Citi: "A Clinton Presidency Will Be Marked By Near-Continuous Investigations, Impeachment Risk"

http://ift.tt/2eUjKEo

Citi's chief political analyst, Tina Fordham has had a busy month.

At the start of October - when Trump's victory odds were in the gutter and a Clinton presidency had been priced in - in a hotly debated statement, she suggested that the establishment may be approaching the US presidential completely incorrectly: “this is an unusual juncture but we keep looking at it through the same kinds of lenses. What if it’s all wrong because society, technology, opinion polling methods, and everything else don’t capture marginalized voters in the way they might once have?”

According to Fordham, the US presidential race felt more like an election in a developing nation where public distrust in government is high and conspiracy theories are rife. Markets seem unaware how much that low trust raises the risk of an anti-establishment vote. Fordham has focused on the Gallup World Poll on public health, which analyzes two decades’ worth of health records of Trump supporters. The numbers show a correlation between the increase in the number of people going through difficult times - as measured by suicide rates, depression, mental illness and drug addiction - and the rise in Trump’s popularity, Fordham said.

“This is the kind of thing that investors just don’t normally run into, but it provides another useful way to think about things because income inequality is necessary but not sufficient,” she said. “There is something more subtle going on about public expectations and exhaustion and a sense of corruption, elite abuse of power, and lack of control.”

Her conclusion was troubling for Clinton fans: “I’m getting this Brexit-y feeling and I know other investors are as well,” she said. “The thinking is: I didn’t expect Brexit, so I better assume Trump is going to win. That element of investor psychology is at play here."

She followed up on Monday, when she predicted that the FBI's Friday announcement "could have a meaningful impact on the presidential race" and cautioned that this may not be the end of it: "we continue to emphasize the potential for more Black Swan events emerging making things more complicated for forecasters and pollsters."

Today, in her latest media appearance, Fordham has penned an Op-Ed for the FT, looking at the post-election landscape and warning that "Investors face political risk whoever wins in the US election."

She first analyzes if a a Clinton victory will "mean business as usual for America and the global order" and responds: "Not so fast."

Investors should brace themselves for the new form of advanced economy political risk, what ever the outcome of the US presidential election.

 

First, any market relief from a victory for Mrs Clinton over Donald Trump, her Republican opponent, will almost certainly be followed by the realisation that a divided Congress will mean a return to gridlock and brinkmanship over the debt ceiling with little prospect for reform.

 

More broadly, following the vote in the UK to leave the EU, the rise of Mr Trump and, according to a YouGov study, authoritarian populism, politics in advanced economies are having what might be termed an emerging markets moment.  Vox populi risk, a concept I formulated in 2012 after a wave of protests, coups and the rise of non-mainstream political parties, has become a global phenomenon. ‎

She then notes that "the economic and market implications of advanced economy political risks are more likely to become systemically significant than their emerging markets counterparts. According to the International Monetary Fund’s recently published World Economic Outlook, political risk in the advanced economies has become the biggest threat to global growth."

Specifically, she envisages the Trump campaign:

From threats to jail opponents on corruption charges to the proliferation of conspiracy theories, the Trump campaign and its supporters have borrowed heavily from the EM political playbook, sowing doubts not only about his opponent’s suitability for office but also about US political institutions. A majority of Republicans now say they believe the election will be rigged, according to data from Pew Research Center, despite the lack of any precedent in US election history for such claims.

Reverting to her notion that the US election looks a lot like that of a developing nation, she notes that "what links this advanced economy political risk with its EM cousin is low trust in institutions and elites — political and business elites, “experts”and the media. It is trust, plus belief in the future, not growth alone, that immunises the body politic against the populist virus. The collapse of trust is also evident in the sheer number of outright lies the fact-checking website Politifact has tracked during the campaign. If everything is bogus than anything goes."

There are also the market implications:

The reaction of financial markets may be the starkest illustration of this change in trend. According to the Brookings Institution, the effect of Mr Trump’s candidacy has been to give rise to price movements suggesting that a Trump victory would reduce the value of the S&P 500 and lead to a 25 per cent decline in the Mexican peso, as well as pricing in future volatility.

However, Fordham's punchline has little to do with a Trump victory, but rather the consequences of another Clinton presidency:

Mr Trump ‎may be heading for defeat but the prevalence of low trust, identity politics and demographic divides across the developed world suggests that he will not be the last non-mainstream candidate to come close to power. This constellation of risks will be in evidence before elections next year in Germany, France and the Netherlands, and will have a significant impact on Brexit negotiations. Moreover, a Clinton presidency is highly likely to be marked by near-continuous investigations as well as the risk of impeachment.

If Citi is right the pre-election circus, and endless drama and theatrics is just the beginning of what is about to be unleashed, a world in which the political realities of DM and EM worlds will converge: "The new normal in advanced economies looks a lot like the emerging markets’ old normal, but with considerably higher stakes for the global economy."



from Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/qouXdu
via IFTTT

What WikiLeaks just revealed about Google explains EVERYTHING

http://ift.tt/2ebkLE6

Getty Images

For some time now, people have wondered if Google, the world’s largest search engine, might be a tad bit slanted when it comes to politics, favoring left-wing candidates over conservatives in how search results are displayed.

Well, it seems those suspicions may not be so far-fetched after all.

A WikiLeaks email reveals Eric Schmidt — the executive chairman of Alphabet, Google’s parent company — offered a campaign plan to Hillary Clinton’s closest aides back in 2014.

Advertisement - story continues below

But they aren’t biased or anything, right?

According to Breitbart, “I have put together my thoughts on the campaign ideas and I have scheduled some meetings in the next few weeks for veterans of the campaign to tell me how to make these ideas better,” Schmidt wrote to Mills all the way back in 2014.

Some of Schmidt’s ideas included the assembling of a sizeable campaign structure after the 2014 midterm elections, setting up a large campaign headquarters outside of Washington, D.C., as well as the need to connect with voters using digital media and social networks.

It was also revealed this week that Eric Schmidt wanted to be the “head outside advisor” to the Clinton campaign, with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta adding that he was “ready to fund, advise, and recruit talent” for the Clinton campaign.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has also claimed that Google is “directly engaged” in the Clinton campaign.

Here’s a bit more information regarding the alleged bias of Google and their efforts to protect Hillary and help her win the presidency.

via The Daily Caller:

A psychologist researcher claims that Google’s search suggestions are biased in favor of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and he has evidence from a study to back it up.

“It is somewhat difficult to get the Google search bar to suggest negative searches related to Mrs. Clinton or to make any Clinton-related suggestions when one types a negative search term,” writes Dr. Robert Epstein, Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology.

Epstein states the bias was nonetheless very evident. Google contends it avoids offering suggestions that portray people in a negative light, but the opposite seems to be true.

When typing in “hillary clinton is” the next two suggestions Google offered was “hillary clinton is winning” and “hillary clinton is awesome.”

In comparison, when typing in “hillary clinton is” into Yahoo or Bing’s search engine, the top results include “hillary clinton is a liar,” “hillary clinton is a filthy liar,” “hillary clinton is a criminal,” “hillary clinton is corrupt,” and “hillary clinton is evil” among many other negative descriptions.

We’re all aware of the fact the mainstream media is absolutely on board with a Clinton presidency, but things are getting bad when we can’t even trust search engines, which are supposed to be based on metrics and algorithms — mathematics and science — rather than being tampered by humans in order to get a favored outcome.

With the report above, combined with the new information about Schmidt actually creating a campaign plan for Hillary, how are we, the individuals who use Google, supposed to trust the company and its products?

To make a long story short, we can’t.

[This article was written by Michael Cantrell]



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Amazon's Got You Covered With Their Giant, One-Day Coat and Jacket Sale

http://ift.tt/2eiDXmo


With Halloween done, and Thanksgiving coming up fast, it’s definitely coat weather. But if you just haven’t gotten around to getting a coat or jacket for the fall, Amazon’s giant coat and jacket sale can help. Men’s, women’s (both straight size and plus) boys’, and girls’ coats are marked down. But this sale is just 24-hours, so if you don’t grab a coat today, you may end up standing out in the cold.

$52

From amazon

Gizmodo Media Group may get a commission

$64

From amazon

Gizmodo Media Group may get a commission

$90

From amazon

Gizmodo Media Group may get a commission

$197

From amazon

Gizmodo Media Group may get a commission

$110

From amazon

Gizmodo Media Group may get a commission

$73

From amazon

Gizmodo Media Group may get a commission


Commerce Content is independent of Editorial and Advertising, and if you buy something through our posts, we may get a small share of the sale. Click here to learn more, and don’t forget to sign up for our email newsletter. We want your feedback.

Commerce Editor, Lifestyle | Send deal submissions to deals@gawker.com



from Lifehacker http://lifehacker.com
via IFTTT

Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run

http://ift.tt/2f03kLd


The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta. They are last week’s scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance goes far beyond mere scandal: they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.

The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied, pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are written. This bunch doesn’t have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.

They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

Let us turn the magnifying glass on them for a change, by sorting through the hacked personal emails of John Podesta, who has been a Washington power broker for decades. I admit that I feel uncomfortable digging through this hoard; stealing someone’s email is a crime, after all, and it is outrageous that people’s personal information has been exposed, since WikiLeaks doesn’t seem to have redacted the emails in any way. There is also the issue of authenticity to contend with: we don’t know absolutely and for sure that these emails were not tampered with by whoever stole them from John Podesta. The supposed authors of the messages are refusing to confirm or deny their authenticity, and though they seem to be real, there is a small possibility they aren’t.

With all that taken into consideration, I think the WikiLeaks releases furnish us with an opportunity to observe the upper reaches of the American status hierarchy in all its righteousness and majesty.

The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement.

Certain industries loom large and virtuous here. Hillary’s ingratiating speeches to Wall Street are well known of course, but what is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that. In one now-famous email chain, for example, the reader can watch current US trade representative Michael Froman, writing from a Citibank email address in 2008, appear to name President Obama’s cabinet even before the great hope-and-change election was decided (incidentally, an important clue to understanding why that greatest of zombie banks was never put out of its misery).

The far-sighted innovators of Silicon Valley are also here in force, interacting all the time with the leaders of the party of the people. We watch as Podesta appears to email Sheryl Sandberg. He makes plans to visit Mark Zuckerberg (who, according to one missive, wants to “learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action”). Podesta exchanges emails with an entrepreneur about an ugly race now unfolding for Silicon Valley’s seat in Congress; this man, in turn, appears to forward to Podesta the remarks of yet another Silicon Valley grandee, who complains that one of the Democratic combatants in that fight was criticizing billionaires who give to Democrats. Specifically, the miscreant Dem in question was said to be:

“… spinning (and attacking) donors who have supported Democrats. John Arnold and Marc Leder have both given to Cory Booker, Joe Kennedy, and others. He is also attacking every billionaire that donates to [Congressional candidate] Ro [Khanna], many whom support other Democrats as well.”

Attacking billionaires! In the year 2015! It was, one of the correspondents appears to write, “madness and political malpractice of the party to allow this to continue”.

There are wonderful things to be found in this treasure trove when you search the gilded words “Davos” or “Tahoe”. But it is when you search “Vineyard” on the WikiLeaks dump that you realize these people truly inhabit a different world from the rest of us. By “vineyard”, of course, they mean Martha’s Vineyard, the ritzy vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts where presidents Clinton and Obama spent most of their summer vacations. The Vineyard is a place for the very, very rich to unwind, yes, but as we learn from these emails, it is also a place of high idealism; a land of enlightened liberal commitment far beyond anything ordinary citizens can ever achieve.

Consider, for example, the 2015 email from a foundation executive to a retired mortgage banker (who then seems to have forwarded the note on to Podesta, and thus into history) expressing concern that “Hillary’s image is being torn apart in the media and there’s not enough effective push back”. The public eavesdrops as yet another financier invites Podesta to a dinner featuring “food produced exclusively by the island’s farmers and fishermen which will be matched with specially selected wines”. We learn how a Hillary campaign aide recommended that a policy statement appear on a certain day so that “It wont get in the way of any other news we are trying to make – but far enough ahead of Hamptons and Vineyard money events”. We even read the pleadings of a man who wants to be invited to a state dinner at the White House and who offers, as one of several exhibits in his favor, the fact that he “joined the DSCC Majority Trust in Martha’s Vineyard (contributing over $32,400 to Democratic senators) in July 2014”.

(Hilariously, in another email chain, the Clinton team appears to scheme to “hit” Bernie Sanders for attending “DSCC retreats on Martha’s Vineyard with lobbyists”.)

Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered in the ear of a powerful crony.

This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should “come from the industry itself”. And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another’s careers, constantly.

Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the “Global CEO Advisory Firm” that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.

But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it’s all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren’t part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don’t have John Podesta’s email address – you’re out.



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Complimentary Copy of Boyar Research's "Forgotten Forty" Stock Picks

http://ift.tt/2eWX6su

Each year, Boyar Research publishes their Forgotten Forty Report featuring the forty stocks in their universe that they believe have the greatest potential for capital appreciation in the year ahead due to a catalyst they see on the horizon.

Their 2017 report will be released towards the end of December, but in the meantime Boyar has been kind enough to provide our readers with last year’s report (which still contains many actionable ideas) for free.

Some of the names featured include PayPal, Bank of America, Interval Leisure Group, Liberty Broadband, The Madison Square Garden Company, Harley-Davidson, MRC Global, Scotts Miracle-Gro, Sotheby’s plus 31 others.


Click here to download the free report 


Every stock profiled in The Forgotten Forty has a one page write-up highlighting Boyar's investment thesis (including the company’s valuation and potential catalysts for value realization). While the Forgotten Forty contains one page reports on each stock, readers should be comforted to know that Boyar Research has previously published a full-blown research report on every company featured.

The Forgotten Forty has significantly outperformed the major indices on a 3, 5, 10 and 15 year basis.*


*Past performance is no guarantee of future results.  These results are not audited.



To download Boyar's Forgotten Forty, please click here


from Market Folly http://ift.tt/NLWANl
via IFTTT

Latest theory on how Trump avoided taxes

http://ift.tt/2etWeLl


Donald Trump used an aggressive tax strategy to avoid paying taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars in income in the 1990s, according to a new report in the New York Times.

The tactic, the Times said, involved losses from his Atlantic City casinos. As a real estate developer, Trump would have been allowed to use his losses to offset taxes he may have owed on other business income.

At the same time, his creditors forgave much of his debt on the properties when they went bankrupt. Forgiven debt is normally treated as income for tax purposes. Instead, the Times said Trump may have used a complicated maneuver in which his real estate partnership issued stock— to erase the taxes owed on his forgiven debt.

The stock wasn't worth much, but for tax purposes, that didn't matter.

"This particular maneuver was about as close as a company could get to waving a magic wand and making taxes disappear," the Times said.

Related: How Donald Trump could have - legally - paid no taxes

Last month, the Times obtained a few pages from Trump's 1995 state tax returns, which showed a $916 million business operating loss.

The Times said it based its new report on documents recently discovered during a search of the casino bankruptcy filings, which offer only a "partial description of events."

The report included letters from tax lawyers who warned that the strategy was not explicitly permitted and may not pass muster with the IRS.

The Times said it was unclear whether the IRS challenged Trump's use of the strategy.

Related: How Trump could lose a billion bucks but still live a billionaire life

The fundamental problem according to one expert the Times quoted is that Trump claimed losses on properties that were financed with money raised from investors and loans from banks.

"He deducted somebody else's losses," said John L. Buckley, who served as the chief of staff for Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation in 1993 and 1994. Since the bondholders were likely declaring losses for tax purposes, Trump shouldn't be able to as well. "He is double dipping big time," Buckley told the Times.

Congress acted to ban the maneuver of swapping equity for debt in 2004, according to the Times.

In a statement to the Times, Trump's spokeswoman Hope Hicks said: "Your e-mail suggests either a fundamental misunderstanding or an intentional misreading of the law. Your thesis is a criticism, not just of Mr. Trump, but of all taxpayers who take the time and spend the money to try to comply with the dizzyingly complex and ambiguous tax laws without paying more tax than they owe. Mr. Trump does not think that taxpayers should file returns that resolve all doubt in favor of the I.R.S. And any tax experts that you have consulted are engaged in pure speculation. There is no news here."



from CNN http://ift.tt/1UBaoaB
via IFTTT

Gamers – This is what a programmer looks like

http://ift.tt/2dU9X1W

I hosted a vendor booth at the US2020 RTP Gaming Expo where I showcased my Indie fashion game, Diva Chix, on my 13” Macbook. Amongst the other vendors were virtual reality exhibits, dog robots, and dozens of other fancy and futuristic games.

Us2020 rtp gaming & it expo

More than 250 middle and high school students were in attendance and were free to see any of the exhibits that they were interested in. I was terrified that no one would come to see my small little setup that lacked the glitzy signage and theatrical effects that other booths had. Yet, before they could even make out what it was I was showing, a substantial amount of girls (and black boys) were drawn to my station and wanted to see what I had to demo.

This was because in the midst of the (white) male-dominated vendor booths, they saw someone who they could identify with. That drew them in way more than the robot dog or the virtual reality goggles.

As a professional with more than 13 years in the industry, I’m still moved the same way these girls were when I see women in my field being highlighted. Earlier this year, a tweet came across my feed that showed a black woman (Annyce Davis) who was going to be speaking at a tech conference. As a Black woman myself, this immediately grabbed my attention and I read more about the conference and ultimately ended up attending. See how that works? Representation matters.



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Ask HN: Disappointed by the new Macbook, what alternatives do we have?

http://ift.tt/2fvIIel

Ask HN: Disappointed by the new Macbook, what alternatives do we have?
21 points by Maran 15 minutes ago | hide | past | web | 7 comments | favorite
I've been very happy with my 2012 Macbook Pro Retina and was looking forward to a worthy successor. However the unveiling of the new Macbook was a big letdown for me. Everything that made the Macbook "Pro" seems to be removed. Enough has been said about the topic already what I want to do here is look at what alternatives there are.

So my question for you is; Which laptops, around the price point of your average Macbook Pro, come close to the build quality of the Macbook and use hardware that's greatly supported in Linux.

Extra kudos if somebody can recommend me a terminal on-par with iTerm. Out of all my apps I think I would miss iTerm the most.






Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Dilbert Creator Explains "How Do I Know The Emails Are That Bad?"

http://ift.tt/2eT3Qb0

If you’re following the news, you know FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI found a bunch of emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

As Dilbert Creator Scott Adams notes, there appears to be two main observations:

1. Comey seemed pro-Clinton when he dropped the initial email case.

 

2. Comey seems anti-Clinton this week because he announced a new round of investigations right before the election.

So, how can both behaviors be explained?

 First some background from Adams on 'The Persuasion Filter':

As my regular readers know, the Persuasion Filter is related to the idea that the human brain never evolved to accurately comprehend reality. In order for us to be here today, our predecessors only needed to survive and procreate. They had no need to understand reality at any basic level. And we have no such need either. That’s why you might believe you are reincarnated from a monk and I might believe my prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse but we can both get through the day just fine. Many different interpretations of reality are good enough for survival. I like to describe reality as each person living their own movie, which works well unless our script’s conflict. When that happens, one of us goes into cognitive dissonance and rewrites our past to make the movies consistent.

 

That’s how I see the world.

 

Last year in this blog I suggested that the most productive and predictive way to view reality is through what I call the Persuasion Filter. That’s what I have been using to make spooky-good predictions about the election so far. And that’s what I’ll use today to give you an alternate movie about James Comey. Compare it to the movie you are running in your head and see which one better predicts the future.

 

The base assumption of the Persuasion Filter is that people are irrational 90% of the time and only rarely – when no emotions are involved – truly rational. This is the reverse of the common filter for reality, in which people are assumed to be rational 90% of the time and a bit crazy 10% of the time. That’s some background for context.

 

Read more here...

So, back to Comey, Adams askswhich movie does the best job of explaining our observations and also predicting the future?

Some say Comey is a political pawn in a rigged system. By that movie script we can explain why he dropped the initial email case. But we can’t explain why he’s acting against Clinton’s interests now. What changed?

 

Well, some say Comey had to reopen the case against Clinton after discovering the Weiner laptop emails. If he failed to act, there might be a revolt at the FBI and maybe a whistleblower would come forward. But that leaves unexplained why Comey detailed to Congress how Clinton appeared to be guilty of crimes at the same time he said the FBI was dropping the case. If Comey had been protecting Clinton on the first round, he would have softened his description of her misdeeds, wouldn’t he? But he didn’t seem to hold back anything.

 

And none of those hypotheses explain why the people who know Comey have high regard for his integrity. Comey also has the security of a 10-year appointment as Director, so he has a low chance of getting fired or politically influenced. That’s exactly why the job has a 10-year term. Given what we know of Comey before any of the Clinton emails, any movie that casts Comey as an ass-covering weasel is probably making a casting mistake.

 

So allow me to offer an interpretation of events that casts Comey as more of a patriot and hero than an ass-covering weasel. Compare my interpretation with whatever movie you have in your head and see which one works best for explaining and predicting.

 

My movie says Comey had good evidence against Clinton during the initial investigation but made a judgement call to leave the decision to the American public. For reasons of conscience, and acting as a patriot, Comey explained in clear language to the public exactly what evidence the FBI found against Clinton. The evidence looked daming because it was. Under this interpretation, Comey took a bullet to his reputation for the sake of the Republic. He didn’t want the FBI to steal this important decision away from the people, but at the same time he couldn’t let the people decide blind. So he divulged the evidence and stepped away, like the action hero who doesn’t look back at the explosion.

 

In the second act of this movie, Comey learns that the Weiner laptop had emails that were so damning it would be a crime against the public to allow them to vote without first seeing a big red flag. And a flag was the best he could do because it was too early in the investigation to leak out bits and pieces of the evidence. That would violate Clinton’s rights.

 

But Comey couldn’t easily raise a red flag to warn the public because it was against FBI policy to announce a criminal investigation about a candidate so close to election day. So Comey had a choice of either taking another bullet for the Republic or screwing the very country that he has spent his career protecting.

 

In this movie, Comey did the hero thing. He alerted the public to the fact that the FBI found DISQUALIFYING information on the Weiner laptop. And he took a second bullet to his reputation.

 

How do I know the new emails are that bad?

I start by assuming Comey is the same man now as the one who was carefully vetted before being hired to protect the integrity of one of our most important institutions. And even Comey’s critics concede he’s smart.

 

So…

 

The way you know the new emails are disqualifying for Clinton is because otherwise our hero would have privately informed Congress and honored the tradition of not influencing elections. Comey is smart enough to know his options. And unless he suddenly turned rotten at his current age, he’s got the character to jump in front of a second bullet for the Republic.

 

According to this movie, no matter who gets elected, we’ll eventually learn of something disqualifying in the Weiner emails.

 

And we can’t say we weren’t warned. Comey took two bullets to do it.

 

So compare this movie to your own movie and see which one does the best job of explaining the observed facts. And when we find out what is in the Weiner laptop emails, compare that news to my prediction that the information is disqualifying.

 

The Persuasion Filter says there is no prefered reality. We all see our own movies. In my movie, Comey’s has a consistent personality from start to finish. He starts out his career as a smart, competent patriot and he later proves it by taking two bullets for the Republic. If your movie script has Comey suddenly changing his basic character for this election season, don’t expect an Oscar.

 

Read more here...

Of course if you're a Democrat, this is all irrelevant and Comey is "A Putin puppet" (Howard Dean), "a federal law-breaker who should never have been appointed" (Harry Reid), and "a partisan, prejudiced individual" (Eric Holder)...

You decide which makes more sense - Scott Adams' "movie" or the real partisan hacks above?



from Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/qouXdu
via IFTTT