The Hillary Clinton thread

[malchior]

Fair enough. As with most things, detailed rebuttals get buried, while the sensationalist headlines stick around forever.

My concern, then, is why is law enforcement still seeking expansion of their warrantless search privileges?

In the revised narrative Kurth puts forward there is likely a lot of paperwork in the process with a back and forth between the court and investigators. 50 cent guess is they want to cut it for expediency most likely by expanding their capability to use their own judgement.

The statistics, on their own, are useless. Democratic bureaucracies should have a default position of proving that they're doing things properly, not have the people operate under the assumption that, because we can't prove that they're doing something wrong, everything must be fine. Especially when any evidence of them doing something wrong is tightly controlled by that same bureaucracy.

Especially when my reading is that they don't count end to end. Meaning if I think I'm gonna get denied...of course I will stop wasting time and withdraw it. And that activity isn't in the stats. Conversely people will also get better at writing up the case to grease it through the system. Either way the way they are counting is misleading by design or just plain bad metrics design.

[Max Peck]

Not really.

I think Snowden's documents alone make that assumption highly dubious.

I'm not familiar with the specific documents to which you refer. Can you provide citations, or is this one of those "common knowledge" dealios where one accepts a proposition on faith alone?

This is one of those "well, they lied about a whole buncha evidence backed stuff, including things that were in they claimed were in the public interest but *this* time we should assume they are honest and competent" things.

Perhaps I'm not as optimistic as you are. Since you are adverse to trusting things on faith, why on earth would you take the word of law enforcement agencies, or their overseer which has seen fit to only reject a tiny percentage of those agencies requests?

Your supposition that they are simply incredibly ultra law abiding seems...full of faith.

What specific evidence about which specific lies do you have in mind? Feel free to school me. I'm still waiting for those citations that are pertinent to the the judicial oversight issue, by the way.

Neither pessimism nor optimism constitute proof, they merely speak to prejudice. As for my alleged optimism, quote back to me where I said that "they" are simply incredibly law abiding. As I recall (I suppose I could scroll back up the page and read it again, but I'll go with my not-quite-infallible memory), I said something along the line that "they" were undoubtedly prone to covering their asses, and therefore would have their lawyers check over their homework (at a minimum) before submitting it to the court, and that those lawyers are probably competent enough to compare a document to a set of criteria and either nix it or fix it. Your faith in Tovarisch Snowden clouds your vision, young padawan. You're reading words I never typed.

Simply put, I'm a skeptic. It's just that I'm as skeptical about accomplished liars like Snowden as I am about politicians or bureaucrats or random internet volk.

[GreenGoo]

What specific evidence about which specific lies do you have in mind? Feel free to school me. I'm still waiting for those citations that are pertinent to the the judicial oversight issue, by the way.


Simply put, I'm a skeptic. It's just that I'm as skeptical about accomplished liars like Snowden as I am about politicians or bureaucrats or random internet volk.

I initially wrote that I would not do the simple task of entering a google search term, but it is so damn easy, I did. So you win.

Here's one article out of a mazillion on the subject.

washington post
Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls.

I'd suggest that you put that skepticism to work. Is it that you were out of media range the last 3 years or that you believe the government's position on Snowden?

Here's another article, ostensibly written at least in part by a Congressman. It is titled, appropriately I think, thusly:

Recently, the US House of Representatives voted on an amendment – offered by Representatives Justin Amash and John Conyers – that would have curbed the NSA's omnipresent and inescapable tactics. Despite furious lobbying by the intelligence industrial complex and its allies, and four hours of frantic and overwrought briefings by the NSA's General Keith Alexander, 205 of 422 Representatives voted for the amendment.

Though the amendment barely failed, the vote signaled a clear message to the NSA: we do not trust you. The vote also conveyed another, more subtle message: members of Congress do not trust that the House Intelligence Committee is providing the necessary oversight. On the contrary, "oversight" has become "overlook".

[Max Peck]

What specific evidence about which specific lies do you have in mind? Feel free to school me. I'm still waiting for those citations that are pertinent to the the judicial oversight issue, by the way.


Simply put, I'm a skeptic. It's just that I'm as skeptical about accomplished liars like Snowden as I am about politicians or bureaucrats or random internet volk.

I initially wrote that I would not do the simple task of entering a google search term, but it is so damn easy, I did. So you win.

Here's one article out of a mazillion on the subject.

washington post
Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls.

I'd suggest that you put that skepticism to work. Is it that you were out of media range the last 3 years or that you believe the government's position on Snowden?

Dude, you killed my witty rejoinder to your now non-existent previous post by nuking it while I was in the middle of typing up my reply. Harsh, man, harsh.

So, what you're saying now is that the object of your obsession conducts compliance audits, which document failures. Would you prefer that they not bother with audits and just assume that everything is perfect, or that they just stop attempting to provide their nation with foreign intelligence altogether? And that was the specific article you had in mind earlier, when we were discussing the entirely different issue of judicial approval of FISA warrants? And it just happened to be one of a "mazillion" articles that was returned from your google query? Sounds legit.

I'm a little puzzled, though, why you think it is up to me to run down information that supports your contentions. That really isn't how these things work. Since my stated position is that I don't know one way or the other whether the judicial oversight is genuine or just a rubber stamp, I literally have no need to research supporting evidence -- how can I possibly prove that I don't have a firm opinion based on the (lack of) evidence?

However, we're straying far afield for this thread topic. As amusing as these exchanges undoubtedly are to everyone involved, perhaps it would be preferable to move them to a more appropriate thread if you wish to continue thrashing me for my heretical lack of reverence for Saint Snowden (because I'm getting the impression that is what this is all about).

[GreenGoo]

I think it's up to you to rundown the information because we've had 3 years of headlines and articles and interviews corroborating my reasoning for lack of trust in oversight.

It's the equivalent of you asking me for cites on ISIS and it's goal of creating a Caliphate via violence, intimidation and fear.

Whether you believe Snowden's position, or the government's, or somewhere in between, the documentation has been run through every major news outlet multiple times over the last 2-3 years.

Independent news organizations have mostly supported Snowden's stance on many of these topics, after review of the documents he provided. The sheer volume of documentation makes me believe he wasn't cherry picking.

Holder has changed his position on Snowden, which seems less like a change of heart (given that not much has changed in the meantime) and more like he feels free to have an opinion outside of former office's official stance.

The NSA, after claiming there was no evidence that Snowden had ever pursued official channels with his concerns, recently released a single email of his doing exactly that. That it took the NSA almost 3 years to find it leads me to believe that they didn't try too hard to find it, and with releasing a single email (Snowden claimed multiple attempts) I am not confident they are not withholding more documentation on it.

Worse, in my opinion, the NSA vehemently made many claims during the Snowden crisis that were refuted by the leaked documentation. Members of the NSA leadership actively lied to the committee investigating, but despite being proven demonstrably false, no hammer came down on anyone that I recall. In fact Obama seems to have expanded domestic spying.

[GreenGoo]

While I could care less about Snowden, in that I respect that he had the guts to show the American people what their government was doing to them, I'm irate at what a democratic government was doing to its own people, because I value privacy and I value the rule of law. That congress has chipped away at those laws so that more and more is legal doesn't help.

As was pointed out to me, Snowden is certainly not the first NSA whistle blower, but he is the most prominent right now, because of the sheer wealth of documentation he was able to provide, not to mention the very public smear campaign the government ran to assassinate his character.

I don't trust the American government because they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

That Hillary wants to expand domestic surveillance is nausea inducing.

[Max Peck]

And yet, my only stated position has been that I don't have an opinion one way or the other with regard to any implications of the document that Isgrimnur linked, with an explanation of why I think what I think about it. All of the rest of this Snowden-centric spiral of doom seems to be due to your umbrage that I don't subscribe to the exact same world view as you, and my increasingly futile attempts to point out that I'm not saying things you claim I'm saying. For some reason, the absurdity of it all is becoming increasingly amusing.

On a less off-topic top, AP assures me that Clinton won the DC primary, leaving us with this final(?) tally:

[Max Peck]

Following a series of coin tosses, this goes into the Clinton/DNC thread rather than the Trump or Russia or data breach threads.

Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump

Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach. The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC’s system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts. The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available. A Russian Embassy spokesman said he had no knowledge of such intrusions.

Some of the hackers had access to the DNC network for about a year, but all were expelled over the past weekend in a major computer cleanup campaign, the committee officials and experts said. The DNC said that no financial, donor or personal information appears to have been accessed or taken, suggesting that the breach was traditional espionage, not the work of criminal hackers. The intrusions are an example of Russia’s interest in the U.S. political system and its desire to understand the policies, strengths and weaknesses of a potential future president — much as American spies gather similar information on foreign candidates and leaders. The depth of the penetration reflects the skill and determination of the United States’ top cyber adversary as Russia goes after strategic targets, from the White House and State Department to political campaign organizations.

[GreenGoo]

And yet, my only stated position has been that I don't have an opinion one way or the other with regard to any implications of the document that Isgrimnur linked, with an explanation of why I think what I think about it. All of the rest of this Snowden-centric spiral of doom seems to be due to your umbrage that I don't subscribe to the exact same world view as you, and my increasingly futile attempts to point out that I'm not saying things you claim I'm saying. For some reason, the absurdity of it all is becoming increasingly amusing.

Dude, why can't you just admit that based on documented evidence, your stance of "what about if they had lawyers look at it first?" is low on the probability chart as an explanation as to why the oversight committee rejects so few requests?

You asked me for cites with regard to my distrust and I've given you multiple articles and google will happily give you more.

Instead of getting snarky about how amused you are by the whole thing and how I worship Saint Snowden, why not bow out gracefully?

Why would you assume that an agency that has hackers that allegedly can hack the world wouldn't have lawyers that can competently lawyer? They probably have a big enough budget for both.

...

While it is certainly possible that the court is just rubber stamping applications, it is just as plausible that the agencies involved simply have legal departments that make sure that the i's are dotted, the t's crossed and the necessary criteria satisfied before the paperwork leaves the agency.

You said "it's just as plausible". I disagreed. And here we are. I'm pretty sure I covered your questions as to why I don't assume their lawyers have got their overreach in hand, but to summarize: They have shown not only a willingness to go around the law, but disdain for those that try to hold them to it. They have stated repeatedly that following the law is too hard, they want more freedom to invade peoples' privacy, and that their response to any contradictory position is "terrorism".

Based on that, I am less likely than you are to give them the benefit of the doubt when they say "don't worry, trust me".

[Enough]

Following a series of coin tosses, this goes into the Clinton/DNC thread rather than the Trump or Russia or data breach threads.

Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump

Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach. The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC’s system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts. The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available. A Russian Embassy spokesman said he had no knowledge of such intrusions.

Some of the hackers had access to the DNC network for about a year, but all were expelled over the past weekend in a major computer cleanup campaign, the committee officials and experts said. The DNC said that no financial, donor or personal information appears to have been accessed or taken, suggesting that the breach was traditional espionage, not the work of criminal hackers. The intrusions are an example of Russia’s interest in the U.S. political system and its desire to understand the policies, strengths and weaknesses of a potential future president — much as American spies gather similar information on foreign candidates and leaders. The depth of the penetration reflects the skill and determination of the United States’ top cyber adversary as Russia goes after strategic targets, from the White House and State Department to political campaign organizations.

And I have not idea about the validity of this story and have not had time to research it yet, but...

Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated that warnings had been received that the Russian Government could in the near future release the text of email messages intercepted from U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server from the time she was U.S. Secretary of State. The release would, the messaging indicated, prove that Secretary Clinton had, in fact, laid open U.S. secrets to foreign interception by putting highly-classified Government reports onto a private server in violation of U.S. law, and that, as suspected, the server had been targeted and hacked by foreign intelligence services.

[GreenGoo]

Wouldn't that put Putin in Trump's good graces. Not to be pedantic but Russians saying they got the documents from the server doesn't make it true, although it should be fairly easy to verify, assuming things like email headers (even though they are easy to spoof) and other clues.

For the record I've thought Hillary was in the wrong for running her own server, and I thought it highly likely that it was compromised. The only question I need answered is whether significant classified documents were passed through it, and what the impact of having those documents available to foreign powers actually is.

That the IT infrastructure in the State Department might be catastrophically bad is not a good enough excuse. Does she even realize that up until fairly recently, email was all clear text, readable by anyone between her and her recipient (a lot of people)?

[Max Peck]

Dude, why can't you just admit that based on documented evidence, your stance of "what about if they had lawyers look at it first?" is low on the probability chart as an explanation as to why the oversight committee rejects so few requests?

Because if I did that, it would be to appease your irrational desire to have me conform to your world view rather than an honest expression of my opinion. I don't think I want to do that, and I've already explained the underlying rationale for my opinion on this specific issue multiple times. If you can't accept it, tough noogies. (Why am I suddenly overwhelmed with a sense of déjà vu?) I don't need your approval to have an opinion, let alone express it, and you don't (or shouldn't) need mine.

Finally, this is still off-topic. If you feel the need, maybe you should start a thread named "Max Peck is a Stupid Doodoo-Head Who Won't Admit I'm Right" and we can move the great debate about whether or not I'm entitled to my delusion of free will and independent thought over there. In the mean time, surely Clinton (Quick, in unison: "Don't call her Shirley!") must be up to some new dastardly plot that can be debated or discussed in the thread that is dedicated to discussing her dastardly schemes. And then I create a whole new shitstorm by asking why everyone is convinced that she is such a horrible person.

She seems like a nice lady to me.

[GreenGoo]

Geezus Max. Irrational desire?

I disagreed with your position, you asked me for cites, I give you evidence that form the basis of my opinion, you accuse me of Snowden worship, changed your stance from "It's just as likely" to "I don't have an opinion" and laughed at me (sorry, found the absurdity amusing). And finished with "you're crazy, dude".

And all of this is because you didn't like it when I didn't agree with YOUR opinion on the matter, which is when you got uppity with your "prove it" stance (so I did).

I've been addressing your points, and you've been addressing my personal flaws as you see them. The problem is not a difference of opinion. Differing opinions are why I frequent OO.

I don't know why you're doing this, but man, lost some respect for you.

[Kraken]

Because if I did that, it would be to appease your irrational desire to have me conform to your world view rather than an honest expression of my opinion. I don't think I want to do that,

You should give it a chance. I've been more at peace since I did.

[Max Peck]

Because if I did that, it would be to appease your irrational desire to have me conform to your world view rather than an honest expression of my opinion. I don't think I want to do that,

You should give it a chance. I've been more at peace since I did.

I'm not entirely pedantic about it. I can say "Yes dear" with the best of them, when necessary.

[Max Peck]

And I have not idea about the validity of this story and have not had time to research it yet, but...

Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated that warnings had been received that the Russian Government could in the near future release the text of email messages intercepted from U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server from the time she was U.S. Secretary of State. The release would, the messaging indicated, prove that Secretary Clinton had, in fact, laid open U.S. secrets to foreign interception by putting highly-classified Government reports onto a private server in violation of U.S. law, and that, as suspected, the server had been targeted and hacked by foreign intelligence services.

It would be interesting to see how that would play out. On the one hand, it would seem to weaken Clinton's campaign and vindicate her detractors, favouring Trump. On the other hand, if it was clearly linked to the Russian state then there could be blow-back if there was a mainstream perception that it was a blatant attempt to manipulate the election outcome.

[El Guapo]

Do we know anything about oilprice.com?

[Isgrimnur]

Registered by proxy, created in 1995.

[El Guapo]

Interestingly, googling the story shows that it's being disputed mostly (on each side) by fringe-y news sources. It's been "debunked" by, among others. infowars.com, who attributes the story to other fringe news sources.

In a war between infowars and oilprice.com, who wins?

[Kurth]

Ah. That's totally different than the narrative being portrayed in the media, then.



Kurth, do you have an opinion on this? Besides 2014 is only a single year out of 33 and possibly an outlier, I guess.

Does it really matter that it's an iterative process if the end result is always granting a warrant? I mean, sure, it might put limits that the NSA would prefer not to be there, but that an NSA request is never rejected at all (statistically close enough) seems suspect. These are the same guys listening in on domestic phone calls and generally looking into data streams on the internet.

They don't seem like they're the kind of people who would work hard to get all their ducks in a row.

I can't get the 2014 report to load, but I suspect it doesn't actually contradict the notion that the "rubber stamp" label is overblown.

When that report refers to applications that have been revised by the FISA court, I think that's referring to instances in which the FISA court itself has revised the application. From my understanding of the process, further informed by what the FISA judges (and critics) on the panel discussion I attended in 2015, in the normal course, an application is basically submitted in draft form and the FISA judge sends it back with suggested edits and revisions. As the panel described, "we are not correcting for grammar and punctuation" (paraphrasing here). They are making substantive and significant changes to the applicatoins where they believe the authorities are overreaching.

Regarding whether or not it matters if this is an iterative process, I think it matters a lot. It's exactly the sort of process that should provide some assurance that the ducks are, indeed, in a row.

Here's a boring law analogy for you: The process to get a patent application through the USPTO is an iterative process. It involves submitting an application for a patent followed by one or more (usually more) "office actions" in which the PTO examiner rejects the claims as overbroad in light of the prior art. In most cases, the issued patent that emereges from the USPTO after this iterative examination process is significantly different in scope from the application that was originally submitted. The issuance rate may be high, but that says very little about the thoroughness of examination. And, yes, bad patents do issue and get lots of press, but by and large the PTO does it's job.

The big difference here, though, is that the PTO does it's job in public. We can all look and judge for ourselves whether it's doing a good job or not. The fundamental problem with the FISA court process is that it's all ex parte and secret.

I'm a big believer in trust, but verify. Listening to the judges on the panel and the reps from the security agencies, I believe that they are smart, well-intentioned and generally reasonable people. But I have a hard time entrusting anyone with the kind of power the FISA court has when we don't have the ability to verify.

[Isgrimnur]

We found Pr0ner's alt.

[Enough]

Interestingly, googling the story shows that it's being disputed mostly (on each side) by fringe-y news sources. It's been "debunked" by, among others. infowars.com, who attributes the story to other fringe news sources.

In a war between infowars and oilprice.com, who wins?

Well, from my brief search it looks like oilprice is just gushing with stories that fuel a certain narrative. I guess they could be a bunch of roughneck shrills that rig the result and pump out stories suggesting something crude. Let's just hope I'm wrong and it's slick reporting drilling down to the unvarnished truth. Or of course it could just be a big political blowout as a play for propaganda, frack if I know.

[Max Peck]

Interestingly, googling the story shows that it's being disputed mostly (on each side) by fringe-y news sources. It's been "debunked" by, among others. infowars.com, who attributes the story to other fringe news sources.

In a war between infowars and oilprice.com, who wins?

Well, from my brief search it looks like oilprice is just gushing with stories that fuel a certain narrative. I guess they could be a bunch of roughneck shrills that rig the result and pump out stories suggesting something crude. Let's just hope I'm wrong and it's slick reporting drilling down to the unvarnished truth. Or of course it could just be a big political blowout as a play for propaganda, frack if I know.

[Unagi]

Wow. Like seriously.

[Kraken]

This thread has a winner (and it's not Clinton).

[Pyperkub]

This thread has a winner (and it's not Clinton).

Sorry Rip, quality over quantity

[Zaxxon]

Well, Enough just won the internet.

[Kraken]

Another will-she-or-won't-she piece on Elizabeth Warren, with emphasis on the merits and demerits of the VP slot.

The question among her supporters on the left is this: Would Warren actually lose power by becoming first in line to be president?

Being a team player may not come naturally to Warren, one of the party’s most outspoken stars. Nevertheless, Quayle suspects that if the post is offered, Warren will say yes. “People don’t turn it down,” he said.

[Holman]

If anyone can turn the Vice Presidency into a bully pulpit, it's probably Warren.

[Jaymann]

If anyone can turn the Vice Presidency into a bully pulpit, it's probably Warren.

Plus can you imagine what 24 straight years of Democratic presidents would do to msduncan?

[Anonymous Bosch]

Another will-she-or-won't-she piece on Elizabeth Warren, with emphasis on the merits and demerits of the VP slot.

The question among her supporters on the left is this: Would Warren actually lose power by becoming first in line to be president?

Being a team player may not come naturally to Warren, one of the party’s most outspoken stars. Nevertheless, Quayle suspects that if the post is offered, Warren will say yes. “People don’t turn it down,” he said.

[LordMortis]

I don't know who Ben White is, so I have no idea how credible he with anonymous sources but even if the credibility isn't there, the whole piece is interesting in that when considering Warren the political stakes about about who it is you trying to get along with are high and it's not just WallStreet. It's about political division and how much you may need to play along to get things done and whether you need the enthusiasm of the people supporting you (who seem to be doing so primarily to keep Trump out of office)

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/20/wall-str ... eningbrief

Again, I have no idea what White has for sources but this made me laugh

"If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her," one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton told me. "They would literally just say, 'We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you've had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can't trust you, you've killed it.'"

[El Guapo]

Of course, especially given that Trump's campaign is broke anyway, Clinton probably needs anti-Wall Street credibility much more than she needs Wall Street money.

[GreenGoo]

Of course, especially given that Trump's campaign is broke anyway, Clinton probably needs anti-Wall Street credibility much more than she needs Wall Street money.

That was my thought as well. She's reasonably flush with cash, and certainly her coffers are overflowing compared to Trump's. She might be able to make due with less fundraising while bringing in more Bernie voters.

[LordMortis]

Of course, especially given that Trump's campaign is broke anyway, Clinton probably needs anti-Wall Street credibility much more than she needs Wall Street money.

Given that I think the Election is Clinton's to lose, I thought the underlying tone of "what will it take for Clinton to be an effective president and who does she need to get along with to make that happen" was actually the more inviting question. Looking at Warren, that's the real question behind whether or not she should be invited to the executive table or not.

[El Guapo]

Of course, especially given that Trump's campaign is broke anyway, Clinton probably needs anti-Wall Street credibility much more than she needs Wall Street money.

That was my thought as well. She's reasonably flush with cash, and certainly her coffers are overflowing compared to Trump's. She might be able to make due with less fundraising while bringing in more Bernie voters.

On top of that, the greater the perception that Wall Street doesn't want her to pick Warren, the more essential it becomes that she pick Warren. So...they need to be a bit careful on that.

[LordMortis]

On top of that, the greater the perception that Wall Street doesn't want her to pick Warren, the more essential it becomes that she pick Warren. So...they need to be a bit careful on that.

That's part of what I think it is interesting.

[Max Peck]

Former Ford, Bush national security adviser Scowcroft endorses Clinton

Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to two Republican U.S. presidents, on Wednesday endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president over Donald Trump, in a snub of the Republican Party's likely nominee by a prominent member of its security wing. "The presidency requires the judgment and the knowledge to make tough calls under pressure," the Republican elder statesman said in a statement. "I believe Hillary Clinton has the wisdom and experience to lead our country at this critical time." Scowcroft, 91, served as national security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. Ford was president from 1974 to 1977 and Bush from 1989 to 1993. He joined a number of well-known Republicans defecting due to the prospect of a Trump presidency, including Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state under President George W. Bush. Armitage gave Clinton, 68, who was secretary of state under Democratic President Barack Obama, his backing last week. Trump "doesn't appear to be a Republican, he doesn't appear to want to learn about issues. So, I’m going to vote for Mrs. Clinton," Armitage told Politico at the time.

[Holman]

They have Scowcroft, and I'm sure they have Powell. I wonder how many Bush retainers the Clintons will have in the end.

It's like Game of Thrones this year. Trump's campaign is obviously the Lannisters: all bling, betrayal, and inadequate Hands. And now apparently out of gold.

[Isgrimnur]

You've got it backwards. The Clintons are the Lannisters. They have been the power behind the (party) throne for decades. They traffic in money and power, and only the death of the leader and a Cersei to completely misplay her hand will result in their downfall.

Trump is Walder Frey.