Reply With Quote
Still don't see a realistic way for Trump to win but it is looking like he might outperform Romney and McCain in electoral votes, both who are not supporting Trump. Should make for some interesting post election rebellion in the GOP.
trump as president would be ing scary.
not even talking about what he would pass... but think about all the slimy people he'd add to the government.
can't even imagine, don't want to...
Still don't see a realistic way for Trump to win but it is looking like he might outperform Romney and McCain in electoral votes, both who are not supporting Trump. Should make for some interesting post election rebellion in the GOP.
trump would manage to add people even worse than than current republicans in congress.
im looking at it right now yes he did. I said polls plus you have to change it at the bottom
Oh I was reading the polls only format.
He's going to have to flip a blue state plain and simple.
Poll just came out showing trump +1 in pa. He's within 4 in a mul ude of states. Big video dropping tomorrow by okeefe
Hillary was up 6 yesterday in a Alaska poll and today it switched right back to Trump. These polls are going to fluctuate every day probably until next Tuesday. And wasn't Okeefe supposed to had dropped some other damning video implicating Hillary a few weeks back but never did?
Someone fed the NYT information to quickly kill emerging Trump/Russia stories ... was it Comey?
On Monday evening, two potentially Category 5 stories broke concerning Donald Trump and his many ties to Russia. At 5:36 PM, Slate was up with an analysis of a server in Trump Tower that seemed to be directly, and exclusively, connected to an oligarch-controlled bank in Russia.
It dawned on the researchers that this wasn’t an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an en y called Alfa Bank.
At 7:52 PM, Mother Jones was up with a reveal from a former spy who claimed to have seriously shocking information.
"Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance."
But by 9:14 PM, the New York Times was ready not only to dismiss the Russian connection to Trump, but paint the Russian hacking of Democratic emails—and only Democratic emails—as a random prank.
Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.
And just like that, stories that might have dominated the morning news were strangled in their crib. But … by who? Who gave the Times the very timely information it needed to attack the Trump/Russia connection at just the right moment?
On Friday, as the FBI was issuing a letter saying that they were looking into some emails that might possibly be related to the earlier investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server, the New York Times found this worthy of every single column of the front page. On Monday, the information that there was a broad, ongoing investigation into connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government rated a single article. On page A21. It became the instant “See? Nothing going on” that every Trump devotee needed to wave at the nearest doubter.
But just how did that article come to so definitively dismiss the issue while presenting no evidence?
‘Someone inside the government leaked this information to the New York Times. Did James Comey authorize this leak?’
The New York Times attributes the leaks about the FBI’s thinking to “[l]aw enforcement officials,” which suggests — but does not definitively establish — that the leaks came from the FBI. Martin says this raises the question as to whether Comey himself authorized the leak. If he did, it could be evidence that he is seeking to influence the election through selective leaks favorable to Trump.
And what about that jaw-dropping conclusion that the Russian interference with only Democratic emails, and the release of information timed to disrupt Hillary Clinton’s campaign, was somehow not intended to slant the election toward Trump?
An actual conclusion would involve, according to Martin, the participation of a variety of intelligence agencies under the supervision of the Director of National Intelligence.
In particular, the investigators would need to look at the NSA intercepts of Russian communications and have those intercepts analyzed by a specialist in Russian intelligence.
Have the “investigators” speaking to the New York Times reviewed that crucial intelligence? We don’t know.
This conclusion isn’t just amazing, it’s genuinely unbelievable. “Yes, I did hit only Cubs players with a bat as they walked past and ignore the Cleveland players, but I was only trying to mess with the game, not influence the outcome.”
There’s no situation in which the lopsided intrusion of Russia would be seen as the kind of chaotic-neutral action the Times story suggests.
As has become their practice of late, the New York Times made several subtle modifications to the story after it first appeared.
The New York Times, meanwhile, quietly altered their story on Monday night adding the caveat “conclusive or direct” to a sentence that previously read “law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”
The original statement was clearly untrue. The revised statement … who knows? Given the utterly banal description of the Times’ unrevealed sources, it’s impossible to place any faith in the information.
What is clear is that the New York Times has some direct connection to sources that are highly interested in killing off Trump/Russia stories — and doing so very promptly.
Who is behind that connection? That would be a good story.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1...28Daily+Kos%29
Now I've seen it all.
Boo accusing the New York Times of being in the tank for Trump...
It is pink in the polls plus forecast where Silver factors in demographics as well as polls.
Yeah I saw that.
HUMA ABEDIN NEVER HAD SECURITY CLEARANCE & SECRETARY CLINTON ALLOWED HER UN-AUTHORIZED ACCESS
http://hillaryforpresident.com/huma-abedin/
Huma Abedin Never Had Security Clearance & Secretary Clinton Allowed Her Un-authorized Access
November 1, 2016 Dr. Larry Kawa
* In do ents disclosed to Citizen Researcher Dr. Larry Kawa by the US State Department, Huma Abedin signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (SF-312) for classified information under penalty of perjury.
* In the agreement Abedin is advised against "negligent handling of classified information” could cause "irreparable injury” to the United States.
* In addition Abedin agrees that "unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me” could result in the violation of several intelligence and security laws, including the espionage act.
* Disclosure of classified information to Anthony Weiner through "negligent handling of classified information” would be a violation of this agreement, and a felony. Aiding and Abetting Huma Abedin to commit this crime or cover it up would also be a felony.
* The Non-Disclosure & the Separation Agreement also reveal significant deficiencies at the State Department as several sections were never counter signed by the State Department.
* The Separation Statement (OF-109) affirmatively states that she has returned all classified material to the State Department and does not have access to any classified information.
* The Anthony Weiner email scandal revealed that Huma Abedin still had access to classified information on her Yahoo! account, which was accessed from Weiner’s laptop.
* In other do ent releases, it was revealed that Hillary Rodham Clinton typically sent classified emails to Huma Abedin’s unsecure Yahoo! account to be printed. This would be a felony on the part of Hillary Rodham Clinton for illegally transferring classified do ents through an insecure system, ultimately exposing them to individuals who did not have security clearance and potentially exposing them to hostile actors.
* On Sept. 22 2016, according to CNN and other sources, more than 500 million Yahoo! accounts were hacked. Hackers likely gained access to Huma Abedin’s Yahoo account.
* This raises the question that in addition to classified information existing electronically within Clinton servers, Huma Abedin has printed files of classified information that have yet to be accounted for. Such as revelation would require that a search warrant be issued for her home and business to search for classified material.
Statement by Dr. Larry Kawa
Initial access to these do ents was sent to me by deputy assistant secretary of state Margaret Grafeld after my mail was tampered with in regards to a FOIA request I did for Hillary Clinton separation statement. There is still an open Senate investigation regarding a Mail tampering charge.
The first do ent known as an SF – 312 is a nondisclosure agreement for classified information. Huma Abedin signed onto the binding terms and conditions under threat of perjury. Please note condition number seven makes her potentially guilty under the espionage act… 18 USC 793 and 1924. She did not sign onto the required line swearing that she had a security briefing. That is a necessary condition in order to have top secret security clearance, a condition which was never met.
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/trainin...-form-312.html
She also was not accepted under the acceptance line since she was never briefed. The SF-312 is a do ent that every state employee signs on the on ramp as they begin their tenure at the state department.
The OF – 109 separation statement is a do ent they sign up on the departure to be sure that security clearance has been cut off. The state department under the watch of the Obama administration is also supposed to have a DS – 1904 form signed from someone at the state department to ensure that classified access has been cut off. The DS – 1904 form apparently was never signed in the state department has been unable to produce. Such is the case with many if not most of their employees.
The separation statement for Abedin reflects that she had knowledge that she swore under the threat of perjury that she not only had her classified access cut off but that she would not communicate or transmit any data to any person without security clearance, coincidentally she didn’t have security clearance herself. Ever.
CosmicParasite, I'm not accusing NYT of anything.Now I've seen it all.
Boo accusing the New York Times of being in the tank for Trump...
However, the NYT spews the Fed govt/establishment line, eg invading Iraq for BigOil, systematically, as its part of the establishment.
Of course, you have no opinion on where, how, why the NYT shut down the Trash-Russia speculation within a few hours.
NYT wanting to stay friendly with, have access to FBI, CIA, NSA? absolutely.
it's not legally required because it was a norm that everyone acceded to -- until now.
Why should there be a law to force Trump to do what all other politicians at the national level do voluntarily?
Why do all politicians have to show their hand, except Donald Trump?
because he's not a politician, silly.
Bull . That ship sailed. He's running for president.
i was just trying to give you their typical response.
norm people wear seatbelts but there is a law
he showed more fiscal papers then anyone else
fbi said he has no criminal ties to russie
he is under audit if he was doing illegal stuff he would have been in jail because his name is not clinton
showing tax returns is a political norm because people think it's important to know a candidates vested interests when they're seeking high office.
Public safety regulation doesn't really compare.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
