Donald Trump

[Peter]

Michael wrote: There are supposedly electoral death blows for Clinton waiting in the wings . . . . We commence phase 3 of our US election coverage next week. You can contribute: end quote

I donated to Wikipedia, though I had doubts about their methodology but I did donate eventually. Is it moral to donate money to WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks is stealing though the theft is for the world’s enlightenment about potential crimes. So, is it for a *greater good *if it keeps a criminal from gaining political office? What do you think?

I went to their site to see if they had the leaks sorted, and you can access them by date, topic, person, etc., but I still would like to see an extended, though concise article to show the varlet’s misdeeds. If you had ten emails about the same topic or in the same vein, more explanatory articles and news stories might be written. If I were Donald Trump I would hire a dozen young people to read, sort, and highlight items pertinent to the election.

I might cry if Julius Assange does deliver a debilitating blow to the Clinton Criminal Enterprise. You know someone at the FBI is eagerly reading those WikiLeaks as they are released.

Peter   

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, Peter said:

WikiLeaks is stealing though the theft is for the world’s enlightenment about potential crimes. So, is it for a *greater good *if it keeps a criminal from gaining political office? What do you think?

Peter,WikiLeaks doesn't steal anything. It publishes what others send in and it verifies. (As they say, 10 years, 10 million documents, not one has been found to be fraudulent.)

How the information is gotten is generally through whistleblowers, but sometimes hackers.

I don't see how exposing thieves and criminals is a bad thing, especially when the sources of the exposure are generally people disgruntled at the very thieves and criminals. The disgruntled people are the villains's Achilles Heel.

It's rich that serial rights violators sometimes complain that their rights were violated by WikiLeaks (meaning the whistleblowers who send stuff to WikiLeaks). If they are going to screw the government and the people of the US, who do they expect to protect their rights?

Michael

[Peter]

From Eric Trump to my inbox: Friend, Know what's scarier than Halloween? Hillary Clinton as our next President. And I hate to alarm you, but we're running out of time. She's pulling out all her dirty tricks Friend, flooding the airways with negative ads about my father and anything else she can throw at him.  Why? Because she knows when it comes to the issues, my father's plans and ideas are better than hers, hands down. end quote

Interesting thoughts anyone? What’s the latest?

Huma Abedin lied to the FBI when she said no other electronic devices were used to transmit or store classified material. That may erase any immunity she was previously granted. Comey’s hand was forced, perhaps from several directions. I personally do not think any of his previous Clintonian actions were based upon his honor or duty.

And Attorney General Loretta Lynch is corrupt by pleading the fifth about *ransom payments to Iran.* That is wrong on so many levels, as is her corruption when blocking the FBI investigation.

There has been talk about the US looking like a third world country if former leaders are prosecuted by President Trump, but I view the situations as the opposite. The elites should not be treated any differently than the average American. Trump should let justice be done if the FBI suddenly regains their honesty.

Peter  

From The Wall Street Journal October 31, 2016: Email Probe Leaves Future Role of Huma Abedin in Question. Hillary Clinton aide, long seen as a fixture if the campaign wins, may face different prospects if findings are serious,. Huma Abedin has been by Hillary Clinton’s side for 20 years, since she was a White House intern assigned to the first lady’s office. There has never been much question that if Mrs. Clinton returned to the White House as president, Ms. Abedin would come too. end quote

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Podesta No. 24:

RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 24 #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails24 #HillaryClinton #imWithHer https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm pic.twitter.com/Pn5wEsxNw7

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 31, 2016

weeeeeeeee-THUD... weeeeeeeee-THUD... weeeeeeeee-THUD... 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, Peter said:

I went to their site to see if they had the leaks sorted, and you can access them by date, topic, person, etc., but I still would like to see an extended, though concise article to show the varlet’s misdeeds.

Peter,

This is from the WikiLeaks and other Whistleblowers - Clinton thread:

On 10/22/2016 at 11:14 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The best site I have found so far that simplifies the WikiLeaks dumps for the 2016 election is the following. It is constantly updated. You can skim it easily, too, if you don't have much time. The core ideas are stated simply in bold. Then the quotes and links are in a smaller font.

Most Damaging WikiLeaks

Here is another sorting of leaks by issue. It has been retweeted by WikiLeaks.

The Podesta Emails Revelations: A Collection

The second link is simpler than the first, but they are both quite readable without getting boring.

Both are constantly updated with each new WikiLeaks dump.

You might want to bookmark them so you can keep up.

Michael

[Peter]

Thanks for the wiki links Michael.

Michael wrote about the morality of WikiLeaks: How the information is gotten is generally through whistleblowers, but sometimes hackers. I don't see how exposing thieves and criminals is a bad thing, especially when the sources of the exposure are generally people disgruntled at the very thieves and criminals. The disgruntled people are the villains’ Achilles Heel. end quote

That is like the adage that stolen money loses its *criminal essence* when reused as currency by an unwitting shopper who got the bills from an ATM. But what if the ATM’s primary purpose was to take in stolen bank loot and launder the money? And the *first* user of the tainted currency was fully aware of where it came from? Perhaps the abettor puts in a dollar and gets five stolen dollars back.

A different moral issue was once discussed by Objectivist Nathaniel Branden. I will alter his argument away from “The Death Penalty” to the issue of hacking, to give my meandering thoughts weight. Joke. I am reusing another’s well thought out argument to . . . oh, you get it.

Nathan wrote but I alter: In considering this issue, two separate aspects must be distinguished: the ~moral~ and the ~legal~. The moral question is: Does the man who willfully re-publicizes private information, in the absence of any extenuating circumstances, ~deserve~ to have his actions morally condemned and should he face arrest for a crime? Here, the answer is unequivocally: ~Yes~. Such a man deserves to suffer the consequences -- not as "social revenge" or as an "example" to future potential leak publishers -- but as the logical and just consequence of his own act: as an expression of the moral principle that no man may profit from the crimes of another and still retain the right to his own rights; that no man may profit from an evil of this kind or escape the consequences of having committed it.

However, the ~legal question~: Should a legal system prosecute the replication of private information OR photos? There are grounds for debate -- though ~not~ out of sympathy or pity for the leaker or thief. The problem involved is that of establishing criteria of proof so rationally stringent as to forbid the possibility of convicting an innocent man. It should be noted that the legal question of length of jail time is outside the sphere of philosophy proper: it is to be resolved by a special, separate discipline: the philosophy of law." end of mish mash.

I don’t like hacking except for that of totalitarian foreign governments. Or if I am morally and legally required to do so by an institution of a moral government like the U.S. . . . in other words, the police, the FBI, the NSA, and the CIA. But we begin to reach a gray area when we allow a private detective, a peeping Tom, or any snoop for profit to republish a private citizen’s *private* information.

Of course there is that human sense of relief we all feel if a crime leads to eventual justice in some other case.

Peter   

[Peter]

What lying hypocrites. The Democrat Totalitarian Elite was praising Comey when he was part of their criminal cover up of Hillary Clinton’s crimes. But now? This shows me that the Jedi Knight has turned away from “the dark side.” Thank you FBI Director Comey!

Peter  

From USA Today. A bipartisan group of nearly 100 former federal prosecutors and senior Department of Justice officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, have signed a letter expressing concerns over FBI Director James Comey’s decision to inform Congress of new emails that may or may not be relevant to Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“Many of us have worked with Director Comey; all of us respect him,” said the letter, which was released Sunday night by the Clinton campaign. “But his unprecedented decision to publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just eleven days before a presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed,” said the signatories. 

“We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official — Republican or Democrat — has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new.”

The letter comes after Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat, sent a separate letter Sunday to Comey saying he may have violated a federal law that bars federal officials from using their authority to influence an election. 

Here is the full letter:

As former federal prosecutors and high-ranking officials of the U.S. Department of Justice, we know that the impartiality and nonpartisanship of the United States justice system makes it exceptional throughout the world.  To maintain fairness and neutrality, federal law enforcement officials must exercise discipline whenever they make public statements in connection with an ongoing investigation.  Often, evidence uncovered during the course of an investigative inquiry is incomplete, misleading or even incorrect, and releasing such information before all of the facts are known and tested in a court of law can unfairly prejudice individuals and undermine the public’s faith in the integrity of our legal process.  

For this reason, Justice Department officials are instructed to refrain from commenting publicly on the existence, let alone the substance, of pending investigative matters, except in exceptional circumstances and with explicit approval from the Department of Justice officials responsible for ultimate supervision of the matter.  They are also instructed to exercise heightened restraint near the time of a primary or general election because, as official guidance from the Department instructs, public comment on a pending investigative matter may affect the electoral process and create the appearance of political interference in the fair administration of justice. 

It is out of our respect for such settled tenets of the United States Department of Justice that we are moved to express our concern with the recent letter issued by FBI Director James Comey to eight Congressional Committees.  Many of us have worked with Director Comey; all of us respect him.  But his unprecedented decision to publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just eleven days before a presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed. We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official—Republican or Democrat—has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new. end quotes.

[Peter]

When is the other shoe going to drop? Are we back to the campaign prior to Comey’s bombshell? Again, I may have failed to correctly evaluate the POWER of the left wing propaganda machine. As an example, on Yahoo a story just asked, “Where are Trump’s missing emails?” Deflect. Attack.

Hopefully, either the exonerated FBI or WikiLeaks will charge in on a white stallion, with their ID’s or unofficial badges re-shined. I thought Clinton would be finished by Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday, but now I wonder . . .

This reminds me of the StarTrek TNG episode “Parallels,” (I like the part when Deanna Troi walks into Worf’s quarters like she owns it and he asks, “Is there anything I can help you with Counselor?” and she sexily walks over to the bed and says, “Yes. Come sit by me.” In this reality they are married.)

So I want to go back to Friday and feel that euphoria again. The truth was out there and it was discovered by the FBI (by the fictional Mulder or Comey). So, please come back alternate quantum universe. Say something Director Comey!

Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

BOOM!

Donna Brazile just got fired from the Clinton News Network.

Thank you, WikiLeaks.

From Politico:

CNN severs ties with Donna Brazile

If Clinton loses CNN, the domino fall starts. And it looks like she is losing CNN.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

That is like the adage that stolen money loses its *criminal essence* when reused as currency by an unwitting shopper who got the bills from an ATM. But what if the ATM’s primary purpose was to take in stolen bank loot and launder the money? And the *first* user of the tainted currency was fully aware of where it came from? Perhaps the abettor puts in a dollar and gets five stolen dollars back.

Peter,

If people were "premises with feet" to use an old Bibbibob phrase, I would agree with this.

The problem comes when a system put in place by good people to keep order becomes corrupted by bad people to harm the good people.

Morality is made for people, not the contrary.

According to Rand, it is a code to guide man's choices. That doesn't mean it is a code to imprison man's volition. That's what her exposure of "sanction of the victim" was all about.

And that leads to the question, how far should the citizens of a society sanction semantics when they are being victimized by thugs? In my view, you get rid of the thugs, then set things back up right.

Believe me, if WikiLeaks were exposing things like bank accounts, passwords, sex pictures taken privately, industrial intellectual property secrets etc., there would be an outrage against WikiLeaks. 

Michael 

[Peter]

Michael wrote: Believe me, if WikiLeaks were exposing things like bank accounts, passwords, sex pictures taken privately, industrial intellectual property secrets etc., there would be an outrage against WikiLeaks. end quote

I agree. But sometimes justification is like a box of chocolates. I will rethink it.

What do you say about Hillary, Commander Data? “She was a cloaked Romulun warbird, The Oz behind the curtain, the robber in the mask, the sociopath behind the smile, the . . .”

Shut up, Data.

Michael wrote: If Clinton loses CNN, the domino fall starts. And it looks like she is losing CNN. end quote

Praise Zeus! They can do it. The left wing propaganda machine at some point abandoned Hillary for the first Black guy, ever, remember? And remember Rush spoofing in 2008 that he supported Hillary? If she did drop out which is hardly likely, who would replace her, Kaine, Biden, or Bernie? How about an internet Democrat Convention?

Peter

Notes. Can America Afford Another Nixon? Terry Paulson Posted: Oct 31, 2016 12:01 AM: Long before writing columns, I joined the rest of America fixated for months on the Watergate soap opera that eventually brought down President Richard Milhous Nixon. From “Deep Throat” to “Dirty Tricks,” from “I am not a crook” to Nixon’s resignation on August 9, 1974, we watched America avoid what might have become a republic-threatening Constitutional crisis. The scandal also “resulted in the indictment of 69 people, with trials or pleas resulting in 48 being found guilty.”

. . . . In this divisive election, can we afford the risk of electing a president who could be indicted for multiple offenses? Top Republican leaders eventually went to Nixon to let him know that they would not stand in the way of his impeachment. Nixon eventually resigned to avoid the public disgrace. Would Clinton?

Many will still vote for Clinton because of critical policy priorities. But if you are undecided and worry about Trump’s character, take heart in the comments of Liz Crokin, a journalist covering Trump for over a decade: “In all my years covering him I’ve never heard anything negative about the man until he announced he was running for president. Keep in mind, I got paid a lot of money to dig up dirt on celebrities like Trump for a living so a scandalous story on the famous billionaire could’ve potentially sold a lot of magazines and would’ve been a ‘yuge’ feather in my cap. Instead, I found that he doesn’t drink alcohol or do drugs, he’s a hardworking businessman and totally devoted to his beloved wife and children. On top of that, he’s one of the most generous celebrities in the world with a heart filled with more gold than his $100 million New York penthouse.” Vote Trump. end quote 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have a thought I want to share.

I have a hunch the powers that be have turned their backs on Hillary Clinton. The reason I say this is because President Obama publicly vouched for Comey (see here), the DOJ just got a warrant to search Donna Brazile's emails (see here), etc., and because of the behavior of the news media.

I get news feeds from Google and Yahoo. This is where I am often able to get anti-Trump stuff before others start talking about it. After all, both Google and Yahoo are in the tank for Clinton. This is where the Access Hollywood tape of Trump's potty mouth first appeared for me, for instance, and I was able to post about it before it became a thing.

Well, I have been keeping an eye on my feeds because more lewd tapes or some anti-Trump bombs are supposed to drop. But nothing. Nada. On today of all days. Now is when Clinton needs this real bad. Oh, there are the standard boneheaded articles (the most recent: "Why Hillary Clinton is still a huge favorite to win" and stuff like that), but no anti-Trump bomb.

It's weird. It's like there's a backstage order for the KingMakers (QueenMakers) to stop wasting money and resources fighting for Clinton.

They will keep up appearances, but I suspect she's now being hung out to dry.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I also fantasize about the breakup conversation between Huma and Anthony Danger:

Huma is yelling her butt off and saying Anthony is going to go down big-time, including as a pedophile. Can't he keep a lid on that goddam thing of his? And Anthony screaming back that they made a deal and he could do his sex stuff on the side just like Bill made with Hillary, but thinking, if I go down, I ain't going alone. Right after she storms out, he calls the FBI for a friendly chat. What if I give you Hillary? Will that take the pedophile thing off the table?  

Now that Huma is going down, and Hillary probably screamed her butt off at Huma in a similar fashion, she might be thinking, if I go down, I ain't going alone. And there might be a friendly chat with the FBI in the works.

Ah, me and my fantasies...

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: Now that Huma is going down, and Hillary probably screamed her butt off at Huma in a similar fashion, she might be thinking, if I go down, I ain't going alone. And there might be a friendly chat with the FBI in the works.  Ah, me and my fantasies... end quote

Fantasies, Mr. Spock? Your logical brain has fashioned a likely scenario using the available data. I think more than a friendly chat is going on, and it is a fearful chat. The WikiLeaks are being dispensed to counteract the democrat propaganda machine. No matter what crap the Progressives try to peddle, all of them MUST read what WikiLeaks came out with today and tomorrow, because many of them were involved in the cover ups or know someone who was involved. That element could not be present in the FBI releases, could it? Yes, and adding in a scared Huma we get a delay in more FBI releases. I think it will be necessary for Comey to come out with his “early” findings before the week is out.     

Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What the hell happened to James Carville?

He's normally as smug as a bug in a rug. Condescending as all hell.

Now he's yelling at MSNBC about them defending an attack on Hillary Clinton by House Republicans and the KGB?

MSNBC?

Colluding with Republicans and the KGB against Clinton?

Dayaamm!

I want to say I am not enjoying this, but I am enjoying this.

   

Michael

[Peter]

A republican member of the House was just saying that FBI Director Comey CANNOT leak any results until the investigation is over. But gee, Old Hickory is saying he must, and shouldn’t he at least give us a hint, if all the Democrats are in lockstep in their opinion that he should?

Except for one who isn’t. Obama says “Comey is a man of integrity, and he is in a tough spot.” Well that’s awkward. And of course, days ago Obama said about what Hillary should do, “Let your conscience be your guard.” No shit. That is a near a quote as I can remember hearing,

Florida, Arizona and Iowa are back into the gray mist column after leaning for Hillary for three days.

Ah. The Post and the NYt are saying Comey should supply more info. That means almost nobody is saying Comey should hold back. I think everyone should feel fear and trust when the name FBI is mentioned. Accept for me because I am one of the good guys. So come on, Director. Make it into the history books for doing the right thing. We don't want a gladiator fight, but shed some of the traitor's blood.

Peter

[Wolf DeVoon]

Doesn't matter any more. The fix is in, Hillary wins, and DOJ has her back. Nothing to see, citizen, move along.

[BaalChatzaf]

49 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Doesn't matter any more. The fix is in, Hillary wins, and DOJ has her back. Nothing to see, citizen, move along.

I agree.  No legal action will be directed at Candidate Clinton.  After she is elected, she is virtually immune.  There is no way a president elect is going to be indicted for anything short of bloody murder  committed in the plain sight of hundreds.  Can  you see President Elect Clinton been taken to Inauguration in handcuffs?  I can't.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

47 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Can  you see President Elect Clinton...

Nope.

Michael

[Backlighting]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 Can  you see President Elect Clinton been taken to Inauguration in handcuffs?  I can't.

One can dream. --J

[Brant Gaede]

17 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

One can dream. --J

To dream, the impossible dream . . .

--Brant

an election that matters--until it's over--poke the country with a fork; it's done

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ya think Google has been Donald Trump's friend?

Look at the following plan from one of Alphabet's directors, Eric Schmidt (Alphabet is the parent company of Google).

Google head Eric Schmidt's secret strategic plan for the US election #PodestaEmails https://t.co/LskJODXyXn

More: https://t.co/ZUfh7WDAT5 pic.twitter.com/llq5G9kp5V

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 31, 2016

What could possibly go wrong here, especially in Clinton's hands?

Michael

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Then this just popped up.

US DoJ Assistant AG briefing Congress about the Huma Abedin email investigation is Peter Kadzik. This Peter Kadzik:https://t.co/R5e6yUQWY3 pic.twitter.com/x8idfi2FU7

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 1, 2016

That fishy smell is coming from where?

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Obama's home town, black police chief, black teachers union -- Chicago just recorded its most violent weekend of 2016 with 52 shootings and 17 fatalities ... total homicides for the year to nearly 650, up over 50% versus last year. "City of Brotherly Love" slightly worse, gangs of blacks beating white students at Temple U. Now, suppose Trump wins. Chaos.

[Peter]

Wolf speculated: Now, suppose Trump wins. Chaos. end quote

Is Trump going to incite rioting, or gang murders? Looting? Drugs? Of course not. My opposition to political rioting “as a tool in an activist’s arsenal” goes back to Kent State when rioters were using rocks mostly to put out the eyes or kill National Guardsmen who were there to keep the peace. I was the same age as those soldiers and recently discharged from Uncle Sam’s Army. While I am sorry for the bullets that killed innocent bystanders, the moral fault is with the rioters, not the guardsmen who couldn’t shoot straight.

If Trump insists on no violence from the protesters and the local police or guard allow peaceful protests BUT they and the potential rioters know Trump will have the backs of those brave men who are using retaliatory force to quell violence, where’s is the beef from civil libertarians? Trump is not going to give blanket amnesty to cops or guardsmen who disobey their orders or initiate violence. I do envision the retaliatory use of force to be the amount needed to do the job and occasionally a bit more to speed things up and to better protect the police from injury. So, Trump might say to the potential rioters, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. And he may encourage the troops and cops to do a good job.

Of course the thugs will say justice is racially motivated in cases like restoring order in Chi Town or Philly but who gives a shit? I don’t. If the criminals turn a situation into The Alamo the cops will have permission (as if they need it) to defend themselves with deadly force.

Peter