15 ms·

Polling data is lagging, but the state department just released >300 emails. Not unlikely U.S is source of leak not Russia. Total media blackout. NYT, Bloomber

Polling data is lagging, but the state department just released >300 emails. Not unlikely U.S is source of leak not Russia. Total media blackout. NYT, Bloomberg, CNN, WaPo, ect. 538 has a 3.1 popular vote margin and in the last 24ish hours Trump has gone from 80/20 to 60/40. Many sides manipulating information, so both amplify their candidate. Going to be very close

DominikR 10y ago
And the FBI Twitter account is also leaking information about the Clintons. If you ask me the FBI and other government agencies want to bring HRC down, probably for her reckless handling of classified information. Either this or these agencies are secretly controlled by Putin.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Or, not-secretly controlled by Republicans, in the case of the FBI.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    Hm, so it's a Russian-Republican FBI-CIA conspiracy against Hillary? Even though 2 weeks ago Comey was praised by the Democrats for not indicting HRC. They sure are all out to get her it seems.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    That's weak sauce argument. If the FBI was controlled by Republicans they would have indicted Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information instead of giving a press conference letting her off the hook. And they would have let General Petraeus (who was a potential Republican primary candidate) off instead of bringing charges against him. FBI was a hero to Democrats and a villain to Republicans a couple months ago and now it flipped. So the FBI probably isn't controlled by either party.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > If the FBI was controlled by Republicans they would have indicted Hillary Clinton No, they wouldn't have, because the FBI can't indict anyone; indictments are sought by Justice Department prosecutors (who don'the work for the FBI) and issued by grand juries (who also don't work for the FBI.) All the FBI can do is investigate, conduct lawful arrests, and provide information to prosecutors who decide whether and when to prosecute (including seeking indictments.) Well, and conduct politically motivated information releases, though that isn't a legal option, as it violates the Hatch Act. And the FBI is, in fact, controlled by a Republican. This is a matter of simple, undisputable fact. And that's a Republican whose naked political manipulation has been criticized not only by Democrats, but by numerous Republicans, including, among other notables, former Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, and by others with no love of Democrats, like conservative icon, Fox News legal anlayst, and Libertarian Party member Judge Andrew Napolitano. > And they would have let General Petraeus (who was a potential Republican primary candidate) off instead of bringing charges against him Again, that's Justice Department prosecutors, not the FBI. Plus, that kind of blatant political manipulation that is likely to get you fired or forced to resign is a one-time-only thing that only works well if you do it right before the election. If a partisan Republican -- especially working in a Democratic Administration -- was going to do it, they do just what Comey did, do it close enough to the general election that it would have an effect, but not so close that it wouldn't have time to get plenty of play in the media and magnification through partisan propaganda outlets.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
maxerickson 10y ago
There is no blackout. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/clinton-emails-state-department/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/clinton-emails-state-... http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-11-03/state-dept-releases-new-batch-of-clinton-e-mails http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-11-03/state-...
- vonklaus 10y ago
  0 mention of wikileaks. NYT hasn't weighed in, had to fire a staff member for feeding HRC intel. In fact, there is virtually no mention that wikileaks is actively disclosing emails. One article indicating "voters already made up their minds". I think they are both scumbags, it's just that it is absurd that NYT isn't even trying to spin, just pretending it didn't happen. I have been getting updates via a fucking uncharged fugitive seeking asylum from my country and reading updates via RT (Russian News). I feel sick to my stomach and I am very cynical.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Wait, what are you saying they are blacking out? NYT is covering the Wikileaks emails: http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/wikileaks http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/wikileaks Also, are you confusing CNN firing a commentator with the NYT? Donna Brazile was not 'a staff member' at CNN, they paid her to go on TV and babble, not as a reporter. She acted in bad faith, but she wasn't in a journalistic role.
    - vonklaus 10y ago
      Sorry, yes am getting them confused. Trying to figure out what is going on with little sleep and email data. I am embarassed I made those mistakes but it is also telling. I am not contending there is a blackout-- that was an over reaction, but all major networks are barely mentioning much of the disclosures or even showing HRC in that bad of a light. If this was Gary Johnson-- who most people dont know; would ve surprised if state dept & WL werent front page. Bloomberg, CNN, NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC are running with blatant propaganda. Just because I find HRC to be a dangerous, doeNt mean I support T. The state dept/FBI are releasing data dumps on a former senator & secretary of state as well as pursuing her investigation of criminal activity. None of these papers allude to that scary fact, or the scarrier fact that there is a schism internally as well. Comcerned.

DominikR 10y ago

And the FBI Twitter account is also leaking information about the Clintons. If you ask me the FBI and other government agencies want to bring HRC down, probably for her reckless handling of classified information. Either this or these agencies are secretly controlled by Putin.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Or, not-secretly controlled by Republicans, in the case of the FBI.
- DominikR 10y ago
  Hm, so it's a Russian-Republican FBI-CIA conspiracy against Hillary? Even though 2 weeks ago Comey was praised by the Democrats for not indicting HRC. They sure are all out to get her it seems.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  That's weak sauce argument. If the FBI was controlled by Republicans they would have indicted Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information instead of giving a press conference letting her off the hook. And they would have let General Petraeus (who was a potential Republican primary candidate) off instead of bringing charges against him. FBI was a hero to Democrats and a villain to Republicans a couple months ago and now it flipped. So the FBI probably isn't controlled by either party.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > If the FBI was controlled by Republicans they would have indicted Hillary Clinton No, they wouldn't have, because the FBI can't indict anyone; indictments are sought by Justice Department prosecutors (who don'the work for the FBI) and issued by grand juries (who also don't work for the FBI.) All the FBI can do is investigate, conduct lawful arrests, and provide information to prosecutors who decide whether and when to prosecute (including seeking indictments.) Well, and conduct politically motivated information releases, though that isn't a legal option, as it violates the Hatch Act. And the FBI is, in fact, controlled by a Republican. This is a matter of simple, undisputable fact. And that's a Republican whose naked political manipulation has been criticized not only by Democrats, but by numerous Republicans, including, among other notables, former Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, and by others with no love of Democrats, like conservative icon, Fox News legal anlayst, and Libertarian Party member Judge Andrew Napolitano. > And they would have let General Petraeus (who was a potential Republican primary candidate) off instead of bringing charges against him Again, that's Justice Department prosecutors, not the FBI. Plus, that kind of blatant political manipulation that is likely to get you fired or forced to resign is a one-time-only thing that only works well if you do it right before the election. If a partisan Republican -- especially working in a Democratic Administration -- was going to do it, they do just what Comey did, do it close enough to the general election that it would have an effect, but not so close that it wouldn't have time to get plenty of play in the media and magnification through partisan propaganda outlets.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

maxerickson 10y ago

There is no blackout. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/clinton-emails-state-department/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/clinton-emails-state-... http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-11-03/state-dept-releases-new-batch-of-clinton-e-mails http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-11-03/state-...

vonklaus 10y ago
0 mention of wikileaks. NYT hasn't weighed in, had to fire a staff member for feeding HRC intel. In fact, there is virtually no mention that wikileaks is actively disclosing emails. One article indicating "voters already made up their minds". I think they are both scumbags, it's just that it is absurd that NYT isn't even trying to spin, just pretending it didn't happen. I have been getting updates via a fucking uncharged fugitive seeking asylum from my country and reading updates via RT (Russian News). I feel sick to my stomach and I am very cynical.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Wait, what are you saying they are blacking out? NYT is covering the Wikileaks emails: http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/wikileaks http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/wikileaks Also, are you confusing CNN firing a commentator with the NYT? Donna Brazile was not 'a staff member' at CNN, they paid her to go on TV and babble, not as a reporter. She acted in bad faith, but she wasn't in a journalistic role.
  - vonklaus 10y ago
    Sorry, yes am getting them confused. Trying to figure out what is going on with little sleep and email data. I am embarassed I made those mistakes but it is also telling. I am not contending there is a blackout-- that was an over reaction, but all major networks are barely mentioning much of the disclosures or even showing HRC in that bad of a light. If this was Gary Johnson-- who most people dont know; would ve surprised if state dept & WL werent front page. Bloomberg, CNN, NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC are running with blatant propaganda. Just because I find HRC to be a dangerous, doeNt mean I support T. The state dept/FBI are releasing data dumps on a former senator & secretary of state as well as pursuing her investigation of criminal activity. None of these papers allude to that scary fact, or the scarrier fact that there is a schism internally as well. Comcerned.