Just as Clinton was beginning to get over confident, the FBI served notice that it ain't over till it is over.  The FBI revealed that it found emails in Anthony Weiner's computer that maybe related to the investigation of Clinton email earlier.  It seems weird that this comes out with just over one week left till the election.  It is reported that the FBI found these emails a few weeks earlier.  Supposedly they couldn't look into them because they only had warrant to look into Weiner's stuff, not those of his wife.  So why didn't they ask for another warrant earlier so they had time to look over the emails before announcing their existence to the public?  After they announced further investigation, they promptly got the authorization to look over those emails.  The only problem is that this will not likely be finished before the election.  So basically the FBI is putting itself in the election storm.

The Democrats are furious and they have a point.  If this happened to Trump, I am sure he would called this part of the rigged election.  I am not going to say that it is a conspiracy by Director James Comey to hurt Clinton.  He has a difficult job since if he kept this till after the election, the GOP would be upset.  But although he was appointed to the job by Obama, he was a registered Republican before office and he served as deputy attorney general in the Bush administration.  So it is easy to say that he would may want to help the GOP.  I doubt that is the case but he would have done better if he asked for the warrant right away after he found the email and may have been able to see if they revealed anything before announcing it to the world.  I think after all these time of investigating Clinton, unless there are new evidence that shed new light, there should be no announcement from a supposedly neutral agency like the FBI.

By the way, why would Weiner dare to share a computer with his wife? 

Clinton has a solid lead in the polls with just over 2 weeks left.  But you never know what will happen on election day.  So I am wondering what would happen if Trump wins.  Obviously he would have to name people to his cabinet.  So I am trying to think whom he would appoint.  Here are a few possibilities.

For the important job of secretary of state I think Trump would nominate Sarah Palin.  After all she can see Russia from her home and Putin will be Trump's biggest ally.   So it would be easy to send Palin over from her house whenever it is needed.

For secretary of treasury, Trump will nominate his accountant.  Trump has avoided paying income tax for so many years thanks to his accountant's understanding of the tax code loopholes.  So if he wants to increase revenue to the treasury he needs his accountant to close all these loopholes.  Sort of like hiring a hacker to protect your secrets in the computer.

For homeland security Trump would appoint Rudy Giuliani.  He would stop and fritz all Muslims, blacks and Hispanics in the country. 

For secretary of transportation Trump will appoint Chris Christie.  Look for bridge closings in all the states that did not vote for Trump.

For secretary of defense Trump will nominate Dick Cheney.  If he can shoot his friend in the face imagine what he would do to the enemy!

Trump will nominate judge Aaron Persky to the Supreme Court.  Judge Persky is the one who gave a  Stanford athlete only 6 months for sexual assault.  Trump figures he should hedge the bet.  Bill Crosby, for one, will agree with the choice.

Trump will also want to appoint some ambassador posts.  Paul Ryan, John McCain and Jeb Bush will certainly be called upon to fill the posts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

Forget about his hand on the nuclear button.  These appointments are scary enough.  Well, at least Ryan, McCain and Bush will not accept.

With the problems Trump has had in the past couple of weeks, he is hoping that WikiLeaks will help him out with revelations of Clinton's email.  But so far I don't see anything in these emails that makes Clinton look bad for moderate voters.  For example, Clinton is revealed to have private and public positions on many issues.  Trump would say that this makes Clinton dishonest.  But he must know this is the art of negotiation since he thinks he is the master at it.  You tell publicly something that you know can't pass but you eventually compromise to what you wanted privately.  In the email she also disagreed with Sanders and Warren, which may anger supporters of those two.  But do moderate people really want the ideas of those two to become laws?

In fact all the talks about Clinton's speech to Wall Street and bankers, the speeches revealed that Clinton warned them about behaving badly and that they are losing the public trust.  Those seem to be good messages on behalf of the American people.  Ultimately, it seems that Clinton wants to have a moderate Democratic party.  One may not agree with her the definition of moderate, but I believe that trying to be moderate is way better than taking extreme positions on either side.

Trump's behavior this week is that of a child bully.  He said his accusers are lying.  He said that Bill Clinton said and did worse things.  He calls those who take back endorsements weak and disloyal.  He says that the election is rigged.  He says the media is is out to get him.  He is like the guy on the basketball court who calls foul on every play and when he is losing takes the ball home (even if the ball was not his).  The question after the election is that can reasonable Republicans like Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and John Kasich take back the ball (the party) from Trump.

After the debate tonight, I am thinking of not bothering to watch the final debate.  There is very little substance to the debates and so much yelling and screaming.  I think they should have let the audience asked all the questions and when someone does not answer the question but veer off to talking points, the questioner should be able to yell at Trump or Clinton to get back to the question.  I think an audience questioner would be able to get the candidates to answer the question better than the moderators.  It was boring to watch and frustrating to see that this election is fought in the gutters.

Trump had to stop the bleeding from the tape scandal this week.  In the beginning he comes across as not being contrite at all.  By saying Bill Clinton was worse, he only appealed to the base.  Nobody else should think that that was a good excuse.  After that he settled down and did much better than the first debate.  But I don't think the debate is going to help him win back any voters he may have lost this week.  And the comment that once he is in office, he would prosecute and jail Clinton comes off as something a third world dictator would do.  But of course he can only be a dictator and fire everybody he doesn't like.  He can never function as a leader of a democracy.

I don't think the debate changed any minds tonight.  So any change in the polls in the next few days will be more related to the tape scandal than what happened tonight.  It will be interesting to see if and how much the polls change.  I find it ironic that the guy in the tape with Trump is a cousin of George and Jeb Bush. 

Recently Congress voted to let families of 9/11 victims sue the Saudi Arabia government in U.S. courts.  Obama vetoed the bill but Congress over rode the veto with almost overwhelming bipartisan support.  Within one day after the override, Congressional leaders expressed remorse about the bill saying some of it was poorly written so that it exposed American soldiers to charges in foreign courts.  I find this shocking.  They wrote the law and Obama had told them it was a bad law and then they voted again to override his veto and then immediately they saw the fault in the law?   Is Obama the only intelligent person in our federal government?

Under sovereign immunity people cannot sue foreign governments.  While this law seems to protect bad guys, it actually helps the U.S. the most.  The U.S. government and military operates all over the world.  So without sovereign immunity the U.S. will be more likely than any other nation to be charged with crimes by foreign citizens.  For example, any time we make a mistake and hit civilians with a drone strike, people theoretically can sue the U.S. if there was no sovereign immunity.  In the case of 9/11 even if families are allowed to sue the Saudi government, it is unlikely they can win.  The 9/11 Commission had said the the Saudi government had no direct role in the attack.  So the Saudis would use that in their defense and the families would have to come up with their own evidence.  So while everyone has sympathy for the families, this is an obvious political move on the part of the politicians.

It would have been easy for Obama to sign a bill that has such overwhelming support from both sides of Congress.  But it would also be wrong.  Obviously Obama is not up for reelection so he can do what he think is right.  But it is amazing to me that so many politicians can cave to the pressure on this.  But even more amazing, people like Mitch O'Connell said afterward that Obama is partly to blame because he did not bring the leaders of Congress to discuss this before the override.  I am just thankful the blame Obama game will end soon.  I am not thankful, however, that whoever takes over for him will be as intelligent as the members of the present Congress.