[alok c]

Weird,how mere speculation can generate so much biased conviction.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-November-01, 08:16, said:

As the news unfolds, I am thinking "Huma Abedin is one of her most trusted advisors? Will she have a big role in a Clinton administration?"

What, exactly, did Huma Abedin do wrong?
If you think "marrying someone who subsequently turns out not to be faithful, and indeed turns out to have bad judgement about such matters, including affairs with much younger women" is disqualifying for a high office in the Hillary Clinton administration, then...well I don't think I need to say more.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-November-01, 08:33, said:

What, exactly, did Huma Abedin do wrong?
If you think "marrying someone who subsequently turns out not to be faithful, and indeed turns out to have bad judgement about such matters, including affairs with much younger women" is disqualifying for a high office in the Hillary Clinton administration, then...well I don't think I need to say more.

Well, you definitely have countered a view that I don't hold.

Here is an objection to her. She has stated that she does not know how this material ended up on Weiner's computer. I think it would be good if a trusted advisor did know how this material ended up on a shared computer, whomever the computer was shared with. The news is coming out in dribbles, but it appears that it got there because she put it there. It is the logical explanation. If I were given to conspiracy theories, which I believe I am not, I could come up with other ideas. Weiner hacked into her computer and did it. An FBI agent hacked into her computer and did it. No, probably she did it.

Watching PBS last night I saw that Amedin was not seen in places where she would have been expected to be seen. No, she wasn't abducted by the Clinton team that rubbed out Vince Foster. But some in the Clinton team might be rethinking her role.

As I confessed before, my knowledge of her is scant. What I see so far, I don't much like.

[Winstonm]

 cherdano, on 2016-November-01, 07:52, said:

For once, I can't resist "I told you so!"

I told you so, here on BBF.

It's not just that he said something at all, it is also what he said beyond discussing whether to bring criminal charges. Read the statement again:
https://www.fbi.gov/...l-e-mail-system

Perhaps we have become so polarized that Comey's partisanship seems inconsequential.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-November-01, 09:07, said:

Here is an objection to her. She has stated that she does not know how this material ended up on Weiner's computer. I think it would be good if a trusted advisor did know how this material ended up on a shared computer, whomever the computer was shared with. The news is coming out in dribbles, but it appears that it got there because she put it there. It is the logical explanation. If I were given to conspiracy theories, which I believe I am not, I could come up with other ideas. Weiner hacked into her computer and did it. An FBI agent hacked into her computer and did it. No, probably she did it.

What is "this material"? I suppose you don't know, either? Then why pass judgement?

Meanwhile, how confident are you that you never violated IT and FOIA guidelines? Note that as a Professor of Mathematics at University of Maryland, you are bound to follow departmental, University and state guidelines. And note that this concerns not just information that is obviously confidential (grades), such regulations concern anything that might be subject to FOIA, i.e. probably anything work-related. Are you sure you've never checked your department email in a way such that your web browser cached them on the hard disk, leaving them on a computer where they weren't, technically, supposed to be?

If you are confident, you'd be the first mathematician I know who could be confident (and either you never accessed your work email from out of your office, or your computer skills exceed mine).

[andrei]

Phew, good thing Ken is not Hillary’s exact sciences adviser.

[Al_U_Card]

Hmmmmn Doctor(those documents) Podesta says to dump those e-mails and Hillary deletes 30,000 e-mails. Quite the prescription....

[cherdano]

Posted without comment:
FBI's Comey opposed naming Russians, citing election timing: Source

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-November-01, 10:56, said:

What is "this material"? I suppose you don't know, either? Then why pass judgement?

Meanwhile, how confident are you that you never violated IT and FOIA guidelines? Note that as a Professor of Mathematics at University of Maryland, you are bound to follow departmental, University and state guidelines. And note that this concerns not just information that is obviously confidential (grades), such regulations concern anything that might be subject to FOIA, i.e. probably anything work-related. Are you sure you've never checked your department email in a way such that your web browser cached them on the hard disk, leaving them on a computer where they weren't, technically, supposed to be?

If you are confident, you'd be the first mathematician I know who could be confident (and either you never accessed your work email from out of your office, or your computer skills exceed mine).

I am not sure that this will be exactly responsive, but it seems at leas sort of so.

For five or six years, starting in 2008, I was running a summer program sponsored by the National Science Foundation. The idea was to bring in students from HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as you and probably everyone knows) and give them some research experience. This was complex in a variety of ways. Of course there was a staff person who helped with the administrative ins and outs. Let's call her Rhyneta, since that was her name. A year or so ago, Rhyneta moved up to a higher level position in the University, and there was a wine and cheese gathering attended by many. I said a few words. For example (quote approximate) : "Sometimes Becky would ask my how I handled such and such a problem. It was easy. I asked Rhyneta what I was supposed to do, and then I did it". There were quite a few people there who had worked with Rhyneta and they knew exactly what I was saying.

It doesn't always work that way, but with Rhyneta it did. As I read about this email stuff, it seems to me they needed Rhyneta.

[cherdano]

Clearly you are avoiding my questions. Do you have something to hide, Ken?

Seriously, in the case of Clinton, whatever she does is proof that she is guilty. She deleted emails? She has something to hide! She didn't delete email? She was extremely careless with government secrets! The investigation (Whitewater/Benghazi/...) found no wrong-doing? Just goes to show the Clintons are so good at hiding their tracks, we need to investigate further!

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2016-November-01, 18:04, said:

I am not sure that this will be exactly responsive, but it seems at leas sort of so.

For five or six years, starting in 2008, I was running a summer program sponsored by the National Science Foundation. The idea was to bring in students from HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as you and probably everyone knows) and give them some research experience. This was complex in a variety of ways. Of course there was a staff person who helped with the administrative ins and outs. Let's call her Rhyneta, since that was her name. A year or so ago, Rhyneta moved up to a higher level position in the University, and there was a wine and cheese gathering attended by many. I said a few words. For example (quote approximate) : "Sometimes Becky would ask my how I handled such and such a problem. It was easy. I asked Rhyneta what I was supposed to do, and then I did it". There were quite a few people there who had worked with Rhyneta and they knew exactly what I was saying.

It doesn't always work that way, but with Rhyneta it did. As I read about this email stuff, it seems to me they needed Rhyneta.

What makes this amusing is that Huma is Hillary's Rhyneta...

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-November-01, 18:11, said:

Clearly you are avoiding my questions. Do you have something to hide, Ken?

Seriously, in the case of Clinton, whatever she does is proof that she is guilty. She deleted emails? She has something to hide! She didn't delete email? She was extremely careless with government secrets! The investigation (Whitewater/Benghazi/...) found no wrong-doing? Just goes to show the Clintons are so good at hiding their tracks, we need to investigate further!

OK, you have a point. I would not want wikileaks going through my email. The program I was speaking of involved more than noe instructor and I can recall email discussions among us about which students were doing well and which were not, for example. If the FBI went through these things I doubt they would prosecute me, but I would just as soon they didn't browse. Also, a little over a year ago my home computer flashed a message saying that the hard drive was in danger of flak up all my stuff. How to do that? Ah, I can send files using VPN to my university account. I did that, the hard drive did crash, I bought a new computer, I moved the files back from my university account to my new computer. I moved a lot of stuff back and forth i have no idea what is in it all, I would not want anyone going through it. I had no illegal intent in any of this, I doubt I broke any law, but I did not consult a lawyer. I take some pride ni going through life with very little need for lawyers.

Along the same lines, I really do not like all of this browsing through people's history. In a every practical way, I think it keeps good people out of politics. Early on in this campaign, so that might be a couple of years ago now, I recall reading that Rubio's wife really did not want him to run. It's not that she was having a wild or illegal life, it's that she just didn't want intrusive scrutiny. This makes sense to me.

In my comments about Abedin's computer usage, I was not looking at illegality. If I were to bet, I would bet that there is none. It was more that I was stunned by what seemed like a very makeshift arrangement. When we got my new computer we also got a new printer, and Becky could no longer print stuff directly from her computer. So she would email an attachment to me and I would print it from my computer.This was crazy, and I went to work to fix it so that she could print directly from her computer. No privacy issues were involved, she wasn't printing government documents for her eyes only. But having to send it t me so that I could print it seemed like a really klutzy arrangement, so I fixed it. It was this klutziness of the arrangement Abedin had, moving things to a Yahoo account on a shared computer, that got my attention. That and the fact that she said she had no idea what was in the documents. What she was doing seemed more like what you might hire a student worker to do, although probably you would first set the accounts up so that all of this transferring wasn't necessary.

[cherdano]

Finally, someone has written a thorough take explaining the official cherdano stance on the email "scandal".

http://www.vox.com/p...candal-bullshit

[cherdano]

 andrei, on 2016-November-01, 14:29, said:

Phew, good thing Ken is not Hillary’s exact sciences adviser.

That's not my point. I think everyone on BBF would agree that Ken's character is beyond criticism, and that this is true whether he at some point violated Maryland FOIA record-keeping regulations or not. (He didn't have Rhyneta around for everything.) The point is that if the "ethical" standards to be a public servant are so high that even Ken would fail them (or if he'd turn the job down because he didn't want people combing through his emails), then we are definitely setting the bar too high and turning away highly qualified people from public service. That's the real shame of the Clinton email scandal.

Of course, if the recent behaviour by the FBI causes the public to lose some of its trust in the FBI, then that would be about high time...

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-November-04, 14:55, said:

Finally, someone has written a thorough take explaining the official cherdano stance on the email "scandal".

http://www.vox.com/p...candal-bullshit

I like the headline.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-November-04, 15:09, said:

That's not my point. I think everyone on BBF would agree that Ken's character is beyond criticism, and that this is true whether he at some point violated Maryland FOIA record-keeping regulations or not. (He didn't have Rhyneta around for everything.) The point is that if the "ethical" standards to be a public servant are so high that even Ken would fail them (or if he'd turn the job down because he didn't want people combing through his emails), then we are definitely setting the bar too high and turning away highly qualified people from public service. That's the real shame of the Clinton email scandal.

Of course, if the recent behaviour by the FBI causes the public to lose some of its trust in the FBI, then that would be about high time...

While agreeing, I want to twist this just slightly. My character is not beyond criticism. I don't plan on making a public confession of my sins but, for example, I have been twice divorced. Even without the boring details, that's failure.

We have to have real people in positions of leadership. That means people who have made mistakes. There is no way around this, there really isn't.

With the emails, she acknowledges a mistake. Big deal, she made a mistake. More importantly, for me, it shows an aspect of her style. If she can find a way to hide, she does it. Is this a good trait? Well, it is not entirely bad, actually. It has pluses and minuses. In extreme form it can cause a lot of trouble. Presumably she won't make exactly that mistake again, but I expect her general orientation for stealth has not changed. I can live with it. I don't like it, but so what. Perfect is not on the ballot., and never is.

This latest flap with the Weiner computer. email server is more of the same. Abedin doesn't know how the emails got there? I imagine she put them there. On the flip side, if I understand the story correctly, she early on had told the FBI she put them there.

Before this flap,, I announced that I had a policy of making up my mind well in advance and, barring the most egregious events, not changing my mind. I recommend this approach. There is always crap near the end. Maybe the crap is pure crap, maybe it is part crap, there is never time to evaluate it. The events through September were enough, more than enough. I go with that.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-November-04, 16:08, said:

With the emails, she acknowledges a mistake. Big deal, she made a mistake. More importantly, for me, it shows an aspect of her style. If she can find a way to hide, she does it.

Did you read the article by Yglesias?
Clinton did pass on her emails to the state department for their records, months before her use of a private email address became a public issue. This surely suggests she did not do it in order to avoid FOIA requests.

[Al_U_Card]

Uh oh! Steve McIntyre has latched on to this topic and explains some of the intricacies of the situation.

Fascinating

When the man who "solved" the climate issue and even resolved the deflate-gate situation, looks into a subject, it is worthwhile reading what he has to say.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-November-04, 18:26, said:

Did you read the article by Yglesias?
Clinton did pass on her emails to the state department for their records, months before her use of a private email address became a public issue. This surely suggests she did not do it in order to avoid FOIA requests.

Some of it. As far as I am concerned, it is all too late. The arguments are mostly recycled. If she indeed has been completely cooperative in all of this, I can only say that she must have the most incompetent team in the history of politics in getting the message out. Perhaps it is so but nothing that I see gives me the impression of someone trying to cooperate.

I play Bergen raises with people who really like them, but I have a condition. Namely that I don't have to agree that it is a great convention. But I'll play it. It's sort of the same here. I'll vote for Clinton. But asking me to believe she has been fully cooperative in the investigation of her emails is asking too much. I have read enough about it, enough for me. There will be more. There will be rebuttals to the more. There will be rebuttals to the rebuttals. I will be voting for Clinton.

[mike777]

 cherdano, on 2016-November-04, 14:55, said:

Finally, someone has written a thorough take explaining the official cherdano stance on the email "scandal".

http://www.vox.com/p...candal-bullshit

This link just shows the scandal....it does not deny the scandal.

If you take the time to read it it just shows how Clinton will run her win.

I grant those who support her dont care...just win and destroy those in govt who try and stand up to her.

Dont take my word for it, follow her actions as she destroys those who cross her.

----------------------------------


As far as the anti trump stuff, I point you to the countless posts in this forum....I dont defend them.