Slashdot Mirror

Is this the revenge which Obama promised for Putin helping Trump defeat Clinton with the Wikipedia leaks?

He's probably going to appoint Steven Mnuchin, a Goldman Sachs alumni, as the Treasury Secretary. Feel betrayed yet? You should.

This is where everyone finds out that their "anti-establishment" candidate is actually not. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Diplomatic sources in Beijing and Washington have confirmed that Beijing, aware of the high stakes for bilateral ties, has been following the election campaign closely and trying to maintain regular contact with both candidates, Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, through their campaign teams and other channels.

Your point? Open relations with one of America's biggest trading partners is a lot different from secret contacts with an antagonistic power. Denying it through his campaign makes it look even worse.

Between conspiracy with the country's adversaries and tapping the DNC, Trump seems to be doing his best to emulate Nixon. We'll see if it comes to the same end.

CNN booted her for that: http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Of course, this was just weaseling out, because Donna isn't the only one who was involved in this. But no, it's not fair to give one side a copy of the test in advance, that's just cheating. If they want to do that kind of thing fairly, they should just publish the questions in advance, so it's about ideas and policies, not about the media trying to tell us what to think. And yes, they were lying in that clip.

Oh noooeess over sampling!!! It's Fraud! No, idiots, it's math.

I'm fuzzy on the whole math/oversampling thing.

It might help if you could walk me through an example.

The ABC poll showing Clinton ahead by 12 points when every other poll had her at about +3 points would be a good example. That poll sampled Dems+9 to come up with Clinton+12, and it was highly cited by MSM for about a week. Recently, too.

I don't understand how sampling D+9 makes for a better poll, but I am a math major.

If you take the time to explain it, I'm sure I would understand.

If he doesn't hit the promises, will you give him another 4 years like President Obama for his failed promises?

I'll bet dollars to donuts the GOP will not lose the Senate next term. Take a look at which seats are up for reelection in 2018, and you'll see why any move toward the left is highly unlikely.

http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://www.rollcall.com/news/h...

I wouldn't get too whipped up about that. People are inclined to think of the President as a single person when in fact a presidency involves an entire team of people. There are plenty of highly talented, experienced people available to work for Trump to produce a highly successful term in office.

Except that almost ALL experienced, talented people (from all parts of the political spectrum) have rejected Trump. His foreign policy and economic advisor list is less a "whos who", and more of a "Who? No really, who is that person". And given Trump's disdain for "experts" (including politicizing the Federal Reserve), I doubt he'd take any advice well (or talented people would subject themselves to his whims). After all, he has "good" instincts for this stuff, and has shown he does not take criticism/questioning well.

Very well stated, and more concisely than I'd have managed.

I wouldn't get too whipped up about that. People are inclined to think of the President as a single person when in fact a presidency involves an entire team of people. There are plenty of highly talented, experienced people available to work for Trump to produce a highly successful term in office.

Except that almost ALL experienced, talented people (from all parts of the political spectrum) have rejected Trump. His foreign policy and economic advisor list is less a "whos who", and more of a "Who? No really, who is that person". And given Trump's disdain for "experts" (including politicizing the Federal Reserve), I doubt he'd take any advice well (or talented people would subject themselves to his whims). After all, he has "good" instincts for this stuff, and has shown he does not take criticism/questioning well.

Very well stated, and more concisely than I'd have managed.

I wouldn't get too whipped up about that. People are inclined to think of the President as a single person when in fact a presidency involves an entire team of people. There are plenty of highly talented, experienced people available to work for Trump to produce a highly successful term in office.

Except that almost ALL experienced, talented people (from all parts of the political spectrum) have rejected Trump. His foreign policy and economic advisor list is less a "whos who", and more of a "Who? No really, who is that person". And given Trump's disdain for "experts" (including politicizing the Federal Reserve), I doubt he'd take any advice well (or talented people would subject themselves to his whims). After all, he has "good" instincts for this stuff, and has shown he does not take criticism/questioning well.

Very well stated, and more concisely than I'd have managed.

I wouldn't get too whipped up about that. People are inclined to think of the President as a single person when in fact a presidency involves an entire team of people. There are plenty of highly talented, experienced people available to work for Trump to produce a highly successful term in office.

Except that almost ALL experienced, talented people (from all parts of the political spectrum) have rejected Trump. His foreign policy and economic advisor list is less a "whos who", and more of a "Who? No really, who is that person". And given Trump's disdain for "experts" (including politicizing the Federal Reserve), I doubt he'd take any advice well (or talented people would subject themselves to his whims). After all, he has "good" instincts for this stuff, and has shown he does not take criticism/questioning well.

I wouldn't get too whipped up about that. People are inclined to think of the President as a single person when in fact a presidency involves an entire team of people. There are plenty of highly talented, experienced people available to work for Trump to produce a highly successful term in office.

Except that almost ALL experienced, talented people (from all parts of the political spectrum) have rejected Trump. His foreign policy and economic advisor list is less a "whos who", and more of a "Who? No really, who is that person". And given Trump's disdain for "experts" (including politicizing the Federal Reserve), I doubt he'd take any advice well (or talented people would subject themselves to his whims). After all, he has "good" instincts for this stuff, and has shown he does not take criticism/questioning well.

I wouldn't get too whipped up about that. People are inclined to think of the President as a single person when in fact a presidency involves an entire team of people. There are plenty of highly talented, experienced people available to work for Trump to produce a highly successful term in office.

Except that almost ALL experienced, talented people (from all parts of the political spectrum) have rejected Trump. His foreign policy and economic advisor list is less a "whos who", and more of a "Who? No really, who is that person". And given Trump's disdain for "experts" (including politicizing the Federal Reserve), I doubt he'd take any advice well (or talented people would subject themselves to his whims). After all, he has "good" instincts for this stuff, and has shown he does not take criticism/questioning well.

> I am 100% convinced that Hillary wanted Donald as the (R) candidate, and the media set him up to win.

Those two are not necessarily connected.
Les Moonves is literally on the record saying why CBS gave Donald Trump tons of coverage, and it was not about helping Clinton, it was about helping CBS. Trump's polarizing and hyperbolic effect on the election brought in tons of ad spend.

Voter ID is one of those common sense things

The great thing about calling something "common sense" is that it can be applied to absolutely anything. It doesn't have to correct, it just has to be a common belief and be able to survive a very shallow logical analysis. And, actually, it doesn't even have to all that common... you can also use it to describe something you'd like to portray as a common belief in the hope that it will become one.

Common sense is neither common, nor sense. We should ignore it and instead focus on reasoned sense, based on solid data. And from that perspective there is absolutely zero evidence that voter ID is necessary... or even useful.

if you're incapable of obtaining identification which most people have (state ID, drivers license, etc.)

Mu.

No one is saying people are incapable of obtaining identification, but there is a large minority of people who don't need identification in their daily lives, and therefore don't have it. Requiring them to obtain it solely for the purpose of voting places a large obstacle in front of them... especially if the government also "consolidates" DMV offices, closing the ones within easy reach of the people who don't have identification, which was also done in NC. Even without that step, it's a great way to discourage people from voting, to add one more (rather large) obstacle. How many people who have ID don't vote because they're too busy to make it to the polling place? Now tell them they have to first spend half of a day sitting in a DMV office several weeks beforehand. Oh, and that's half a day during working hours; so they have to take time off -- and the class in question does not get paid time off, so it's also expensive.

The effect is not only predictable, it's measurable, and has been measured. There are many studies, actually, that article discusses only one of them.

then perhaps you shouldn't be entrusted with a vote.

You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that, much less saying it. If you're going to do that, why not limit the vote to male landowners, or have income level requirements, or IQ tests?

The government should represent all of the people it governs, not just the ones you think are "worthy". I'll grant that there are other big problems with our achievement of that ideal, but that's no reason to add more.

They should also publish the tax returns of politicians to ensure no undue influence.

What good would that do? Politicians don't report bribes on their tax returns, besides, the folks charged with writing the tax code don't even understand it, just ask Rep. Charles Rangel who failed to realize you need to report income from foreign rental properties he owns.

Since when do those laws require intent? I am sure that the Navy Sailor didn't intend to reveal classified information when he took a selfie in a sub's engine room:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

No intent is required in classified leakage issues, only the failure to report...which last I checked, Hillary didn't do.

If you can't find a citation, then you obviously work for the Justice Department in "investigating" anything wrong with Hillary.

Those of us who learned about this thing called "Google" back in the 90s don't have such problems:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

I actually feel bad for the more moderate GOP elements. I grew up in a conservative family in the US (no longer live in the US - but US politics affects us all). While there's many in the party who love Trump, there's also a lot who despise him and all he stands for - but feel they have no other option.

I don't. For at least two decades now its been plainly obvious to me - someone who grew up in a state with practically zero black people - that the republican party actively courted racists, misogynists and homophobes. That's not to say that the democratic party didn't have some of them, but not only were they being driven out over time, the party itself was officially embarrassed by them.

The "moderate" GOP people decided that bigotry was not a disqualifier, that instead it was a useful part of their coalition. Now the chickens have come home to roost. If "winning" is more important to you than a baseline level of decency then that makes you indecent too. You can negotiate with neo-nazis, even cooperate on issues that do not violate your ethics, but once you start wearing the same uniform you are a neo-nazi.

The evangelical christians who have embraced Trump are especially egregious, Trump has destroyed their facade that they care about issues like abortion (evangelicals welcomed roe v wade, until it became politically useful to oppose it) rather than tribalism, and that recent denunciations of racism are barely more than lip service (did you know that the southern baptist convention was created specifically to support slave-owners? and that it wasn't until 1995 that they finally got around to apologizing for supporting slavery and segregation? I didn't know that either, but I sure got that vibe from them despite my ignorance of history.)

After Trump is when we'll see who is moral and who are just venal opportunists. The trumpkins need to be purged. Either the trumpkins will own the GOP and the principled people will leave for a brand new party (and attract some 'liberals' for whom the bigotry was a disqualifier) or the trumpkins will leave for their own Trump Party. But if they continue to stay in the same party for the sake of expediency then they will all be deplorable. Freedom isn't free means standing up for your principles even when it means taking it on the chin.

captcha: inequity

Comey was directly asked under oath whether he is a Republican. His answer was that although he had previously been a registered Republican for most of his life, he is no longer registered. I think it's undisputed that Comey has been under an enormous amount of pressure all around in this matter, perhaps most heavily from the interests of the sitting administration. In many respects, there is little practical difference in the outcomes driven by either Democrats or Republicans with significant political power, but they certainly both continue to heavily benefit from the perpetuation of the perception of partisan divides. -PCP

Captcha: gamblers

Like for instance Gary Johnson. Why is that?

And what is "Allepo"?

http://www.politico.com/story/...

POLITICO's Battleground States Polling Average:
Florida Clinton Avg 46.8 Trump Avg 43.4

Trump has trailed Hillary Clinton in 10 of the 11 public polls conducted in October. According to POLITICOâ(TM)s Battleground States polling average, Clinton has a 3.4-point lead. Even private surveys conducted by Republican-leaning groups show Trumpâ(TM)s in trouble in Florida, where a loss would end his White House hopes.

âoeOn the presidential race weâ(TM)ve found Clinton with a consistent 3% - 5% lead in surveys that attempt to reflect Floridaâ(TM)s actual electorate,â Ryan D. Tyson, vice president of political operations for the Associated Industries of Florida business group, wrote in a confidential memo emailed to his conservative-leaning members this weekend and obtained by POLITICO.

As of Monday morning, Florida Republicans had cast fewer than 42 percent of the more than 1.2 million absentee ballots. Democrats had cast 40 percent. Though that 1.7 percentage point lead is in the GOPâ(TM)s favor, itâ(TM)s greatly reduced since the same period in 2012, when Republican ballots outpaced Democratsâ(TM) by 5 points.

Of the nearly 12.7 million active registered voters in the state, 38 percent are Democrats, 36 percent Republicans and the balance are independent voters, with the majority of them registering as having no party affiliation.

Another change since 2012: Floridaâ(TM)s voter rolls have become less white by 3 percentage points, an advantage for Democrats, who enjoy higher rates of minority support than Republicans.

"While Iâ(TM)m still very confident in our partyâ(TM)s ability in the vote-by-mail universe, it is clear our colleagues on the other side have growing success,â said Brian Hughes, a Florida Republican consultant and former spokesman for the state party and Gov. Scott.

  One bright spot for Florida Republicans: Sen. Marco Rubio, who leads Congressman Patrick Murphy by 5 points in AIF polls and has bested the Democrat in more than two dozen other surveys. But increasingly, Rubioâ(TM)s team and supporters are nervous as Trumpâ(TM)s fortunes appear to wane. They fear that if Trump loses by 5 points, it could signify a Democratic blue wave that swamps Rubio.

âoeThis is the nightmare scenario weâ(TM)ve all worried about,â said one top Rubio backer who didnâ(TM)t want to go on record for fear of âoepoking the Trump people in the eye.â

A Rubio loss would seriously endanger his political career. It would mark his second defeat in a year, having lost the state GOP presidential primary to Trump. âoeTrump could be directly responsible for one Rubio loss and indirectly responsible for the other,â the Rubio backer said.

The concern isnâ(TM)t limited to Rubio. In tracking whether Florida voters prefer a generic Republican or Democrat, AIF found that âoeRepublicans have taken a hit in the generic ballot since the Access Hollywood tapes were released on Friday October 7. In our initial track it was Republicans +4%. In this weekâ(TM)s track they have dropped -5% to Democrats +1%.â

Trump will be costing Republicans the presidency, the states and ultimately - the party.
Which is now chasing away its last conservative members, turning into a party of radical reactionaries.
On its way to join the Whig Party on the trash heap of history.
The elephant trundled off to the jungle and was never seen again...

By definition, Trump can either have extreme opinions or he can represent the majority view, but he can't do both. Getting elected is the art of getting lots of people from the middle of the political spectrum to agree with you.

Getting nominated of course is a different matter. To get nominated you just have to get a plurality of a subset of voters, and ones predisposed to agree with you at that. News organizations were also predisposed to like Trump. He sells a lot of newspapers, and drives a lot of pageviews. However, he seems to have mistaken "getting attention" for "getting votes", and even if everything else were going his way, what drives the media out of his corner is his decision to attack them for anything resembling negative coverage. Threatening lawsuits is probably not a good move there. Saying that as President you would push for more expansive libel laws is flat-out stupid.

Trump is socially pretty extreme. That's why people know who he is. It's possible to be socially outré as a politician (Churchill comes to mind), but pretty difficult. His politics are also pretty extreme, and that puts him at a mathematical disadvantage with the electorate. However, if there is a media conspiracy against him, [1] they don't have much work to do, given the above, and [2] he should probably have gone for a strategy of appeasement rather than aggression. There is an appropriate phrase here: "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel." Given that Trump continues to ramp-up his anti-media rhetoric, are you really surprised that the media is less inclined to support him?

with socialism? Like Bernie Sander's said, words have meaning. Pull your head out of your (or maybe Vlad Putin's if you're one of those Russian trolls) ass.

It is not socialism it is fascism.

with socialism? Like Bernie Sander's said, words have meaning. Pull your head out of your (or maybe Vlad Putin's if you're one of those Russian trolls) ass.

Unsurprisingly, the Republican National Committee operated an email server for White House staff to use for partisan communications and purposes.

So we are supposed to believe that the VP office did not produce emails for days on end during some of the most critical time stretches of the Iraq war?

Who has been lead around on the nose exactly?

The number of classified emails that went through Hillary's server are BTW 22. Most of them were not classified at the time, the once that were didn't have the classification in the header, they were only marked in the body.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...

And what possible difference would it make if we did? Do you have any idea what you're chances are against a modern, mechanized army?

Police are needed to maintain a police state. And no matter how many police you have, they are always greatly outnumbered by the people, which is why it is vital for police in a police state to have automatic weapons and for the oppressed people to have nothing but their limp dicks.

An armed populace makes enforcement of a police state impossible by default.

Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?

Apparently you haven't noticed his constant attempts to do just that. Which would make you either uninformed or willfully ignorant. As a college-educated NRA member, I am neither. Please remember this the next time you deign to talk down to us.

The emails to be released include correspondent that went between the Yahoo account of Palin and her husband and about 50 state officials.
When one side of it passed through state mail computers, MSNBC.com writes, it became public record.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Stop with the court bullshit. We are not in a court of law, but rather the court of public opinion, and public opinion has always been that she's power-hungry and people don't trust her (68% say she can't be trusted, and only 38% like her).

32% saying she's trustworthy is nowhere near the "balance of probabilities" to win a civil case, if you insist on a court analogy. So the real question is, WTF happened to your electoral process to produce two of the worst candidates possible, candidates that the majority simply don't trust. It's not hard to figure out - Citizen's United. Unlimited 3rd party funds. Nobody can even hope to run unless they can raise a billion bucks during their campaign - and that's no guarantee of winning. Both Obama and Romney spent over a billion last time around.

Also, "Why are you prosecuting Hillary on nothing but stolen garbage" - it would be very easy to disprove the email dumps - just release her and Podesta's copies. Of course, the reason why that's not going to happen is because the email dumps are accurate. Obama produced his birth certificate, but the Clinton campaign won't release their copies any more than Donald Trump would release his tax returns - it would confirm they are both liars.

Here is a good article to show that Trump is the one you should be taking about but have been conned by a childish "she's doing it too" playground argument:
http://www.politico.com/magazi...

Wow, what a dolt. Thankfully partisan idiots like you are so exceptionally stupid that they color all partisans in an ill light.

You are aware that Trump has absolutely no chance of winning the election? Since the 2016 electoral map is identical to 2008 and 2012, Trump has to perform better than John McCain and Mitt Romney. Trump, being an equal opportunity offender, isn't performing at all. He might make history as the biggest loser in modern times with less than 40% of the votes.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-polling-229916

Do you think that any of the following will change some minds?

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit
• is preferred by established Republicans because they prefer a Bush-Clinton dynasty

Because you want a Bush-Clinton dynasty run by a person who

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• Runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit

That is not, and I quote, "she asked someone at the IMF in the EU about if Greece was getting a bailout, so her son in law could make a big bet on it happening". Nor is that anything other than a hasty "PIs ask your econ team to review." written by Hillary. That's the chair of the commodities trading commission, sending information to the Secretary of State, on a topic that it was her job to deal with, and her forwarding it to her team. Yes, the secretary of state's job is to stay on top of the most major international political issues of the time, for crying out loud - how can you possibly think otherwise? Or did you think that Greece was not one of the most (actually, *the* most) pressing international political issues of the time? She was repeatedly and regularly dispatch to meet with Greek and other European officials on the topic.

The fact that her son in law made bad choices of investments in Greece despite being related to a top US government official should make it obvious how little communication there was between the two on the issue. But no, because she talked to an aide, and that aide talked to someone who works on the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea is in the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea's husband is investing in Greece, that means that Hillary Clinton was carefully manipulating Greek investment funds with insider info - it's all so obvious!

The other thing you linked is also not anything written by Hillary. It's about how a Canadian company (who had given to the Clinton foundation) was bought by the Russians, and in the process a number of different US government officials signed off on the sale - one of them being Clinton. Wow, stop the presses, clearly that's totally like having an email saying "If you give me money, I'll approve your sale"! Do you realize how many things the Secretary of State's office has to sign off on? She didn't even have veto power on the deal. And do you know how many different donors have given to the Clinton foundation (which, by the way, is not "money to the Clintons" - it's a charity that Charity Watch gives it's highest possible rating, unlike Trump's charity, which was basically a scam and was recently delisted by the government of New York, which is also investigating criminal charges)?

    Both Fact Check and Politifact call the accusations concerning Uranium One that this was some sort of corrupt deal false.

Thats just a number you plucked out your backside

http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://prospect.org/article/ma...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

There you go. There's three references. One a university study, one from a polling company, and one from a government organisation. Those were just the first 3 links on Google in order. Let me know how far down you get before you find one that suits your agenda.

What in the world is happening in the comments of this thread? Is there some kind of Trump brigade in force? Here's an additional fact check from politico - http://www.politico.com/blogs/... The comments she made are quite smart and thoughtful. This is just an absurd world we live in where reality no longer matters. My main take away from this election is that the human race has immense challenges still left for it to overcome. I am completely shocked at how emotional people are in this election process and unable to perform any critical thinking. It is as if millions of people have just turned off their brains. In WWI and WWII, you can study things like propaganda, historians are going to find a new item here to study. The effect it has had on the populace is remarkable.

The fix is in.

You're going to be counted as voting for Crooked Hillary! anyway, might as well vote for her.

Oh, you say the fix is in for TRUMP?!!?!?!

Haven't been paying attention, have you?

Who's been telling Wall Street one thing, while telling you another?

Who just had Obama's FBI/DoJ let her get away with having an illegal email server with classified data on it, while giving everyone around her sleazy, sweetheart immunity deals?

There's also the fact that the mere concept of the 2nd Amendment being an individual right is a recent invention basically paid for by the weapons industry. Gotta create them markets somehow, and what better way than overturn basically 190 years of legal precedent in the courts and sew paranoia about race and the government?

BULLSHIT

Complete, utter BULLSHIT.

Explain why, in the midst of a bunch of amendments clarifying INDIVIDUAL rights, would there be one about a collective right?

Explain how " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" places limits on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's one REASON among many for the right, not a fucking LIMIT.

Remember, everyone, that the first act of totalitarian governments is the taking away of arms from the people. Imagine that - statists like the parent poster want to take the fundamental right to defend yourself away.

There's also the fact that the mere concept of the 2nd Amendment being an individual right is a recent invention basically paid for by the weapons industry. Gotta create them markets somehow, and what better way than overturn basically 190 years of legal precedent in the courts and sew paranoia about race and the government?

Powell admits he advised Clinton on email

Clinton on email

Powell admitting he has none of the state dept emails

Powell and Rice both used personal emails for state business

And the list goes on. So if you have outrage for one, then you must have outrage for all, unless you can prove that there was something different about the one, except link 3 negates any possibility of proof.

Kristian Saucier

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

That is 110 counts of Felony mishandling of classified information.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

There are three more counts.

Now, as to the government issued cell phone, she was offered a Blackberry like every other government employee, she chose instead to have her own Blackberry, so how did she exactly avoid the "poor excuse" for a cell phone?

http://www.politico.com/story/...

As well, the fact that she failed to turn over official records, that were improperly stored and destroyed breaks the records retention laws that were clarified after she left office, but were always assumed to cover email as well as paper.

https://www.archives.gov/about...

You can choose to believe that she did nothing wrong, but fact is, she committed many felonies, and concealed evidence of them by running her own server. We will never know what she did or didn't do for Benghazi, but we do know that she destroyed emails related to it. It is rather hard to run an investigation when the party is destroying evidence the whole time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It is quite clear that there are many emails not delivered to the investigation. and in fact, there were several emails requesting additional security before the attack that were ignored, that would have been sent to Clinton, but none were in her email dump. In fact, other countries had already closed their embassies at that time, so it isn't like no one knew there were issues.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

But, I wasn't even speaking about Benghazi, you bring tha

It may be a wild story, but it's also the truth.

linky

What would happen if a certain business type elected president instructed the DOJ to assist any with litigation against large search engine companies?

Probably no worse than a President who instructed the DOJ to ignore felonies committed by his chosen successor, possibly because he lied about his knowledge of those activities?

There's a clear subset of Trump fans that are extremely authoritarian https://psmag.com/donald-trump-s-appeal-to-the-authoritarian-personality-b5a0e8820a6e#.l9khk8wf5 and Trump supporters in the primaries were on average more authoritarian than supporters of other Republican candidate http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533 but this isn't all Trump supporters. Moreover, the evidence here suggests a Denial of Service attack by a small set of coordinated people, so it really doesn't say much about Trump supporters as a whole.

Which recent events in particular? (honest question)

Probably was meant to refer to this report:
Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal

Certainly it is an odd story, but I don't think there is really anything inherently wrong with Obama using a pseudonym in correspondence, so long as the Records Act is respected. It does leave me wondering what exactly the pseudonym he chose. I'm rooting for "Max Power", and hoping he resisted any urge to go with a variation on "Carlos Danger"...

No, Comey let Clinton off the hook because Obama was also implicated. President Obama, who claimed he learned about Hillary's private email account, exchanged emails with that account...BTW Comey held jobs which had connections to the Clinton Foundation and his brother works for the firm which conducted the "independent audit" of the Clinton Foundation (independent audit is in quotation marks because every "independent" investigation in the last 6 years concerning anyone connected to the current Administration, where I have looked at the people doing the investigation, has proved to be run by people with ties to those being investigated). http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Either way he obviously tried to alter records that we under subpoena.

When exactly were the records officially subpoenaed or at least intent to be subponaed? July 24, 2014 was when the reddit post was made. The closest that I could quickly find was that an unofficial request was made sometime in July of 2014, the State Department didn't work with Clinton until August to turn over emails, and finally a formal request in October to all previous Secretaries going back to Madeleine K. Albright for any records that hadn't been turned in to the State Department.

It's a fine line, but an unofficial request is not the same as a legal subpoena. You can't be accused of altering records under subpoena if they hadn't actually been subpoena yet.

Also, has it been demonstrated that he actually altered any records? If he didn't, then at most it's intent to be fucking corrupt or at least being fucking stupid, neither of which are actual crimes (although both probably should be, but we already have overcrowding in prison without putting EVERY fucking stupid person in there as well...)

I can think of a reason this is happening, other than actual discrimination. It stretches back to a pretty egregious astroturfing campaign designed to humiliate the DoD and pressure elected officials into giving business to Palantir. Payback is a bitch.

PS: Politico did a write-up on Palantir's long reach-- http://www.politico.com/story/...