Kirk Gallaway

On 11/18/2016 at 3:20 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Yeah Glenn, I would probably like someone who was a little more in touch with the common man as the Democrats were from FDR to about Clinton. But on the other hand, whatever high profile tweets Trump can do to save some jobs. Without an overall policy change, those same forgotten people will still be forgotten in 4 years. Because you have to notice the Wall Street insiders Trump's putting into critical economic posts. And that says more than anything.

Oh, Glenn, I thought you were going to respond to Sandy's list of appalling, sexist, false accusations, scare mongering, denigration of sacrifices of war heroes like  John Mc Cain, and vets in general like yourself and just general lame ass comments Trump made throughout the campaign with your own list of Hillary's similar dirty campaign rhetoric, but we've yet to hear it yet. I assume your still researching?

Sandy said,

Some of the appalling things Trump said during his campaign.

 

• “If I were running ‘The View’, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’”
   
• [John McCain's]  not a war hero... He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured." 
   
• “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. ... They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.”
   
• "Look at [Carly Fiorinas] face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"
   
• "I would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."
   
• "[Ford is] going to build a plant [in Mexico] and illegals are going drive those cars right over the border ... And they'll probably end up stealing the cars."
   
• "And, I would say the co-founder [of ISIS] would be crooked Hillary Clinton."
   
• Written statement from the Trump campaign: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

 

Not exactly presidential material.

 

de·test·a·ble

diˈtestəbəl/

adjective: detestable

1. deserving intense dislike.

    

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, Ron, you're right. Maris managed to swat only 14 four-ply wallops in his two years with St. Louis in 1967 and '68. But, amazingly, the Cardinals won the pennant in both of those seasons---even with Maris' meager power output. '68, of course, was the Year Of The Pitcher (mainly, Bob Gibson).

If you're interested, I've archived Maris' 61st circuit clout (and lots more stuff) at my Baseball webpage.

JFK Segue....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/JFK Interview On Opening Day Of The 1961 Baseball Season

Hey first off, the site looks great Jim! It's always been one of my favorite sites, but did need a facelift. Bravo to all!

Dave, Ron--I had a Maris card from Kansas City. Thought Barry Pepper was a good casting choice. Wasn't that crazy about the HBO special. I think of the Cardinals and the Cepeda for Sadecki trade and wince! I knew it was wrong at the time. We had Mays, Mac Covey, Cepeda, and Hart!

Check out all the Hall of Famers in the 67' All Star Game! 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ALS/ALS196707110.shtml

Of course, this is very dangerous, and I don't meant make light of it but.....

Did you know Trump tried to sue Bill Maher? And do you know what that was about?

IMO, Castro tried to go with us, and why wouldn't he? We were the premiere economic power in the world. He met directly through Nixon the Eisenhower, Dulles, multi national Industrial complex, who weren't going to give an inch on nationalization. IMO Castro probably  knew complete nationalization wasn't really practical and wouldn't have nationalized near as much as he did, but ultimately he was left no choice. There's no doubt in my mind, if things had been handled more carefully, there would have been no defection to the Soviet bloc, no Cuban Missile crisis, no assassinated President.

His actions after seizing control parallel many such revolutions of that time. He seized control decisively, brutally and repressively. Straight to the 3rd world Socialist model he forbid many Doctors, professionals and producers from leaving to countries where they could make a lot more money, and have a much higher standard of living, and thwarted incentive to the point that many of his reforms toward a Centralized economy never had a chance of working. That they continued these policies over the years except for very minor incremental market reform some attribute to Castro keeping the people down to ensure his complete control. Whatever the true intention, it didn't make a lot of sense.

His best legacy was that he provided for all the best education and health care system in Latin America.Though I've never been to Cuba,  I traveled extensively for months through Mexico and Central America in the 70's and 80's and with a few small exceptions there was extreme poverty, very little safety net, and great illiteracy.

Go to Honduras, ( particularly with the scourge of drug gangs)then go to Cuba, you might prefer Cuba. Go to Costa Rica, maybe not. If you're a wealthy industrialist, and you go to Cuba, you'd have to be eying that cheap, dirt poor economy and educated work force like a hawk. Like Trump in 1998.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059.html

10 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

GLENN:  Surely you don't disagree that the US is unique in many ways...?

Sorry Glenn but we're not unique, nor are we E-xceptional, as in Exceptionalism.  We're no better nor worst than any of the other 6 billion humans who live on Earth.  All of us are just skin, bones, organs, and hair and we just so happen to live on land where a government was founded over 200 years ago.  And it's still going.  That's all.

I mean really, do you think Vietnamese people who live in little hamlets right at this very moment are going around thinking that they're exceptional? Or the people that live in the mountains of Peru?  Why are we any better than them - because we live in McMansions, drive BMW's, and take cruises twice a year down to third-world islands to lay on the beach and sip pina coladas?

It's that kind of "exceptional" thinking that can get a whole lot of people - and even countries - into a world of trouble for others who share the world. Hitler and other dictators who caused the deaths of millions come quickly to mind.  And this is the essence of Kennedy's American University speech - one of the keys to that speech was instead of looking inward, we need to look outward, but not in an hubristic way.  An example of that would be for a lawyer who represents a billion-dollar company, sees riches in a third-world country, has the ability to manufacture dissent in that country, overthrows that country's leaders, puts a friendly puppet leader in the deposed one's place, makes billions for his client, and then goes home to Georgetown that night, puts his slippers on and reads the paper while sipping on a martini.  Without batting an eye for the lives he destroyed while doing it.

Do you know who I speak of, Glenn?  If you do - and can put one and one together - then you'll really truly understand why John Kennedy was murdered 53 years ago yesterday. But if you continue to think that our country is unique and exceptional, then you won't get it.

Sorry to burst that bubble for you today.  

Well put Michael, I didn't think Glenn was going to get that "e" thing. I was thinking of offering clues such as "Endowed"  as by our creator.

That's self righteous hubris that's part of our makeup can be dangerous and has been used as a pretext (Germany in the 20th Century comes to mind) to take great license. And I agree, in our past has lead to the killing of a President and into Vietnam.

As far as the Electoral College there were some more exceptional of us who thought that the less exceptional of us votes shouldn't count as much and that elections may need to be brokered.

While Conservatives would assail Mark Zuckerburg as being part of the "liberal media'. It's now evident that Facebook and other social media  through their algorithms provided the infrastructure for these whacky Clinton conspiratorial allegations that  fueled the Trump movement. They've now acknowledged some blame because of their inability to distinguish between truthful articles and completely fabricated ones.The sad truth is that on both sides  people tend to read just the sources that  lean in the directions of their bias.

I think Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate. I think the Clintons are liars (like most current day politicians)and very conflicted, (though I'm not sure how many other politicians are as conflicted). However, I'm not sure how much she's done that is illegal. But it should be illegal, and the fact politicians are allowed to do some overwhelming conflicts of interests that are actually legal really is our fault as citizens. I'm not very well versed on the subtleties of the law involving Hillary, but I think when Cliff sticks to just the case against Hillary, he does a pretty good case of defending her against illegal charges, that coupled with the factor that nobody(including up to now the FBI) has  been able to make anything stick. Still I understand that there are probably a lot of people who don't subscribe to these incredibly villainous stories about the Clinton's that still don't trust her and would have a very hard time voting for her. 

I very much agree with  Tom Neal who echoed what had been said thoughtfully earlier by Joe Bauer. The future of the Supreme Court is an issue Liberals, but I think a number of  Conservatives here could agree upon. If you want openness in government, which is why you are here on this forum, and you  want to take back your government from huge corporations and big money interests, you are much less safe with a more conservative Supreme Court. You have only to look at Citizens United. A person I thought was a very thoughtful conservative Ross Douthat , a strong Gun Rights advocate thought Citizens United was "right wing judicial overreach". If Trump nominates justices that further favors his wealthy class we'll be further disenfranchised. Then imagine if he  tries to push back a women's right to choose by nominating a justice that would want to overturn  Roe Vs. Wade, it doesn't seem likely, but it will divide the Nation inseparably.  Unless you're the most virulent Hillary hater, and obviously there's a few of them, who can site sources over internet. But  IMO, the future of Supreme court is reason enough. 

Ok Glenn, You don't know nuthin' about taxes, but it did mean something to our exalted founding Father's and maybe you should know something more about who pays the bills.

You've brought up a point I was going to bring up Pat. With this current electoral system, California is a donor state where both parties just go to get money on their way to Florida or Ohio. The blue states pay  a higher percentage of the tax revenue supporting these basket case states which are overwhelmingly red states. Glenn, I think Georgia might be solvent but there are about 5  states immediately west of you that are just backwards and helped along by the federal government tax contributions of largely blue states. These are the facts and yet in the recipient states, you listen to the average guy talk about his distrust of the federal Government which is completely disingenuous.

Also, it seems to me that CA's teats have fairly well dried up lately. Not sure anyone's sucking off of them, or even looking at them.

Glenn, where have you been??. It's the 6th biggest economy in the world! That's including separate countries! I won't talk about the crazy evaluations in Silicon Valley because they're completely overblown. But do you realize the Central Valley in California is the most productive agricultural valley in the world? 9 of the 10 most agriculturally productive counties in the U.S. are in California. Not saying, we don't have massive problems with potential drought, which isn't just a problem for California but the entire country as such a high percentage of the nations fruits and vegetables come from California and there are a number of crops  that are only grown in California and are exported throughout the world.

And don't get me wrong. There are huge pension problems because for example we pay prison guards over twice what they pay in Texas. And it's very expensive to live here.

But back to the electoral process, whatever the intention of our founding fathers, my vote isn't worth a sh-t except as a protest vote and I'm supposed to drive home from the polls be transfixed on Florida and what new way they'll come up with to mangle the democratic process.

I stated very simply that the Fed Gov's job is not to help the less fortunate.

But probably as a less fortunate state, you are being helped a little by the grace of others.

In California, maybe we could use a few more Republicans and they might demand a rebate from you all.

Re: Tulsi

Ron, Yes I've seen her, easy on my eyes,I had been facing the visceral prospects of 4 maybe even 8 years of HC which was, shall we say,  not very appealing.

First elected to office at 21.Iraq vet. Wow

Resigned as vice chair to support Bernie, ostracized by DNC? what pigs! First woman rep. to endorse Bernie.Reprimanded by Clinton camp. Again what pigs! She knows what I like!

Restoration of Glass Steagall, yeah. Environmentalist -check! 

Keep strong men in Middle East, OK, yeah what can we do? But against arm sale to Arabia . Good combo!

Pretty damn good so far! Ron

5 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I call it a plus. It's the people who want to live in a pluralistic multicultural country that will win this battle of ideas, and it's not a two party issue, it's a human issue. 

You're right Paul, it can't be abstracted or diverted or bullsh-tted. It's gotta be about human needs on the most basic levels.

20 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

"We need someone who will stick it to them?"

Stick it to whom, Kirk? The Republicans?

really? if that's what you meant, is that how you see your politics?

No Glenn, stick it to the people who are oppressing us. The wealthy, though not all the wealthy, the bigoted who would divide us. Get new blood in government. Don't have it so far reaching, but get it decisively and efficiently into what the public wants it to get into, and of course, open and accountable. A tall order, not easy, but doable.

Ron, let me look more into Tulsi Gabbard.

On 11/17/2016 at 10:22 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Bernie 2020 it is!

Bernie deserves it, but he is going to be 79. Elizabeth Warren is good, but I think we got to strike out in a new direction.Gavin Newsome or Tom Steyer, it obviously can't be both. We need someone who will stick it to them. Gavin Newsome would be like the Knight in shining armor, but I fear would play it too much between the 40 yard lines. Steyer would stick it to them. We need a strong leader with conviction. And either could work.

There's a stretch of time between then and now, and it could go wrong. But if things go right,  But the public will want something new and fresh.

Thanks, Douglas

That's a really good article. The typical Trump supporters in Middle America admire the "Super Wealthy" but hate professionals. In some cases they were brought with friends who were professionals and maybe didn't live as plentiful a life, but they were fine with it, because their needs were taken care of. Since the global recession, these same professionals have carried on with the same lifestyle, even a better lifestyle because of increased seniority, and many of these people have lost their jobs or found they could no longer make the living they had been accustom to with the lower wages that now exist. There were a couple of facts I might dispute. Silicon Valley is not at all in favor of Trump. The only real notable that is  is Peter Thiel.

The Trump appointments are very discouraging. The only meeting I have been at all encouraged by was Trump's meeting with Obama. He finally appeared humbled, and started to realize that this is for real and an enormous responsibility. In their meeting, Obama made no reference to the campaign and was earnestly trying to inform him for the good of the country and Trump at least looked like he realized that. He was to meet with Obama for a brief time and it lasted for an hour and half. And considering all the people who have met him since, I would have liked it if Obama had talked to him for 6 hours. Trump at least came out of it with a realization that he wants to keep certain provisions of the ACA. and that's the only thing he's really softened on, except that wall with Mexico can be a fence in certain parts.

If his opposition can meet him with good intentions, I think that's the best way he can be approached. If you're an opposition leader with a solid constituency, It's a little like dealing with a child, you don't want to get on his bad side early because millions of people could be affected by his policies. It's almost like that spiteful little kid in an old episode of the Twilight Zone who found he had great psychic power to destroy his enemies, who was at the end, brought under control by a kind women psychologist who told him he had great powers that could be used for the benefit of everybody and shouldn't be used specifically against anybody.

Another thing I don't agree with her about is that Trump is this ideologue that she seems to think he is. Remember he once came out for a single payer system. He's now in way over his head but I do think he really wants to be  a popular President. I don't really think it's his intention  to double cross and screw the people who gave him the election. But the people he's meeting with are definitely guiding him in that direction. His entire program to help them was just a jingoistic "We make terrible trade deals, I'm going to make great trade deals". When he finds that that would only marginally help at best. With all the deficit spending going on in his first term, ( The impartial CBO estimates 5 trillion in his first term) he's not going to be able to add any  job training or retooling programs. These people are not going to want to reelect him.

17 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

"...where a candidate won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, that candidate has never been a Democrat."

I simply didn't understand what you meant. This rephrasing explains it. Thanks.

Also. I didn't in any way "cite" 1960 as an example of anything. I was trying to prompt Cliff with some suggestions. Perhaps you "misread" it.

My point with the question was very simple, being that you can't complain about the process being faulty only when it doesn't go your way. Now that I understand the fact that the only two times this has happened went the R's way, it puts some of these complaints (whining) in more perspective. I have no problem admitting I was wrong. I was wrong. I didn't know these facts.

Nevertheless, what I do know is that the Electoral College is the system we have always used in our Presidential elections, and the reasons for it are perfectly sound. Until you (not you, the colloquial "you") get your asses beat, at least. Then reason apparently goes out the window.

If Cliff, and any others, wish to sound more credible in their arguments, I'd suggest getting the numbers somewhere close to accurate.

All right, Glenn. I appreciate you admitted you're wrong. I see you work against Veteran homelessness. I appreciate that. Are you a veteran yourself? Then maybe you get turned off with non veterans talking about war when they have never had their character tested by experiencing a war firsthand. You have never experienced an election where the popular will is thwarted by the electoral college and you lost, so you've never had your character tested and that's why it's so easy for you to characterize their rage as "whining."

Do you know we are the only country that uses an electoral college? We are also the only ones that use the phrase "the popular vote" In everywhere else it's just called "the vote" .  And there are people from both parties who don't think the Constitution is so sacred that we can't admit that it might be wrong.

I think records do show that JVB did land the job at Coffee company at the same time as LHO. I don't know if they were ever introduced. Joe, I do think that interview with Mrs. Lewis, whatever her name is with JVB in the background are almost the most credible thing to her claims. I do agree she doesn't seem smart enough to be a good xxxx and couldn't seemingly  restrain herself from her little axes to grind against Ron Lewis, which are neither here or there.

But I think JVB is very cunning person who read all the literature up to that point about the Kennedy Assassination and used the fact that she worked with LHO and her previous connections to make a fantastic story, and all that information and allegation was already out there. That's she maneuvered herself into a central position in some circles in the assassination community is absolute coup, and a testament to her cunning. Thank God "60 minutes" thought better of going with her.

That's really an interesting tidbit from Pamela that Haslam and Baker  are from the same town. As I remember it wasn't Jack Ruby who told her to be a "vanilla girl" wasn't it David Ferry?

This by itself doesn't mean much, but when I first saw her presentation on MWKK, she said quote. "Then Lee said to me, let me introduce you to my friend, Sparky Rubinstien"

So now the pseudonym and then the proper name. I smelled a rat. Just too "inside" for me.

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Glenn,

I don't know why Cliff is ignoring your question. But I think that Kirk Galloway's comment answers it.

Nobody complains about the electoral college when it makes no difference. What would be the point? The two times in recent history where it did make a difference, going by the popular vote would have benefited the Democratic candidate.

As far as we know, Cliff may think of it in this way. Or he may always have disagreed with using an electoral college.. Either way, does it make any difference? To you?

Thanks Sandy,

Glenn, when you asked what I meant when I said that in the elections where a candidate won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, that candidate has never been a Democrat. I said this,

All our elections are decided by one man- one vote except the Presidential Election. In our lifetime there's only been 2 times when a candidate has gotten the most votes but lost in the Electoral College, and that's happened twice in the last  16years. (Gore vs. Bush)  In the only 2 cases, they've gone to Republicans. What's the point in Cliff or any of us "complaining about it every election" when it's not an issue?

What don't you understand about this? And then you use these refuted points as your talking points against Cliff twice. Are you really listening? And facts do matter, you're citing 1960 as an example is wrong! John Kennedy won by both the popular vote and the electoral college. Maybe you should admit you've been wrong.

31 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

 

Glenn, Since we can guess Cliff's a Democrat, and in our lifetime, they've never gone to the Democrats so that's never happened. 

All our elections are decided by one man- one vote except the Presidential Election. In our lifetime there's only been 2 times when a candidate has gotten the most votes but lost in the Electoral College, and that's happened twice in the last  16years. (Gore vs. Bush)  In the only 2 cases, they've gone to Republicans.

There are a lot of us on both sides that don't like the Electoral College. Donald Trump has said it's scam , but now that he's benefited from it, he's not complaining. And Georgian Newt Gingrich has said we should do away with it. What's the point in Cliff or any of us "complaining about it every election" when it's not an issue?

8 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

Cliff, by your picture I want to guess that you're at least 40 years old. Let me ask you this.

Have you complained about the Electoral College process EVERY election, or just the ones that don't go your way?

Glenn, Since we can guess Cliff's a Democrat, and in our lifetime, they've never gone to the Democrats so that's never happened. Cliff, I believe he said he'd always go by the popular vote. You might not believe him but I do because I feel the same way.(I'm registered  independent)

John, I'm not an economist but from what I gather Trump wants to increase both defense spending and proposes a one trillion dollar infrastructure bill over 10 years.. All the while, he wants to cut taxes on the wealthy and he says the middle class across the board. He wishfully hopes his capital friendly policies and huge deficits can unleash growth in the 5-6% range (Make America Great Again!) and hopes that the high tide lifts all boats, which is reminiscent of the trickle down theories of the Reagan era.

His counterpart Paul Ryan is a deficit hawk who believes in preemptively "Cutting Social Security to save it." He is in sync with Trumps strong defense proposals.  Whether political reality forces that back there is no doubt there will be a step up in defense spending. Ryan  has largely opposed Obama's and the Democratic party's infrastructure proposals over the last 8 years. But it now appears that logjam is over. It might turn out to be a half trillion infrastructure bill and Wall Street is now licking their chops for increased stimulus. Trumps proposed appointments to critical cabinet posts indicate that those forgotten disenfranchised white voters have been snookered again. Trade wars could have disastrous effects but will modification of existing treaties really produce that many more jobs and wouldn't the market for those jobs be only among the workers who previously lost those jobs? Is the trade treaty issue  really the issue at all, but just a convenient scapegoat, or is it really the displacement of jobs brought on by technology?

In any rate, I don't see this populous wave receding and the peak election will be in 2020. Then the Republicans will have no excuse for their poor performance. The deficits will skyrocket but Trump has used debt skillfully throughout his business career, and could easily be the first to use the "D" word. A mitigating force toward negotiation might be that all the major world economies are taking on much higher rates of debt  loads to GDP.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Take a look at this montage.

It is priceless.  It shows just how stupid, arrogant, and smug the media was about Trump.  These multimillionaires who makes so much cash to do what?  And then they end up with pie all over their faces.  When in fact, they were part of the problem.  Michael Moore is the only one I can think of who  warned about this.  Meanwhile, everyone else was talking about Alicia Machado and Billy Bush.  

PS Edward Snowden sitting in Russia is not evidence.

 

Oh Jim, thank you for sharing. (I assume you're trying to broaden your political base before Lancer's? heh heh) Oh I get it, you're trying to show how wrong the mainstream media was, as if you knew along what the results would be. And yet somehow it would be so important to you that Julian Aassange would be "Time's Man of the Year for 2016'". Hmmm, you think that's got legs, Jim? Maybe if you just keep dutifully adding Assange into your bullet points for the next 6 weeks. Who knows? We are the change that we can hope to make happen. Or something like that, I forget.

But of course I understand, he did a great service for you. As being an advocate for Hillary earlier this year, you just had no idea the Clinton's were conflicted at all, or that both parties were corrupt, and had no skepticism of media coverage of the campaign before this, so  I understand he was the agent of a great epiphany in you.

And with great zeal, you boldly parachuted into our post election analysis with the true dope on the Clintons, and the parties and the media, and gave us your  new guidance for which we all owe you a debt of gratitude. Thank You!

Unfortunately the news doesn't get any better about our President Elect. I figured I'd be gracious and give Trump the benefit of the doubt that if he was faced with winning the popular vote and losing in the electoral college, he would accept the verdict and not throw the country into turmoil, but now it appears not.

Back in 2012,on the night of the election between Obama and Mitt Romney. Trump actually tweeted this:  "Obama lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election, We should have a revolution in this country". If he's talking about a revolution in an election he's not even in, How would he have any restraint in an election he was directly involved in?.

He later deleted the tweet. Of course the conclusions he was basing this incitement on were totally false. Not that it mattered to him.

9 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

What Glenn and other fascism-apologists fail to understand is that the 2016 election was like no other in our history.

Donald Trump said he would not accept the results unless he won, or the results were "clear."

If Trump had lost the electoral college but won the popular he would not have conceded.

Trump made the rules.

He supporters need to cease with their hypocrisy.

Jesus Cliff!, I was trying to engage in a friendly conversation with Glenn! That's ok, Glenn, I don't think you're a Fascist-apologist.

,

2 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

regardless of the geographic location of the large populace East or South, is it then fair that the small populations' votes are made obsolete? This is exactly what would happen if we counted votes one for one.

Does the winner of the World Series win because of total number of runs or because of a standardized number games won? There's a reason...

 

 

 

Wow, that's quite an analogy Glenn. Isn't an election more like a Super Bowl? Isn't it all finished in one day?

I don't suppose I could appeal to you by saying "all lives matter?"

No,  I understand that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were the architects  of it when there were 13  states in 1788 or so. Each state had their origins and traditions and were very independent of each other and didn't want one state to become so populous that they started ruling the others. It made more sense when there were so few states. 

You certainly have to be willing to consider Hillary was a terrible candidate as Trump would make these extraordinary gaffes, have that bus incident where all fears were justified that he's a complete scum ball and yet he was coming back in the polls even before the Comey disclosure! I think in the end, there were a lot of whites in the middle of the country who didn't want to have some glib lawyers dismissing their cases.

Still there are a couple of salient points. 1) I may have my doubts but I don't think anybody can say for sure what the results would be if Comey hadn't injected himself into the campaign in the final days, and she's certainly within her right to mention it, and I'd be disappointed with her if she didn't. and 2) Hillary Clinton won the the election!

2 hours ago, Dan Doyle said:

Jim,

If one starts to look into Antony Weiner's most recent sexting case, the one that Comey says forced the FBI to search Weiner's laptop computer which resulted in the discovery of more Hillary emails (even though Huma Abedin has no recollection of using her husband's computer)  it smells to high heaven of a dirty trick a la Roger Stone.....the proverbial "October Surprise". 

The conservative British tabloid Daily News broke of the story, not an American paper.  You got to ask yourself how would a British tabloid have the sources in North Carolina to break this news?  The  unnamed 15 year old girl ( if she actually exists because the Daily News  won't disclose her identity because she's a minor) initiated the sexting with Weiner, not the other way around!   Is this starting to look like a sting operation, given Weiner's proclivities for sexting?  Oh, and once Weiner takes the bait and replies, the perpetrators have access to his computer which gives them the ability to "plant" Hillary email on it and we know the rest of the story.   FBI Director Comey was probably manipulated into feeling he had to publicly announce that there were more Hillary emails to cover his right flank, just in case there was actually something new in them.  Turns out there wasn't, but the damage had been done.  Interestingly enough, I read somewhere that all the Directors of the FBI have been Republicans, some even appointed by Democratic presidents.  What's that all about?

All I can find on this Dan, are the links below. On I believe Oct.28th the 15 year old wrote a public letter to Comey, accusing Comey saying she was " “horrified” in how her case prompted the reopening of the Clinton investigation — and has now accused FBI Director James Comey of turning her situation into “political propaganda.”

There is no mention of who initiated the text.

http://ijr.com/2016/11/727121-15-year-old-in-anthony-weiner-sexting-case-accuses-fbi-of-using-her-as-political-propaganda

She apparently contacted Buzzfeed about her involvement on the Friday before the election(Nov.4th.) On 2 instances there is a mention of her "allegedly receiving e-mails from Anthony Weiner", which implies but doesn't specifically state that Weiner initiated the texts.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/teen-who-allegedly-got-weiner-sexts-upset-with-comey?bftwnews&utm_term=.es5ZxpWoR#.bi7Kak0Xv