Comments on: GOP Elites Chose Poison Over Getting Shot

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:24:19 +0000

No more than usual.

Then ya'all have nothing to worry about.. :D

Michale

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 20:44:57 +0000

No more than usual.

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 07:48:15 +0000

heaven forbid. i can still remember all that gloating i had to endure after president romney was elected.

Exactly.. :D

But, actually, the gloating I am referring to was after the Great Democrat Party Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014..

Ya have ta admit. I was a pretty big pain in the arse after THAT little gem, eh? :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 07:30:44 +0000

absolutely! that PROVES it's a vast right wing attack machine conspiracy! not that i believe that either, but considering the data, it's no less credible an explanation than the conclusion that hillary MUST be a criminal. No less credible?? Well, except for the fact that it's OBAMA's FBI... For your supposition to have even a SMIDGEN of credibility, you would have to explain exactly how Hillary's "VRWC" would have gotten complete control of Obama's FBI... Nope. The only logical and rational possibility is that Hillary is a crook of such magnitude as to make Richard Nixon blush... Hell, even NIXON was never accused of having someone murdered... The body count associated with the Clintons is mind-boggling.. Michale

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:07:59 +0000

hey maybe it is what it is, perhaps it depends on what the meaning of "is" is, but the possibility also exists that there's no "there" there. “...what was the use of my having come from Oakland it was not natural to have come from there yes write about it if I like or anything if I like but not there, there is no there there.” ~gertrude stein

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:00:13 +0000

Such a string of "coincidences" simply stretches credulity past the breaking point. absolutely! that PROVES it's a vast right wing attack machine conspiracy! not that i believe that either, but considering the data, it's no less credible an explanation than the conclusion that hillary MUST be a criminal. as for me, i think i'll just pull up a lawn chair and see what happens. Ya'all realize that the more you tout Hillary's innocence, the more gloating ya'all will have to endure when she and/or her senior staff is indicted.. heaven forbid. i can still remember all that gloating i had to endure after president romney was elected. JL

By: Michale

Michale — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 20:06:06 +0000

Ya'all realize that the more you tout Hillary's innocence, the more gloating ya'all will have to endure when she and/or her senior staff is indicted..

You DO realize that, right?? :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 20:03:58 +0000

She says remove the header etc. and email it.

Removing classified headers from classified intelligence is also a felony..

Bet you didn't know that, eh? :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 20:02:39 +0000

It goes to a pattern, JL.. How many "coincidences" can one person have before it starts to look criminal?? Such a string of "coincidences" simply stretches credulity past the breaking point. And you can bet that there is a LOT more information that is in the hands of Obama's FBI... I know I will never convince ya'all that Hillary will be indicted any more than ya'all can convince me that Hillary committed no crimes.. But the pattern of evidence is so over-whelming, it's impossible for ANY objective person to look at it and say, "Oh there's nothing there".. ESPECIALLY when one considers how aggressively the Obama Administration has prosecuted and persecuted those who have done much MUCH less... Michale

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:31:41 +0000

@michale [97], okay, i've read both articles. i'm trying to see this from your point of view; it seems like you're making an inductive inference based on partial evidence, and the remaining evidence may or may not become available to law enforcement. i'm not saying that inference is necessarily wrong, but i don't see how it's going to be proven in a court of law - especially considering two facts: first, the information was not classified until after clinton used it, and second, the laws on the issue were not updated until after clinton left state. i.e. presuming that your inference is expert and accurate, what hillary did with her e-mail was certainly wrong and possibly illegal, but proving that case will still be extremely difficult - not impossible, but extremely difficult. JL

By: Paula

Paula — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:02:02 +0000

Dude, read your article! The cbs article says Hillary wanted some talking points sent. Her guy says they are having trouble "sending through secure means". She says remove the header etc. and email it. The article then goes on to admit there is no evidence there was anything sensitive IN the email -- noting that talking points are usually for communication with media, AND that in the end it WAS sent securely.

This is what I mean by "context". Also the difference between rules and laws. Finally, she was SOS. She had authority to do things others did not. All those things come into play. The systems involved seem to have been unwieldy and in terms of day to day happenings there were probably workarounds that she and others used. You want to nail her for something but this stuff is penny ante --

We will see, eventually as noted.

New York Post is a Rupert Murdoch property -- might as well be FOX. Won't bother with that.

Later!

By: Michale

Michale — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 17:16:53 +0000

Actually, ya know what??

That sounded WAY too much like Bashi and his Global Warming evasions..

Here's a couple links to get you going while I dig up the actual email..

nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 17:05:13 +0000

As I said, I really don't want to research it a third time and post it only to have it ignored..

You won't accept it any more than you will accept my word on it so I don't see why I should expend the energy a fourth time...

I am happy to discuss it until such time as events prove me right.. :D

About 5-6 weeks should do it.. :D

Michale

By: Paula

Paula — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:30:39 +0000

M [92]
It's sounding to me like you have a specific email, found among all those she released. You can cut and paste it or post a link to it.

After that the context becomes critical. I need more than your assertions, so there has to be supporting evidence and documentation. Your analysis doesn't rise above speculation, nor does the "analysis" of rightwing bloggers, pundits, etc.

It sounds to me like your're applying a broad brush to a specific event and then making a leap. But go ahead and make your case. I'll be in and out today but will check in when I can.

By: Michale

Michale — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:13:51 +0000

so... you won't provide evidence until everyone first agrees that it says what you say it says?

No.. I won't RE-PROVIDE the evidence only to have it pooh-pooh'ed away or ignored like it was the first time, the second time and the third time...

My time is a LITTLE more valuable than that.. Granted, not MUCH more valuable.. But a little.. :D

Michale

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:11:50 +0000

But first, I will need to know in advance when I show you the email from Hillary and it says what I say it says that you will concede the point..

so... you won't provide evidence until everyone first agrees that it says what you say it says?

I think he's got it backwards
My daddy told me all about
The things I can do without
~ashley argota

By: Friday Talking Points [384] — Copulating Rodents! « Democrats for Progress

Sat, 26 Mar 2016 08:16:19 +0000

[...] John Edwards sex scandal, a while back) ran the Cruz girlfriends story, the establishment types had closed ranks behind Cruz. From Mitt Romney to Jeb Bush to Lindsey Graham, all were begging the voters to vote [...]

By: Michale

Michale — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 06:44:31 +0000

[88] Can you provide the documentation to support these accusations? I have, on several occasions. I'll dig up the email from Hillary that explicitly stated this when I get a moment... But first, I will need to know in advance when I show you the email from Hillary and it says what I say it says that you will concede the point.. You are stating you know the event occurred. I am and it did.. You are stating that you know WHO had security clearance and who didn't. I did and I do.. You are stating that you know WHO was directed to do this, and that they weren't cleared. I am, I do and I do.. You are stating as fact that it's "flat out illegal to transcribe intel…" I am and it is... I haven't seen any reference to these things in the non-rightwing sources I've read, I'd like to know where you got this info. From a Hillary Clinton email.. Meanwhile, [89] is basic "no smoke without a fire" logic. Pure speculation. INFORMED speculation, based on the facts coupled with decades of experience.. Michale

By: Friday Talking Points — Copulating Rodents! – Irascible Musings

Friday Talking Points — Copulating Rodents! – Irascible Musings — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 05:48:58 +0000

By: Friday Talking Points — Copulating Rodents! | KJOZ 880 CALL IN TOLL FREE 1-844-880-5569

Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:19:52 +0000

By: Friday Talking Points - Copulating Rodents! - Democratsnewz

Friday Talking Points - Copulating Rodents! - Democratsnewz — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:17:28 +0000

By: Friday Talking Points - Copulating Rodents! -

Friday Talking Points - Copulating Rodents! - — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 01:58:57 +0000

By: Friday Talking Points — Copulating Rodents! | Slantpoint Democrat

Friday Talking Points — Copulating Rodents! | Slantpoint Democrat — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 01:54:00 +0000

By: ChrisWeigant.com » Friday Talking Points [384] -- Copulating Rodents!

ChrisWeigant.com » Friday Talking Points [384] -- Copulating Rodents! — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 01:37:37 +0000

By: Paula

Paula — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:03:45 +0000

"Again, don't take my word for it.." Never fear, I don't. [88] Can you provide the documentation to support these accusations? You are stating you know the event occurred. You are stating that you know WHO had security clearance and who didn't. You are stating that you know WHO was directed to do this, and that they weren't cleared. You are stating as fact that it's "flat out illegal to transcribe intel…" I haven't seen any reference to these things in the non-rightwing sources I've read, I'd like to know where you got this info. Meanwhile, [89] is basic "no smoke without a fire" logic. Pure speculation.

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:53:48 +0000

Again, don't take my word for it..

Ask yourself why Obama's FBI would expend so much time and effort and manpower if there was really nothing there???

The resources being expended here come close to the resources that were expended to investigate the Boston Marathon bombing..

You don't put that kind of clout into play for a "faux scandal"...

I know you don't WANT to believe it. But you need to prepare yourself...

We'll all find out who has been wrong and who has been right the first week of May...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:50:50 +0000

The fact that the secure system had information on it doesn't mean the information was in any way classified. And her staff HAD access to the secure system.

No they did not.. Only Hillary, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills had the necessary clearances to see what was on the SCIF system... Any other staffers accessing that would be committing a crime..

And it wasn't Abedin or Mills who Hillary directed to access the secure system..

Even if the person DID have the clearance levels to access the system, it's flat out illegal to transcribe the intel from the secure system and transmit it to Hillary in the clear..

Which is EXACTLY what Hillary ordered this staffer to do..

No matter how you want to spin it, it's a crime..

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:45:51 +0000

There's slews of articles talking about the need for "intent" to make this a crime and there's no evidence of that either. Intent is not required under the Espionage Act. Negligence is all that needs to be proven.. And, since Hillary herself had said this was a "mistake" to do, negligence is fait accompli... Michale

By: Paula

Paula — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:43:38 +0000

The fact that the secure system had information on it doesn't mean the information was in any way classified. And her staff HAD access to the secure system. She was sharing information with people who were allowed to see it.

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:41:23 +0000

What do you mean? Are you referring to the setting up of the private server? Or what? Nope.. There was an email found. It was sent by Hillary to a staffer. She told the staffer to access the secure system, get some information from the secure system, transcribe it and send it to her via her insecure email server... That's several felonies right there.. Lempert explained that Clinton "would have had to know she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States." He also noted that heads of agencies, such as Secretary of State, "have considerable authority with respect to classified information," including declassifying material their agency has classified (emphasis original): But Hillary has NO RIGHT to de-classify intel from the NSA and the CIA.. Which there is email documentation that she did exactly that. Sidney Blumenthal received MANY documents from the NSA that were TS/SC classified.. The whole thing is a collision of different agencies, different rules, different levels of authority. And Hillary took it upon herself to distribute classified information from other agencies that she had no right to distribute... So it's all just speculation and educated guessing in the end. Exactly. *EDUCATED*.... And my track record on these types of issues is pretty flawless.. But, you are correct. We WILL see.. Another 5 weeks or so.. Michale...

By: Paula

Paula — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:19:50 +0000

The whole thing is a collision of different agencies, different rules, different levels of authority. It may not have been the best idea but criminal? I don't think so. We'll see. I hadn't looked into closely until this came up here, but the more I learn, the less concern I have. As noted a few threads back, I'll wait and see. Maybe something's there we haven't heard about -- but we haven't heard about it! So it's all just speculation and educated guessing in the end.

By: Paula

Paula — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:16:14 +0000

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/21/law-professor-explains-why-hillary-clinton-wont/209438

Lempert explained that Clinton "would have had to know she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States." He also noted that heads of agencies, such as Secretary of State, "have considerable authority with respect to classified information," including declassifying material their agency has classified (emphasis original):

By: Paula

Paula — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:14:04 +0000

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/24/why-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-petraeus-leak-are-not-really-alike/

By: Paula

Paula — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:13:26 +0000

"But when Hillary directs an unauthorized staffer to access the secure system, THAT is illegal.."

What do you mean? Are you referring to the setting up of the private server? Or what?

My understanding is that the FBI was looking into the server to determine if it had been hacked, and earlier this month: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/security-logs-of-hillary-clintons-email-server-are-said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html?_r=0

There's slews of articles talking about the need for "intent" to make this a crime and there's no evidence of that either.

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 21:40:57 +0000

Furthermore, the notion that there's something "illegal" about Hillary and her staff communicating BY email appears to wrong. The crux seems to be all this post-classification -- No one is saying that Hillary communicating with staff via a private email is illegal or wrong.. But when Hillary directs an unauthorized staffer to access the secure system, THAT is illegal.. When Hillary directs said unauthorized staffer to transcribe the classified data and send it over an insecure system, THAT is illegal.. I don't think Powell, Rice or Hillary "broke the law" or should be prosecuted. Then how do you explain almost 200 Special Agents of the FBI investigating in a case being PERSONALLY directed by the Director of the FBI... Ya'all completely ignore that point... Michale

By: Paula

Paula — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 21:28:30 +0000

Taking a look, again, at the Newsweek article, what a lot of email-gate seems to be about are "rules" as opposed to "laws". "People outraged by the (false) belief that Powell and Rice’s aides broke the law are creating a fantasy world where every official email, no matter its content, must go through a SCIF…" Furthermore, the notion that there's something "illegal" about Hillary and her staff communicating BY email appears to wrong. The crux seems to be all this post-classification -- I don't think Powell, Rice or Hillary "broke the law" or should be prosecuted. Patreus, otoh, shared info he knew to be classified with someone who wasn't on staff and party to the info.

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:02:20 +0000

Actually, what Powell did was much worse -- he used AOL, which meant just about anyone at AOL could have accessed his email. At least Clinton was using a private server that limited the number of people who could access the account to just her staff.

AND the Chinese AND the North Koreans AND the Russians....

At least AOL uses mission-critical encryption... It's well documented that Hillary's email-serve was wide open with only the most rudimentary of security updates...

But you prove Hillary's crimes with your statement..

Many of Hillary's staff SHOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO HER EMAILS....

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:51:43 +0000

Listen,

Someone should have warned you.. I am not beholden to nor enslaved by an political Party... :D

I hold no fealty to ANY Party...

Therefore, claims of "Well they did it too!!! Prosecute them!!!" will be met with, "OK.. Sure... Prosecute them all!!" from me.. :D

That's kinda what shocked CW about me about a decade ago... And it's a very large part of why I am here... :D

I'll bitch-slap the GOP just as quick and just as hard as I'll bitch-slap Dems.. :D

Maybe not as MUCH, but.... If the cause is just, they get bitch-slapped to high heaven too!! :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:46:26 +0000

Listen, But OCCASIONALLY was still a violation of the law...so for you to claim Hillary broke the law and they didn't pretty much makes you a shoe-in for the "ignorant" ribbon. I never claimed they "didn't" I have explicitly stated that, if the SOL has not run out then they should be prosecuted.. Just like Patreuas was. Just like Hillary should be.. And yes. It's a violation of the law... But it's the difference between a California stop at a stop sign and drunk driving running a stop sign that kills hundreds... Actually, what Powell did was much worse -- he used AOL, which meant just about anyone at AOL could have accessed his email. At least Clinton was using a private server that limited the number of people who could access the account to just her staff. OK, so we are in agreement.. If it's within the SOL, then Powell should be prosecuted to the FULLEST extent of the law.. JUST LIKE HILLARY.. We agree completely and unequivocally.. Common ground. A wonderful thing... :D Michale

By: ListenWhenYouHear

ListenWhenYouHear — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 18:51:06 +0000

Michale stated: . The comparison to Powell and Rice is ridiculous..

Powell and Rice used a private email OCCASIONALLY..

They did not set up their own private insecure bathroom closet server and use that EXCLUSIVELY..

Anyone who thinks that the two are even REMOTELY similar is either completely ignorant or completely in the bag for Hillary..

But OCCASIONALLY was still a violation of the law...so for you to claim Hillary broke the law and they didn't pretty much makes you a shoe-in for the "ignorant" ribbon.

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:29:37 +0000

Joshua,

re #73

Done...

I am still leery of the Grand Jury issue.. I feel that Comey's recommendation is enough. But I understand your concerns in that regard and, in the interest of moving this along....

I'm in....

Anyone else want to jump in?? If multiple people win and I lose, I can wear what ever shirt the winner chooses on subsequent days..

Ya'all MIGHT be able to outfit me for an entire week!! :D heh

Michale

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:01:38 +0000

to sum up:

Michale wins (and i wear a hillary for prison) if:

- comey recommends indictment of hillary herself.

- comey recommends AND a grand jury indicts any of the 6 top aides + bill

Bet is voided (and no shameful t-shirts worn) if:

- FBI recommends indictment of top aides but DOJ refuses to indict.

I win (and michale wears Hillary is my Hero) if:

- FBI does not recommend indictment of hillary, bill or top aides

- FBI recommends indictment of top aides but grand jury rules not to indict.

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:39:42 +0000

@michale [71]

No FBI recommendation either way is a push...

i think you meant, FBI recommendation but no DOJ action is a push. is that what you meant?

Why Lt. Commander Galloway... are you suggesting I back off a material witness?
- If you think you can't get him.

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:33:53 +0000

OK, I can accept that..

OK so what we have is an FBI recommendation to indict Hillary is a win for me, regardless of any other factor..

And FBI recommendation to indict staffers only AND a Grand Jury that agrees and hands down an indictment is a win for me..

No FBI recommendation either way is a push...

Anything else is a loss for me..

That sum it up???

Michale

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:18:34 +0000

But I am curious as to why you might think that Comey won't make a determination solely based on the law and on the facts.. while i accept comey's political impartiality, it's still in his job description to err on the side of trying to punish people who seem culpable, regardless of evidentiary or constitutional concerns, as in the apple iphone case. that's why the fifth amendment requires due process and a grand jury indictment in order to even hold a trial - there may be context that needs to be considered outside the narrow confines of law enforcement. as in daniel pantaleo's case, for example, the prosecutor had a legitimate reason to seek an indictment, but the grand jury disagreed. JL

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:07:42 +0000

BUT if a recommendation for indictment comes in for hillary herself, you win regardless of whether or not it's acted upon or achieved.

after all, this political site is based on reality, not some fantasy utopia where everyone gets precisely what they deserve.

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:06:32 +0000

Let me ask you this. You seem to be going out of your way to NOT take Comey's word on this..

Might I ask why???

I mean, I have stated for the record that I will unequivocally and without reservation accept Comey's determination on this whatever he decides... Several Weigantians have also gone on the record and stated as such..

I am not trying to be an asshole about it. Well, not any more than usual.. :D

But I am curious as to why you might think that Comey won't make a determination solely based on the law and on the facts..

Feel free to tell me it's none of my frakin' business :D

Michale

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:59:57 +0000

true, a grand jury are regular people like you and me, and can be persuaded by factors beyond the facts of the case - but they're not politicians, so a normal amount of impartiality can be expected.

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:58:13 +0000

OK.. So FBI recommendation of Hillary and/or Senior Staff wins the bet for me.. UNLESS a Grand Jury is impaneled and decide against charges...

not quite. FBI recommendation + failure of the DOJ to convene a grand jury = no winner.

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:57:38 +0000

I have to say it DOES throw an added Degree Of Difficulty into the mix.. :D

Especially when one considers that a Grand Jury might be just as susceptible to political pressures as the AG would be.

That's why I want to go with Comey. Because it's universally agreed that he WON'T bow to political pressure..

I am not saying NO, just talking it thru...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:55:27 +0000

OK.. So FBI recommendation of Hillary and/or Senior Staff wins the bet for me.. UNLESS a Grand Jury is impaneled and decide against charges...

That sound about right??

I have to say it DOES throw an added Degree Of Difficulty into the mix.. :D

Michale

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:48:56 +0000

@michale [61],

fair enough. let's say the bet is voided if the FBI recommends indictment of the 7 top-level individuals but no grand jury is convened.

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:41:56 +0000

my rationale for proposing the amended bet is that hillary herself is the only one with enough political clout to escape a legitimate indictment. if evidence were sufficient to prove that crimes really were committed, a campaign staffer would not be able to avoid indictment, such as occurred when scooter libby took the hit for dick cheney outing CIA operative valerie plame wilson in retaliation for her husband's public comments.

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:38:49 +0000

in the spirit of compromise, michale, here's my final offer - i will consider our bet lost in the case of EITHER a recommendation by the FBI to indict hillary herself OR a successful grand jury indictment of any of the other seven people, but NOT a failed indictment of anyone other than hillary.

I would consider this.. But often times cases aren't even SENT to a grand jury. This is more often than not due to political considerations...

The George Zimmerman trial is a perfect example of not going to the Grand Jury for political reasons..

What would it do to our bet if a Grand Jury was not impaneled??

Michale

By: nypoet22

nypoet22 — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:32:43 +0000

@michale/neil,

the misunderstanding was between michale and me, over the distinction between the FBI recommending an indictment and the DOJ actually getting a grand jury to deliver one. Michale made a list of 6 senior staff members:

Huma Abedin
Cheryl Mills
Jake Sullivan
James B. Steinberg
Jack Lew
Anne Marie Slaughter

and just for kicks, i also threw in Bill Clinton...

however, i was under the impression that for michale to win the bet said people would have to actually BE indicted (as opposed to a failed attempt at indictment, such as occurred with NYPD officer daniel pantaleo, who killed eric garner).

i replied that i would consider the bet lost if any of the above were indicted, and michale agreed, under the mistaken impression that i'd acceded to his terms of a recommendation to indict. when we discovered the miscommunication, i offered to amend to join the bet neil suggested, that a recommendation to indict would be sufficient, but only for hillary herself.

from the sound of it, michale is neither willing to accept my initial terms nor neil's amended terms; he would only accept defeat if his own terms were met - a recommendation by the FBI to prosecute any of the 8 people indicated.

you game?

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:58:24 +0000

Using GOOGLE is the best way..

In the search box, type chrisweigant.com and then the search terms. GOOGLE will then search JUST chrisweigant.com for the specified search terms..

You might be right about the senior staff issue.. I could have sworn I included them because I know I have always made a point to say "Hillary and/or Senior Staff"...

But it's possible I was conflating the two wagers..

Michale

By: neilm

neilm — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:19:57 +0000

Re: Bet - I understood it was if the FBI recommended that Hillary should be indicted. I don't remember all the others. Can you remember which article we agreed to the bet?

(I wish there was a way to look at all my old messages - anybody know of one?)

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:50:25 +0000

And just to re-iterate as I did before..

The entire thrust of the wager is whether or not a crime has been committed..

A DOJ decision NOT to indict won't settle that question as there are political aspects within that decision.. More so than the criminal aspect....

A Comey recommendation TO indict, will settle the question. Completely, unambiguously and unequivocally....

That's my reasoning...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:42:25 +0000

Joshua,

Speaking of the wager, I am going to want to stick with the original cast of indictees...

My reasoning is two-fold...

1. The general claim from the Left (and ya'all) is that the email thing is one big faux scandal by the GOP and there has been no crime committed. This is apparent in this commentary's comments about Powell and Rice.. The fact that Comey recommends ANY indictment for Clinton and/or her people will prove that there IS a crime here and throws the claim of "faux-scandal" on the trash-heap of BS-ness...

B. The effect on Clinton's campaign will be immense, regardless of WHO is indicted. If Clinton herself emerges non-indicted, but one or more of her senior staff is (are??) indicted, the effect on the campaign will be virtually the same..

For these reasons, I want to keep the wager on Hillary Clinton and/or Senior Staff (as defined)..

Since it was my misunderstanding that called the wager into question, if you want to null and void the wager, I would agree to that..

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:27:49 +0000

Paula,

Re: [35]: Fun isn't it?

Yes, it was... :D

I am not sure I want to do that in my shop.. I am not as good of an actor in my old age.. In my youth I would do UC work and could convince you I was the Crown Prince Of Bumfuq.. These days?? Not so much.. :D

If someone comes in and spouts off how awesome Hillary is, I doubt I could keep from throwing up... :D

I might just do what I did in this case. If there is an obvious opening I might ask a simple question... In a retail environment, it's tricky...

We'll see how it goes...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:14:32 +0000

The wager is whether or not Comey issues a recommendation of indictment against Hillary Clinton and/or senior staff.. If he does, I win. If he doesn't, you win. To clarify... If Comey issues a recommendation of indictment of Hillary Clinton and/or senior staff (as defined) then I win.. If Comey issues a recommendation of NO-indictment of Hillary Clinton and/or senior staff, then you win.. If Comey issues no recommendation then it's a push... It's been universally agreed here in Weigantia that Comey's integrity is above reproach and he has the final say on the issue and what he says is binding... None of this "Oh he's bought by the Republicans!!!" or "Clintons took Comey's family hostage!!!" crap.. Unless, of course, there IS factual evidence of that.. :D That, as far as I am aware of, is not up for debate or dispute.. Everyone on the same page??? Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:09:29 +0000

Paula,

I know I said I wouldn't bug you about it again.. But now that you have chimed in on the issue and you think you know what's going on....

I have to ask..

Want to get in on the wager?? I am pretty sure yer skin won't break out in fire if you have to wear a HILLARY FOR PRISON 2016 shirt for a day...

The hard part is not wearing the shirt. The hard part is not being able to tell anyone why until the next day.. :D

Speaking of T-Shirt Wagers....

David?? Did you do the deed!?? :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:52:20 +0000

Speaking of the wager...

Since there was some confusion between mine and Joshua's wager, I figured we should clarify ours.. Just to make sure we are on the same page..

The wager is whether or not Comey issues a recommendation of indictment against Hillary Clinton and/or senior staff..

If he does, I win. If he doesn't, you win.

Senior Staff is defined as

Bill Clinton
Huma Abedin
Cheryl Mills
Jake Sullivan
James B. Steinberg
Jack Lew
Anne Marie Slaughter

Is that the bet as you understand it??

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:47:01 +0000

Paula - just noticed you also posted the newsweek article. Sort of a game changer for the whole email-gate fiasco - you would have thought they'd have learned from Benghazi!!! that over reaching hurts more than helps their cause. And the fact that the Republicans aren't even involved in the FBI's Hillary/Email investigation doesn't matter a whit to ya'all, eh?? This is TRUMP IS A RACIST all over again.. Long on hysteria, super long on "Oh everyone knows that!!" but absolutely NO FACTS to be found anywhere.. Listen to yourselves... Your excuse for Hillary's crimes is, "Well the Republicans do it too!!!" Even if it were factually accurate and a legitimate comparison, it's a pretty lame excuse... I really hate ta cost ya money, Neil... While it will be a boon for CW.COM, if you want to change the wager to a T-SHIRT wager, I'll let you... Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:37:03 +0000

The comparison to Powell and Rice is ridiculous..

Powell and Rice used a private email OCCASIONALLY..

They did not set up their own private insecure bathroom closet server and use that EXCLUSIVELY..

Anyone who thinks that the two are even REMOTELY similar is either completely ignorant or completely in the bag for Hillary..

Which are ya'all???

Michale

By: Paula

Paula — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 02:48:48 +0000

[47] Neilm: Yeah, the info in that article was really interesting. I just can't see anything coming from email-gate other than more Republican huffing and puffing. As I'm hearing from my little daily interactions with the public, everyone in America has apparently internalized the idea that Hillary is untrustworthy. I attribute that to the non-stop slurring she's endured since the 1990's, but there it is. Lots of people are perfectly willing (or somewhat grudgingly willing) to vote for her anyway, seemingly because they think all politicians are untrustworthy anyway, and/or her "untrustworthiness" is less important than her other attributes: experience, intelligence, loyalty, etc. But repubs tend to stick to the tried-and-true long past the point of no return, so I'm sure they'll beat the dead horse of email-gate until each one of them, personally, dies. Ditto Benghazi. Have you ever seen The Russians Are Coming! (If you haven't, watch it. Hilarious.) The repubs remind me (only without the humor) of the old Soldier running around with his sword (eventually snapped in half by a had-enough-of-him Brian Keith) in hysterics about the supposed Russian Invasion. Now that I think abou it, in a lot of ways Obama reminds of Brian Keith in that film (a terrific performance) in terms of having to put up with a bunch of screaming, terror-stricken big mouths every time something happens.

By: dsws

dsws — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 02:42:46 +0000

Admit it: you wrote this column, in large part, so that you could make the Rasputin reference.

By: neilm

neilm — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 02:00:24 +0000

By: neilm

neilm — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 01:57:17 +0000

@TS [44]

Great newsweek link. Looks like I'm going to be winning my bet with Michale. I figured, that even in 2008, there had to be some internal ironclad system for sensitive materials separate from the day-to-day communication mediums. That Colin Powell was using an aol email account in the same manner as Hillary was makes the whole argument risible.

By: TheStig

TheStig — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 23:47:04 +0000

CW-I think one of my posts is caught in the filter.

By: TheStig

TheStig — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 23:45:46 +0000

M - 36

"Of course, you can PROVE that, right??

Of course you can't.. Because it's simply not factually accurate..."

You'll have to talk to Colin Powell or Condi Rice, both ex Secretaries of State or read the Newsweek article linked below:

http://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187

Sorry for including that in the original post.

That's not the only news organization that reported the revelations, but there is that one link per post rule.

By: Paula

Paula — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 23:06:50 +0000

Today's anecdote: young white couple sitting on their porch stairs with baby and cat -- nice warm day today. (Thunderstorms coming now though.) Their reaction to the election season so far? The young lady spoke first and just said "it can't be Trump. That's the main thing." Her hubby: "All you see is Trump on TV all day, but no one says anything good about him. I haven't heard one good thing about him but he's still winning." I couldn't help but interject that Trump is winning a subsection of the primarily Republican vote, with a smattering of people who typically lean Dem. I said Bernie Sanders is filling stadiums but the media isn't covering him, but you could say he's every bit as popular as Trump. Maybe more. They lean Hillary. Hubby: "Bernie Sanders wants to offer free college but we can't afford it. We have too much debt." They then, and this was a first, asked me what I thought, and we had a long and friendly conversation. It's hard to boil down the state of things to people who are operating from a very superficial knowledge-base, but I started with the question of debt and said there's competing economic theories in play. One holds that the government should work like a family does: too much debt, you have to stop debting/spending. The other is that Gov is one side, private sector is the other, when one is struggling, the other fills in. Give and take. Because the money just circulates - people > taxes >gov >services> pays people > who pay taxes > gov > services, etc. Paul Krugman and others' approach. I said the Repub POV was no taxes, no regulations is supposed to encourage business and trickle down to everyone. Dems bought into the idea and it's been tried now for years and it has shown it doesn't work. Dems are pulling back from that now and want to use government spending via infrastructure repair/replacement to get money circulating again. Also talked about 40-year wage stagnation and money being stagnant and NOT circulated by the 1%. They asked me questions -- it was really a pleasant back and forth. The young lady said she knows "millenials need to be more interested in politics, but maybe we have to have children first to understand how important it is to our kids' future." They were just a sweet couple.

By: Paula

Paula — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:43:57 +0000

Re: [35]: Fun isn't it?

By: Paula

Paula — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:43:30 +0000

Third: http://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187

By: Paula

Paula — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:42:33 +0000

Here's another: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/04/colin-powell-condoleezza-rice-private-email-accounts-classified-hillary-clinton

By: Paula

Paula — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:42:08 +0000

Oops -- I put in a comment with multiple links and it's awaiting moderation. Forgot.

Retry: I included 3 links to articles about Colin Powell emails -- although I can't believe, Michale, that you're unaware of that.

But here's one: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707

By: Paula

Paula — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:29:05 +0000

Michale [35]: Fun, isn't it?

[36]: You can't be saying you haven't heard about Powell's emailing?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/04/colin-powell-condoleezza-rice-private-email-accounts-classified-hillary-clinton

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707

http://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187

By: neilm

neilm — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:53:51 +0000

Benghazi was a GOP boondoogle..

You're pulling a Kevin McCarthy Michale ;)

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 20:36:34 +0000

. We've also seen Benghazi, so a wee bit of caution is not unreasonable. Benghazi was a GOP boondoogle.. This is the F...B...I... You are comparing apples and eskimos... We also know Clinton's shop operated about the same as earlier Sec's of States did. Of course, you can PROVE that, right?? Of course you can't.. Because it's simply not factually accurate... Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:58:06 +0000

Paula,

Apparently, you have caused me to get bitten by the MAN ON THE STREET bug.. :D

I had a customer bring a laptop in. Older hispanic guy... His laptop was old and slow and he wanted to upgrade it to Windows 10.. I told him it was too old for that, but I could sell him a nice corei3 with 8GB RAM and 640GB HD for around $250-$300...

He said, and I quote "oh no, I don't want to do that. Things have been so lousy around because of Obama.. Maybe after the election.."

Thinking of Paula, I figured. What the hell..

I asked him who he was voting for... He said Trump... He said we need a businessman in there to run this country as a business. He said "A lawyer, he defends criminals. We have a lawyer in there now and he is useless.. Hillary, she's a murderer.. Cruz? I am hispanic, but Cruz is pandering to hispanics and I don't like that.. We need someone who will do things for AMERICANS, not for any group that doesn't like this country."

I swear I didn't do ANY leading other than to say I agree with him about Trump...

So, there is my first edition of MAN ON THE STREET interview...

Michale

By: TheStig

TheStig — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:54:11 +0000

"Another factor your betting markets fail to consider is the terrorist attack factor.." I see no evidence of this. If there is any effect, it's small and gone in a day or so. Debates didn't seem to have much immediate impact either, and their is a bigger sample of 'em. It's long term trends that count. Clinton's odds of winning the WH have been dithering around 70% for a few weeks now, Trump is dithering around 18%. Interestingly enough, as Trump's odds of winning the nomination have increased long term, the odds on a generic Republican winning the WH have declined steadily. From 40% to somewhat south of 30%. It's hard not to interpret that as evidence investors see Trump as a relatively weak candidate in the General Election. That seems in line with the views of panicking Estab. Republicans. You have about a 20% chance of being right. Agents of Shield has really lost my attention. I can forgive the fact that the inside of the Bus is clearly bigger than the outside (common problem in classic movies). Violating the First Law of Thermodynamics is another thing. If a ship freezes in an instant, something else is going to get very hot in an instant. Like the hand of the guy sucking out all the heat. Also Puerto Rico looked really prosperous? Did Shield magically remove the debt? Where is Shield getting the money? Maybe the most top secret position in Shield is accounting?

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:58:00 +0000

Since the investigation isn't complete, and no charges have been filed, we don't know if Patreaus is a legal precedent or not. Correction.. YOU don't know... I do... This example is typical of the sophistry you bring to the table. I used to enjoy your schtick, but like Agents of Shield, it's becoming a bore. hay now!!! Let's not be saying things we can't take back!!!! But regardless... When I am proven right, I'll let you know in advance that I will accept your apology.. :D Michale

By: TheStig

TheStig — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:49:53 +0000

Patreaus physically transferred hard bound notebooks to his lover, who was also writing his biography. He was charged and took a plea bargain to preserve his pension and his lover. It's on record.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-david-petraeus-avoided-felony-charges-and-possible-prison-time/2016/01/25/d77628dc-bfab-11e5-83d4-42e3bceea902_story.html

Since the investigation isn't complete, and no charges have been filed, we don't know if Patreaus is a legal precedent or not. It's complete speculation once you go beyond "holders of high office can be charged with security violations and held to account." Duly noted, but nothing new. We've also seen Benghazi, so a wee bit of caution is not unreasonable. We also know Clinton's shop operated about the same as earlier Sec's of States did. Rules loose enough to drive a truck through frankly, but still the rules, at the time.

This example is typical of the sophistry you bring to the table. I used to enjoy your schtick, but like Agents of Shield, it's becoming a bore. Too much repetition of a slim plot line, too much use of magic and quick cutting to get around plot holes.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:47:30 +0000

Every time there is a terrorist attacks, Trump's odds go up and Hillary's numbers go down...

And do you know WHY this is??

Because Americans want a leader who will build WALLS to keep terrorists out, as opposed to a leader who will build BRIDGES to invite terrorists in...

It can't be made any simpler than that...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:46:25 +0000

TS,

Another factor your betting markets fail to consider is the terrorist attack factor..

Every time there is a terrorist attacks, Trump's odds go up and Hillary's numbers go down...

So, for your betting markets to be accurate, there can't be ANY more terrorist attacks anywhere on the planet...

And if you honestly believe THAT will happen, I have some swampland down here I want to sell you...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:20:06 +0000

So how is that different than the hear and now?? :D

Probably in the vein of it's HERE and now.. :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:11:00 +0000

So Hillary deliberately handed classified documents to somebody. Can you elaborate, or are you looking at a mole hill and a mountain and saying they both look the same, so they must be the same?

Hay, YOU made the comparison... :D

But yes she did..

She instructed one of her minions who did NOT have the clearance level required, to access the secure system to get some intelligence document.. She further instructed said minion to copy the information and send it via her insecure email server...

But, the funny thing is... INTENT is not required, according to the statutes... All that is required is negligence..

And, since Hillary has already admitted that it was a "mistake" to do what she did.... NEGLIGENCE is established...

Michale

By: neilm

neilm — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:02:03 +0000

Precdents?? General Patraeus..

So Hillary deliberately handed classified documents to somebody. Can you elaborate, or are you looking at a mole hill and a mountain and saying they both look the same, so they must be the same?

By: Paula

Paula — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:58:44 +0000

I think this is a great speech by Hillary on ISIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG3zkU4H39o

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:40:47 +0000

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/24/camille_paglia_this_is_why_trumps_winning_and_why_i_wont_vote_for_hillary/

It's not JUST the Republican Party that is shooting themselves in the foot..

The Democrat Party also has it's fair share of dictatorial aspects that totally decimate the concept of democracy...

BOTH Partys are OD'ing on authoritarianism and THAT is why Trump is doing so well... If Bernie had even a fraction of the media coverage that even HILLARY (let alone Trump) enjoys, he would be doing great as well...

But, by and large the Left Wingery Establishment controls the vasy majority of the media and they want Queen Hillary coronated...

Michale

(crossposted to HuffPoo)

NOTE: I try to keep my cross-posted comments limited to 2.. Don't want to get CW in trouble with the HuffPoo stormtroopers... :D

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:18:03 +0000

Put your details on the table...statutes and precedents..and show us your law degree.

Precdents??

General Patraeus.. Which has already been conceded in these hallowed halls that his crimes were nearly identical to Hillary's crimes... At least they were when Weigantians were slamming Patraeus for a possible VP pick... :D

The Statutes Hillary and her staff have violated have been widely posted... Please don't make me go thru it all again... :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:12:16 +0000

Near zero, but that's the nature of forecasting. Forecasts get more accurate the nearer the you get to the event, as more information is available. EXACTLY!!!! So, if I had told you back then that Trump was going to be the GOP Nominee you would have called me nucking futz and pointed to the betting predictions to support the claim.. So how is that different than the hear and now?? :D What you are basically claiming is that you have inside information about the investigation, which I supremely doubt. Put your details on the table...statutes and precedents..and show us your law degree. No, I am claiming I have inside information INTO THE FIELD... Which I have.. And have PROVEN such on many occasions.. Cop ain't lawyer, and lawyer ain't cop. And Comey is a cop... A COP'S cop.. And I know how cops think.... You are always encouraged to wager.. :D You would look AWESOME in a HILLARY FOR PRISON 2016 T-Shirt.. :D Nice opinion, substantiate it with some hard data, not editorials, which are just somebody's opinion or at least not until you get about a thousand of them, at which point they become a modestly reliable poll, or a market if there is money changing hands. All you substantiate your opinions with are the betting markets. And, as you yourself have stated, they can be totally and completely DEAD wrong... I'll take my training, expertise and personal experience over your betting markets any day of the week and twice on Sunday.. :D Try less typing, more thinking. I *DO* think... I don't let betting markets do my thinking for me.. :D Michale

By: TheStig

TheStig — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:02:13 +0000

M-19 "What was Betfair/Predictwise predictions on Donald Trump 8 months before the First Primary???" Near zero, but that's the nature of forecasting. Forecasts get more accurate the nearer the you get to the event, as more information is available. That's the nature of the beast, until we get a working time machine, maybe, depends on which theoretical physicist you talk to. John Le Carre put the situation better than anybody in one of his espionage novels. "The truth shifts, a lie in place." "Clinton and/or senior staff WILL be indicted.... Your betting predictions ignore that." The fact that there is no indictment market doesn't mean the possibility isn't factored into other markets, like the Clinton will be prez market, or Clinton will be nominated etc. etc....lot's of markets...but indeed there is no Clinton will be indicted at Betfair, or any other shop I'm aware of. That alone tells you something. If the odds weren't considered very low by the betting shops, there would be a market. There is no market for Tigers eating Trump, because the odds are very,very,very low. "But I look at the facts and match that with my long experience, training and expertise in the relevant field.." What you are basically claiming is that you have inside information about the investigation, which I supremely doubt. Put your details on the table...statutes and precedents..and show us your law degree. Cop ain't lawyer, and lawyer ain't cop. "And in THAT election, it is nearly universally agreed that Clinton can't win..." Nice opinion, substantiate it with some hard data, not editorials, which are just somebody's opinion or at least not until you get about a thousand of them, at which point they become a modestly reliable poll, or a market if there is money changing hands. Try less typing, more thinking.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:45:09 +0000

I don't think I've seen Shrek 4 but I should have guessed it was (a) a movie quote [D'uh... headslap] and (b) a Donkey quote [double D'uh!]. :D Hehe... I have to admit that SHREK 4 was my favorite of the SHREK movies. Brought a tear to me eye.. I am a sucker for Found Lost Love movies... Add in a little alternate time-line travails... What's not to like! :D While it's a bummer your not feeling the best, I am glad to know you will still be with us for a long time to come... :D Sounds very much like Ryan when asked to take on the Speakership, doesn't it. Doesn't it?? That's the visage I had in mind when I wrote that... NO MEANS NO!!! Unless it means "Maybe".... :^/ Michale

By: Mopshell

Mopshell — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:35:22 +0000

I do have a dicky ticker but it's a hernia that has put me in hospital the last three times - and that is NOT in any way life-threatening! Painful, but not life threatening and it will soon be fixed. Surgery was scheduled for April 5 but it's been postponed 'til after April 14 when the next round of heart tests are completed. I'm seeing so much of the hospital these days that it's become a major part of my social life! I'm up there more often than I go to the cinema! :D I don't think I've seen Shrek 4 but I should have guessed it was (a) a movie quote [D'uh... headslap] and (b) a Donkey quote [double D'uh!]. :D "NO!! I am NOT running!!! NO!! I said NO!!! What part of 'NO' do you not understand!! NO!! NO!!! NEIN!!!! NO WAY IN HELL!!!! Get it thru your head!!! NO!!! NO MEANS NO!!! DAMMIT, JIM I'M A DOCTOR AND I SAID NO!!! NO!!!! Well, OK, I'll do it...." Sounds very much like Ryan when asked to take on the Speakership, doesn't it. I have to echo your siiigghhhhh :(

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:34:16 +0000

Put another way..

The ONLY Democrat who has even the SLIGHTEST chance of beating Trump is Bernie Sanders...

Ya'all choose Clinton as ya'all's nominee???

You are guaranteeing a GOP White House..

I can't make it any simpler than that...

Michale

(crossposted to HuffPoo)

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:16:51 +0000

In the general election it is a very different story. Betfair gives Trump something around an 18% chance of winning the General Election.

What was Betfair/Predictwise predictions on Donald Trump 8 months before the First Primary???

None of the polls or betting predictions take into account Clinton's indictment.. That's why they can be safely ignored...

All in all, the Clinton indictment gambit seems a very slender reed to me.

Of course it does... Because of your slavery to Leftist ideology...

But I look at the facts and match that with my long experience, training and expertise in the relevant field..

Clinton and/or senior staff WILL be indicted.... Your betting predictions ignore that.

Ergo, they are not worth the electrons they are transmitted on...

You find me a betting prediction on the General that takes into account Hillary's indictment...

Then we'll talk....

But regardless of all that, the simple fact is that this is an ESTABLISHMENT vs ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT election..

And in THAT election, it is nearly universally agreed that Clinton can't win...

Michale

By: TheStig

TheStig — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:46:50 +0000

M-16

Trump is my odds on favorite to get the Republican nomination. Betfair gives him about a 70% chance, this hasn't moved much over the last 2 primary dates. Predictwise is a bit more Bullish at 80%. I personally lean more toward Predictwise's odds.

In the general election it is a very different story. Betfair gives Trump something around an 18% chance of winning the General Election. This has not shifted much over the the last month. Predictwise gives him 20%, also tracking flat. National Match-up polls consistently, but not universally show that Clinton beats Trump, the running average as logged by RealClearPolitics shows an 11.4% difference in Clinton's favor, tracking up for a month. National polls are (in aggregate) a fairly accurate predictor of who wins the election, and by historical standards, Clinton's margin is high. I think Trump could win, but I consider 20% to be a long shot bet, and I have plenty of T-shirts plus a genetic predisposition towards a gambling problem. Political markets and other peoples money are just analytical tools for me. If that me a bad person, I can live with it.

There are emerging markets for Trump as a third party candidate. Betfair says the odds are 50:50, but I don't put much faith in a market with only 5K British Pounds in play.

All in all, the Clinton indictment gambit seems a very slender reed to me. Go nuts, but the small number of folks who consistently turn a profit on political wagering do so by cleaning up on chumps who bet by their gut. A few gut punchers always win a long shot bet, which encourages the other chumps who lose them.

By: TheStig

TheStig — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:33:25 +0000

Paul Coker Jrs. Horrifying Cliches are still pretty relevant.

http://carldraws.blogspot.com/p/carls-mad-magazine-coloring-portfolio.html

Old Mad Magazines have a hipster quality that polishes up nicely in the 21st century.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:23:54 +0000

What ya'all don't seem to get is that these Machiavellian machinations from BOTH Partys is why Donald Trump is winning..

And it's exactly why ya'all better get used to saying President Donald Trump..

The people are pissed and they simply are NOT going to take it anymore..

From EITHER Party..

Also, I wouldn't place any bets that a Donald Trump 3rd Party run is a sure loser for Trump... He may well run as a 3rd Party candidate but he will be running against a Democrat who is mortally wounded by an indictment of several serious felonies..

So either way, it's going to be President Trump...

Michale