Jump to content

U.S. Elections: 9,444 days


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Also, to end the chess-related interlude, while it is easy to play chess over the internet, this method has not been used for serious tournaments even at the high school level either today or two decades ago. The reason is that one would need a trusted authority to constantly keep watch on every player to confirm that they are not getting any assistance. Back then, the latter would have been from a better player; today, it is easiest to get it from a computer (grandmaster-level programs that will run on an ordinary computer are now widely available). The way the high school tournaments (and many others) usually work is that for every round all of the players gather in a large room with no computers and many tables with chess boards and don't leave until their match is done. That's why every school has to pay for the travel despite the expense.

 On top of all that, the travel, the trip, the camaraderie, etc, etc, is like half the point. It's kind of a glorified field trip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

board lawyers, if the FBI did not have a warrant to search wieners computer for abedin emails for the Clinton case, but did so anyway, how much does that foul the evidence in terms of its admissibility in court? For both cases I suppose, because by making all this stuff public about how they are mixing Weiner case stuff with Clinton case stuff have they effected the custody chain or admissibility  for the evidence for the Weiner case as well as the Clinton case (note that my litigation knowledge all derives from fictional TV).

also, apparently comey sent the letter to only republicans in congress,  to committee chairs, whereas standard practice would have included notifying the ranking democrat on said committees as well. 

And Matt yglesias is alleging that comey may have sent the letter to congress because he thought the public letter would provide effective pressure on a judge to grant a warrant request. Could this just blow up in his face totally backwards?

and there are reports flying that comey released the letter because he thought that a nyc FBi department was going to leak the existence of the Weiner/Abedin laptop and he had a little turf war tantrum and released the existence of it himself because he didn't want them to get credit?

this whole thing is really bizarre, is it really going to boil down to being motivated by an internecine turf squabble within the fbi? If so that is ... Apt, I suppose, considering the entire organizations history is mostly comprised of nothing but such internecine turf squabbles between departments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

board lawyers, if the FBI did not have a warrant to search wieners computer for abedin emails for the Clinton case, but did so anyway, how much does that foul the evidence in terms of its admissibility in court? For both cases I suppose, because by making all this stuff public about how they are mixing Weiner case stuff with Clinton case stuff have they effected the custody chain or admissibility  for the evidence for the Weiner case as well as the Clinton case (note that my litigation knowledge all derives from fictional TV).

law school exam question for Con. Crim. Pro. I--giving me nightmarey flashbacks.

D argues to suppress in both cases, amendment IV.  P argues about six exceptions to the warrant requirement, wins.  (dunno. i got a C in this class.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

I've heard at least half a dozen contradictory things in the media, the latest of which is that the FBI didn't have a warrant to even look at the emails. This is really hard to believe as without looking at the emails, it's impossible to determine that Wiener's and Abedin's devices have anything relevant to the Clinton investigation. Other things I've heard is that there are only three emails, there might be thousands, Abedin was using Weiner's laptop, the FBI seized Abedin's phone as well as Weiner's and so on and so forth. I would suggest waiting a bit before judging the FBI.

I would suggest Comey's the one who should have waited a bit. If he was unable to present clear facts, he's been an idiot at the very least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mudguard said:

If the new emails are really from Abedin's and Weiner's computer, then I find the Clinton campaign's denials of knowing anything about these emails disingenuous at best.  There are a lot of questions that need to be answered, like why hadn't Abedin turned these emails over to the FBI in the first place and what were the contents of those emails.  Abedin could answer these questions, but I doubt she'll be making a statement anytime soon.

Abedin supposedly turned over all her devices that could have contained work emails.  Apparently they found a device that she didn't turn over.  I think it's possible that most of the emails are duplicates, but if it's true that there are thousands of emails to review, it's going to take some time to determine whether this is the case.

If Abedin turned over these emails when she should have, Comey wouldn't have been put in this lose-lose situation.  If the emails are from Abedin and the emails are actually relevant to her State Department work, then ultimately the fault resides with Abedin for not turning over the emails.

Except we have no idea what the facts are in this case. I've heard multiple reporters speculate that these emails were previously turned over to the FBI and that the only things on this device are duplicates. If that's the case, than yes, Abedin should've turned the device over when requested; but there's nothing new here.

Beyond that, a lot of reporters seem to have FBI sources saying that these are not emails that were to/from Clinton and that they were never on her server. If that's the case, than its possible there is a problem here for Abedin, depending on the facts, but not Clinton (except insofar as perceptions affect her electoral chances).

 

8 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

In other news, poll out of Alaska has Hillary up four. Yes, Alaska.

Entirely conducted before the FBI news came out. It does help establish the baseline of where things had stood though, and supports my previous claim that Alaska would be one of the better bets for a surprise Clinton win in a red state.

7 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Kansas City? I'd rather eat an entire... army? array? of chess pieces than go to Kansas City. I'd pay a million dollars to not go to Kansas City.

Lot of amazing BBQ in KC; also KC is in Missouri, not Kansas. Missouri's not great, but its a lot better than Kansas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are questions if Comey violated the Hatch act which controls federal employees involvement in politics.  I tried to search yesterday the claim that the FBI wouldn't release info on a case 60 days before an election because of Hatch Act rules but didn't find that.  Doesn't mean that's not valid tho, does anyone else know more about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TheMightyKC said:

Exactly! Crooked Hillary, take note: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

They need not be separate! "Let every man be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

You do know that 'crooked Hillary's opponent is just a bunch of void crabs in an I'll fitting human skin, right?  That's more or less a demon, or ciphrang, if you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

You do know that 'crooked Hillary's opponent is just a bunch of void crabs in an I'll fitting human skin, right?  That's more or less a demon, or ciphrang, if you will.

Well, so far this election season has been a great ordeal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lokisnow said:

board lawyers, if the FBI did not have a warrant to search wieners computer for abedin emails for the Clinton case, but did so anyway, how much does that foul the evidence in terms of its admissibility in court? For both cases I suppose, because by making all this stuff public about how they are mixing Weiner case stuff with Clinton case stuff have they effected the custody chain or admissibility  for the evidence for the Weiner case as well as the Clinton case (note that my litigation knowledge all derives from fictional TV).

also, apparently comey sent the letter to only republicans in congress,  to committee chairs, whereas standard practice would have included notifying the ranking democrat on said committees as well. 

And Matt yglesias is alleging that comey may have sent the letter to congress because he thought the public letter would provide effective pressure on a judge to grant a warrant request. Could this just blow up in his face totally backwards?

and there are reports flying that comey released the letter because he thought that a nyc FBi department was going to leak the existence of the Weiner/Abedin laptop and he had a little turf war tantrum and released the existence of it himself because he didn't want them to get credit?

this whole thing is really bizarre, is it really going to boil down to being motivated by an internecine turf squabble within the fbi? If so that is ... Apt, I suppose, considering the entire organizations history is mostly comprised of nothing but such internecine turf squabbles between departments.

As you can we from the letter, Comey copied numerous Democrats, which makes Hillary's claim that it went only to Republicans a lie (as she acknowledged seeing the letter).  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/oct-28-fbi-letter-to-congressional-leaders-on-clinton-email-investigation/2113/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Texas has the size and resources to be a viable independent nation-state.

Oh I know, I was citing precedent. ;)

It was mostly a joke, but when MarK Cuban becomes God-Emperor of the new failed state and outsources all the jobs to Oklahoma, I do imagine they'd come crawling back within a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Commodore said:

Not all servers, but certainly those set up in a private home bathroom with classified information illegally running across them. Might want to stop using that.

Abedin was using Weiner's laptop to access the server. A device that surely has the IT equivalent of herpes. No chance it wasn't compromised.

Yup, you are gonna double down on the stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Oh I know, I was citing precedent. ;)

It was mostly a joke, but when MarK Cuban becomes God-Emperor of the new failed state and outsources all the jobs to Oklahoma, I do imagine they'd come crawling back within a decade.

Texas may have the potential to be a successful nation-state, but if they run it like Kansas, it will fail, fast.  Those supplysiders never saw an economy they couldn't crash.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Impmk2 said:

Perhaps at least skim the article before posting about it? The story starts with "In the fall of 1996".

Somebody is playing chess online, but it ain't @Impmk2 .  

So I don't ruin everyone's fun:

Spoiler

 (IOW,  TheMightyKC is bait for the fundies from the left, I think)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Texas may have the potential to be a successful nation-state, but if they run it like Kansas, it will fail, fast.  Those supplysiders never saw an economy they couldn't crash.

 

You have to crash it so that the pieces will fly into the hands of the plebs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Oh I know, I was citing precedent. ;)

It was mostly a joke, but when MarK Cuban becomes God-Emperor of the new failed state and outsources all the jobs to Oklahoma, I do imagine they'd come crawling back within a decade.

PQJ,

That was more Sam Houston's desire to get Texas into the Union than necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Texas has the size and resources to be a viable independent nation-state.

Even ignoring the.... precedents... I'd suggest that there would have to be a long process of bilateral negotiation to make Texas viable on its own. Unilateral independence - with the associated issues of currency, trade, and defence - would be a headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...