things up for free and no one took him up on his offer. I think it's fair to blame Obama for that. His choices for attorney general, I suspect, will be seen in a negative light with the passage of time.

Meanwhile, Obama's repairing of the economy is nothing but yet another bubble, a reflation of the reflation of the bubble as EJ said it. If we're going to give Obama any credit, perhaps the best that can be said is that he's leaving office before it pops again. I'm assuming that all economic bubble must pop and it's likely that whomever the next president is, that president will be considered, rightly or wrongly, the worst president ever if the last bubble pops and the U.S. finally has to take its medicine for its ridiculous bubble economic policy.

Had Obama truly repaired the economy, the next president wouldn't be taking the baton that's actually a stick of dynamite.

2016-10-31 11:43 CDT

Peter Thiel explains why he supports Trump. He also assigns blame for the tech stock bubble on Bill Clinton and the housing bubble George W. Bush.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

You paint Comey in a negative light I would not assume but other than that, this is the most likely case. The Dems will eviscerate him when/if this proves to have been a weak move. If nothing else, he's got at least one interesting book in his future.

No, at least I've tried not to do that. He seems to be treading water for dear life amid a perfect storm and I empathize.

And I don't blame you as a partisan for hoping it's a weak case, but it's clear the WSJ story points to a massive and wide-scale investigation against Clinton, her entourage and the foundation that enables her corruption. It details an epic internal struggle at the highest levels of government among the four FBI field offices—New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Ark - investigating the Clinton Foundation for evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling and the senior-most political appointees in the Bureau and the DOJ wanting to avoid the political fallout and willing to look the other way during the election.

Far from "nothing" the Bureau is probing several matters related, directly or indirectly, to Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle. The agents investigating the case are frustrated that the Bureau's deputy director - whose wife received nearly half a million dollars in campaign donations from longtime Clinton ally and foundation board member Terry McAuliffe - and his counterpart in the DOJ ordered them to limit their more than year long probe of the foundation investigating financial crimes and influence peddling related to the charity.

The agents in the field complain that from the start, that these Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of their case, telling them they wouldn’t authorize subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way. The Los Angeles field office picked up information about the Clinton Foundation from an unrelated public-corruption case and had issued some subpoenas for bank records related to the foundation and in September, agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn. Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information.

Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. The Bureau's top deputy told them no and added that they couldn’t “go prosecutor-shopping.” Not long after that discussion, FBI agents informed the bureau’s leaders about the Weiner laptop, prompting Comey’s disclosure to Congress and setting off the shitstorm Comey finds himself in. And whatever happens to him is a sideshow now, compared to the increasing likelihood that HRC and those closest to her are facing further investigation and potential indictment.

Like it or not, Clinton is tainted by this and it will follow her until election day and beyond. Voters now have to decide if they want to elect a candidate who has been under intense legal scrutiny by the highest criminal investigative agency in the land, in full expectation that should she be elected, she will surely face a special prosecutor and eventual impeachment. Couldn't happen to a nicer gal.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

Had Obama truly repaired the economy, the next president wouldn't be taking the baton that's actually a stick of dynamite.

I don't think Obama or anyone has the power to repair the economy, you can't have your cake and eat it as well, somebody will have to be sacrificed and it won't be the bankers who need the cash to fund political activities and sabotages all over the world. It will have to be ordinary Americans. At the end of the day, MONEY = POWER.

All Obama can do is to scheme to prevent the US from spending a couple more trillions in sand games - by messing up the Middle East into something toxic and "uninterferable" for at least his term and the next term.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and causes insanity at the end. Hitler won't be the last one.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...ace-extinction

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

No, at least I've tried not to do that. He seems to be treading water for dear life amid a perfect storm and I empathize.

And I don't blame you as a partisan for hoping it's a weak case, but it's clear the WSJ story points to a massive and wide-scale investigation against Clinton, her entourage and the foundation that enables her corruption. It details an epic internal struggle at the highest levels of government among the four FBI field offices—New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Ark - investigating the Clinton Foundation for evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling and the senior-most political appointees in the Bureau and the DOJ wanting to avoid the political fallout and willing to look the other way during the election.

Far from "nothing" the Bureau is probing several matters related, directly or indirectly, to Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle. The agents investigating the case are frustrated that the Bureau's deputy director - whose wife received nearly half a million dollars in campaign donations from longtime Clinton ally and foundation board member Terry McAuliffe - and his counterpart in the DOJ ordered them to limit their more than year long probe of the foundation investigating financial crimes and influence peddling related to the charity.

The agents in the field complain that from the start, that these Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of their case, telling them they wouldn’t authorize subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way. The Los Angeles field office picked up information about the Clinton Foundation from an unrelated public-corruption case and had issued some subpoenas for bank records related to the foundation and in September, agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn. Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information.

Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. The Bureau's top deputy told them no and added that they couldn’t “go prosecutor-shopping.” Not long after that discussion, FBI agents informed the bureau’s leaders about the Weiner laptop, prompting Comey’s disclosure to Congress and setting off the shitstorm Comey finds himself in. And whatever happens to him is a sideshow now, compared to the increasing likelihood that HRC and those closest to her are facing further investigation and potential indictment.

Like it or not, Clinton is tainted by this and it will follow her until election day and beyond. Voters now have to decide if they want to elect a candidate who has been under intense legal scrutiny by the highest criminal investigative agency in the land, in full expectation that should she be elected, she will surely face a special prosecutor and eventual impeachment. Couldn't happen to a nicer gal.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this whole farrago is that the entire law agency framework within the USA has at long last started to recognise the force of the argument for the creation of law that is completely independent of any political influence. Here in the UK we worked that one out many years ago, as I have already shown elsewhere within itulip recently. How you overcome your now seen to be deeply flawed Constitution in that respect is the great challenge facing the USA. I wish you well. You will not regain your self respect until you make that desperately needed change.

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

Perhaps the most important aspect of this whole farrago is that the entire law agency framework within the USA has at long last started to recognise the force of the argument for the creation of law that is completely independent of any political influence. Here in the UK we worked that one out many years ago, as I have already shown elsewhere within itulip recently. How you overcome your now seen to be deeply flawed Constitution in that respect is the great challenge facing the USA. I wish you well. You will not regain your self respect until you make that desperately needed change.

Is this some kind of pro-monarchy nonsense? 240 years later and the "British kept-a-comin"

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

Is this some kind of pro-monarchy nonsense? 240 years later and the "British kept-a-comin"

With the greatest of respects, you did not understand what I meant. What we have here in the UK is independent of monarchy, it is a system of law that is independent of every outside influence, particularly political influence. I had placed up this detail http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...284#post307284 elsewhere but repeat it here.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-t...ind/jud-appts/

Independence

Independence from whom and what?

It is vitally important in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures and of each other so that those who appear before them and the wider public can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law. When carrying out their judicial function they must be free of any improper influence. Such influence could come from any number of sources. It could arise from improper pressure by the executive or the legislature, by individual litigants, particular pressure groups, the media, self-interest or other judges, in particular more senior judges.
Why is independence important?

It is vital that each judge is able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented in court by the parties and in accordance with the law. Only relevant facts and law should form the basis of a judge’s decision. Only in this way can judges discharge their constitutional responsibility to provide fair and impartial justice; to do justice as Lord Brougham, a 19th Century Lord Chancellor, put it ‘between man and man’ or as Lord Clarke, former Master of the Rolls put it more recently in 2005, ‘between citizen and citizen or between citizen and the state’.
The responsibilities of judges in disputes between the citizen and the state have increased together with the growth in governmental functions over the last century. The responsibility of the judiciary to protect citizens against unlawful acts of government has thus increased, and with it the need for the judiciary to be independent of government.
Independence and the appearance of independence

As well as in fact being independent in this way, it is of vital importance that judges are seen to be both independent and impartial. Justice must not only be done – it must be seen to be done. It was for this reason that the House of Lords in the Pinochet case in 1999 held that a decision it had given had to be set aside and the appeal before it heard again by a panel of different Law Lords. It had come to light after the original decision that one of the Law Lords might have given an appearance that he was not independent and impartial because of a connection with a campaigning organisation which was involved in the case. In those circumstances, and even though there was no suggestion that the Law Lord was not in fact independent or impartial, the decision could not stand. Justice demanded that the appeal be heard again before a panel of Law Lords who had and gave the appearance to reasonable well-informed observers that they were independent and impartial.
The ways in which independence is protected and its limits

Whilst an independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, the practical ways in which this is given effect are often treated with suspicion. For example, judges are given immunity from prosecution for any acts they carry out in performance of their judicial function. They also benefit from immunity from being sued for defamation for the things they say about parties or witnesses in the course of hearing cases. These principles have led some people to suggest that Judges are somehow ‘above the law’.
However, it is not right to say that Judges are above the law. Judges are subject to the law in the same way as any other citizen. The Lord Chief Justice or Lord Chancellor may refer a judge to the Judicial Complaints Investigations Office in order to establish whether it would be appropriate to remove them from office in circumstances where they have been found to have committed a criminal offence.
Judicial independence does, however, mean that judges must be free to exercise their judicial powers without interference from litigants, the State, the media or powerful individuals or entities, such as large companies. This is an important principle because judges often decide matters between the citizen and the state and between citizens and powerful entities. For example, it is clearly inappropriate for the judge in charge of a criminal trial against an individual citizen to be influenced by the state. It would be unacceptable for the judge to come under pressure to admit or not admit certain evidence, how to direct the jury, or to pass a particular sentence. Decisions must be made on the basis of the facts of the case and the law alone.
Judicial independence is important whether the judge is dealing with a civil or a criminal case. Individuals involved in any kind of case before the courts need to be sure that the judge dealing with their case cannot be influenced by an outside party or by the judge’s own personal interests, such as a fear of being sued for defamation by litigants about whom the judge is required in the course of proceedings or judgment to make adverse comment. This requirement that judges be free from any improper influence also underpins the duty placed on them to declare personal interests in any case before it starts, to ensure that there is neither any bias or partiality, or any appearance of such.
A practical example of the importance of judicial independence is where a high profile matter, which has generated a great deal of media interest comes before the court. Such matters range from the criminal trial of a person accused of a shocking murder, the divorce of celebrities, and challenges to the legality of government policy, for example the availability of a new and expensive drug to NHS patients. In the 24 hour media age in which we live, it stands to reason that the judge hearing the case will often be under intense scrutiny, with decisions open to intense debate. It is right that this is so. But it is important that decisions in the courts are made in accordance with the law and are not influenced by such external factors. It is also important however to observe one or two points which will have an impact on the outcome of the trial and our understanding of it:

1. In a Crown Court criminal trial in England and Wales:
   • The judge does not decide guilt or innocence. That decision is made by the jury, which is made up of resident citizens and registered electors selected at random.
   • If the jury decides that the defendant is guilty, it is then the task of the judge to pass sentence. In doing so the judge will have to take into account the sentencing scheme which has been enacted in legislation by Parliament, and the various sentencing guidelines which have been agreed and published by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The Guidelines and the decisions of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) set out key considerations which must be taken into account by the judge when determining any sentence and provide a framework of appropriate sentences for the judge to apply. The judge is entitled to depart from the guidelines or a decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) only when the interests of justice require such a departure.
   • Any sentence that is unduly harsh or in the case of more serious offences is unduly lenient may be corrected by the Court of Appeal, on an appeal by the convicted person or a reference to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney General.
   
   
   
2. In civil cases any errors by the trial judge may also be corrected by the Court of Appeal and
3. In cases raising important points of law, the decisions of the Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Court
4. It is important to recognise that, in both civil and criminal cases, what we read in the papers and see on the news will often only cover a fraction of what has been heard in court. This is not a criticism of journalists. They only have a certain amount of space or time to cover a particular story. It is worth bearing in mind that, for instance, in a criminal case there are often many mitigating or aggravating circumstances surrounding the offence and the offender. These will have had a direct bearing on the sentence handed down and are often difficult for the media to report in full. A good example of this is where a defendant pleads guilty to a crime. In such circumstances Parliament has directed that judges must significantly reduce the sentence.

The purpose of the above examples is not to suggest that judges never get it wrong, or that in criminal cases they have no say in the sentence handed down, but to give an idea of the factors they must consider when making decisions.
Further reading:

International resolutions

The protection of judicial independence has been the focus of international resolutions, the most prominent of which are:

1. The ‘United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the role of lawyers’. These were endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1985 and 1990
2. The ‘Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct’. They were endorsed in 2003 and set out a code of judicial conduct. They are intended to complement the UN’s Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the role of lawyers. The first of its principles states that“Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects

Other bodies have endorsed judicial independence. For instance, in 1995, the group of Asian – Pacific Chief Justices adopted a common set of standards for the promotion and protection of their judicial institutions, which included judicial independence. These are known as the ‘Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region’
In 1998, a similar statement of principle (“the Latimer House Principles”) was also agreed by representatives from over 20 Commonwealth countries at a conference held at Latimer House, Buckinghamshire, UK.
The essence of the commitment to judicial independence can be found in the oath that all judges in England and Wales have to swear when they take up their office.
Historical background:

The fundamental concept of judicial independence came into being in England and Wales in 1701 with the enactment of the Act of Settlement. This statute formally recognised the principles of security of judicial tenure by establishing that High Court Judges and Lords Justice of Appeal hold office during good behaviour. Appropriate and formal mechanisms had to be in place before a judge could be removed.
Before 1701 senior judges held office at the sovereign’s pleasure and there are many examples of judges being removed from office for failing to decide cases in accordance with the wishes of the King or Queen. Since the Act of Settlement it has only been possible to remove a senior judge from office through an Address to the Queen agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
Selected lectures, articles and books on judicial independence:

1. Judicial Independence – the 1996 Judicial Studies Board Lecture given by Lord Bingham, Lord Chief Justice
2. Judicial Independence – a lecture given by Lord Phillips, Lord Chief Justice at the Commonwealth Law Conference, Kenya, September 2007
   Judicial Independence
3. The Position of the Judiciaries of the United Kingdom in the Constitutional Changes – Lord Justice Thomas, Address to the Scottish Sheriff’s Association, 8 March 2008: Peebles
   The Position of the Judiciaries of the United Kingdom in the Constitutional Changes
4. Judicial Independence and Accountability: Pressures and Opportunities – a lecture given by Sir Jack Beatson FBA at Nottingham Trent University, April 2008
   Judicial Independence and Accountability: Pressures and Opportunities
5. Judicial Independence – Its History in England and Wales, a lecture given by Sir Henry Brooke (former Lord Justice of Appeal and Vice – President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division))
   Judicial Independence – Its History in England and Wales
6. The Constitutional Position of the Judiciary – a monograph by John Sorabji, Legal Secretary to the Master of the Rolls
7. Chapter 9 of The Politics of the Judiciary, a book by John Griffith (Fontana 1981)
8. The Independence of the Judiciary – the view from the Lord Chancellor’s Office, a book by Robert Stevens (OUP, 1993)
9. The English Judges – Their Role in the Changing Constitution, a book by Robert Stevens, (Hart Publishing, 2002).
10. Independence, Accountability and the Judiciary, a collection of essays edited by Canivet, Andeanas and Fairgrieve (BIICL, 2006)
11. Judicial Independence and Parliaments, Dame Mary Arden DBE, in Ziegler, Baranger & Bradley, Constitutionalism and the Role of Parliaments (Hart Publishing, 2007)

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

I think both of you are trying to make sense of a political feeding frenzy. Someone(s) important on the Republican side got enough information to put Comey in a position where he felt he had to say something or face the end of his career as he knows it. Over the weekend it appears there's not much there, there and the Dems are skinning him alive. When the lions are hungry a wildebeest is going down.

Beware the rage of frustrated, angry citizens. While the political lions are focused on the wildebeast, the shadow of a looming T-Rex is falling over the lions.

Democrats and Republicans are treating the FBI like a political ping-pong ball with the result that people are losing all respect for authority. Our government is behaving like a banana republic. The breakdown of the Rule of Law is the final step needed for the breakdown of society.

Add to this the fact that Comey had a total conflict of interest in the Clinton investigation, being on Goldman's board of directors. Thus the pathetic wrist slap this summer. For that he became a pariah in the FBI, as he deserved.

Charles Hugh Smith is thinking that the sudden change is coming from the Deep State, not the Republicans. Since I think both parties are actually puppets of the Deep State, I'm willing to give some credence to his theory. :

These Blast Points on Hillary's Campaign... Only The Deep State Is So Precise
October 31, 2016

The Deep State's most prescient elements must derail Hillary's campaign to clear a path to Trump's executive team.

Back in August, I asked Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? I think we now have a definitive answer: "These blast points on Hillary's campaign... too accurate for the Mainstream Media. Only the forces of the Imperial Deep State are so precise."

The Mainstream Media is presenting the FBI investigation as a "lose-lose" situation for embattled FBI Director Comey. If Comey remained quiet until after the election, he would be accused of colluding with the Clinton campaign and its allies in the Department of Justice (sic).

But in going public, he stands accused by Democrats of "intervening in an election," i.e. raising doubts about Hillary's judgement and veracity days before Americans go to the polls.

Another narrative has Comey's hand forced by the threat of disgusted FBI agents leaking information that would show the FBI caved into political pressure from the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to keep relevant material out of the public eye until after the election.

I submit another much more powerful dynamic is in play: the upper ranks of the Deep State now view Hillary as an unacceptable liability. The word came down to Comey to act whether he wanted to or not, i.e. take one for the good of the nation/Deep State/Imperial Project.

As a refresher: the Deep State is the unelected government (also called the invisible or shadow government) that is not as monolithic as generally assumed.

The neo-conservative globalists who want Hillary to continue pushing their agenda are the more visible camp, but another less visible but highly motivated camp realizes Hillary and her neo-con agenda would severely damage the nation's security and its global influence. It is this camp that is arranging for Hillary to lose.

The consensus view seems to be that the Establishment and the Deep State see Trump as a loose cannon who might upset the neo-con apple cart by refusing to toe the neo-con line.

This view overlooks the reality that significant segments of the Deep State view the neo-con strategy as an irredeemable failure. To these elements of the Deep State, Hillary is a threat precisely because she embraces the failed neo-con strategy and those who cling to it. From this point of view, Hillary as president would be an unmitigated disaster for the Deep State and the nation/Imperial Project it governs.

Whatever else emerges from the emails being leaked or officially released, one conclusion is inescapable: Hillary's judgement is hopelessly flawed. Combine her lack of judgement with her 24 years of accumulated baggage and her potential to push the neo-con agenda to the point of global disaster, and you get a potent need for the Deep State's most prescient elements to derail her campaign and clear a path to Trump's executive team.

Once this path is clear, the management of Trump's executive team can begin in earnest, a management process aimed at disengaging the nation and its global Empire from neo-con overreach.

If you think this scenario is "impossible," let's see how the election plays out before deciding what's "impossible" and what's inevitable.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Beware the rage of frustrated, angry citizens. While the political lions are focused on the wildebeast, the shadow of a looming T-Rex is falling over the lions.

Democrats and Republicans are treating the FBI like a political ping-pong ball with the result that people are losing all respect for authority. Our government is behaving like a banana republic. The breakdown of the Rule of Law is the final step needed for the breakdown of society.

Add to this the fact that Comey had a total conflict of interest in the Clinton investigation, being on Goldman's board of directors. Thus the pathetic wrist slap this summer. For that he became a pariah in the FBI, as he deserved.

Charles Hugh Smith is thinking that the sudden change is coming from the Deep State, not the Republicans. Since I think both parties are actually puppets of the Deep State, I'm willing to give some credence to his theory. :

these theories are:
1. too easy to construct. they can explain or predict ANYTHING, especially when you posit conflicting subgroups within "the deep state."
2. too hard to disprove. they are about hidden, conspiratorial actions. if you can't see them, that's proof of their secrecy instead of their non-existence.

such a theory may be true, in theory or in fact, but it has no explanatory value. it is created post-hoc to explain what has already happened.