Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

New York Post, now there's a perfectly credible source.

 

But 1999 was back when facts mattered. Get with the program, Inky.

 

Oh never mind that, you'll mess up the Screech Machine's splooge fest.

 

True DNA testing was never done:

The Starr Report famously identifies the semen found on a certain blue dress as President Clinton's. An appended FBI lab report provides details of the DNA analysis, meaning that President Clinton's so-called genetic fingerprint is public information (available, in fact, to anyone who clickshere). This week the Drudge Report and New York Post reported that theStar tabloid is using this information to test the paternity of 13-year old Danny Williams. Danny's mother, a former Arkansas prostitute, has long claimed that Clinton is the boy's father. (Slate, of course, does not traffic in such slime. We do, however, report on what's in publications without our high standards. See Slate's "Keeping Tabs" and "International Papers.") Can Clinton's paternity or lack thereof really be established from the information in the Starr report, or do you need a sample of the semen itself?

The human genome--which contains all the information for building one's body and brain--can be thought of as a sentence several billion letters long. Scientists will someday be able to infer an enormous amount of personal information about health and psyche from this sentence, which is unique to every person. But the so-called "genetic fingerprint" includes a trivial fraction of that information. It's enough to distinguish one person from another, but not enough to clone Bill Clinton from the Starr report.

Specifically, the FBI's "genetic fingerprint" consists of what the sentence says in seven places (each around 600 letters long). If two samples of DNA are different in any one of the seven places, we can be positive that they came from different people. If the samples are identical in these seven places, they are assumed to have come from the same person. It's possible that samples identical in the seven places are different elsewhere and therefore belong to different people. But if the test is done right, the chances are one in several billion. (That is still enough for some defendants, like OJ Simpson, to claim that a DNA match isn't conclusive.) Paternity tests are a little more complicated than ordinary DNA matches because only half of a child's DNA comes from the father. But a lab that has the mother's, child's, and putative father's DNA can piece together the puzzle, and these tests are remarkably accurate as well.

The FBI performed two genetic fingerprinting tests on the president's DNA. The Starr report, for unexplained reasons, gives data only for the less specific of the two tests. In fact, this test is imprecise enough that it would probably not be persuasive to a judge. Dr. George Riley of Genelex--a well-regarded forensic DNA lab--calculates that the genetic fingerprint given in the Starr report will most likely yield a so-called "paternity index" of only 20 to 30. In other words, a positive test would mean that President Clinton is only 20 to 30 times more likely than a random Caucasian male to be Danny Williams' father. This would be suggestive but not conclusive. (50,000 white men in Arkansas would get the same test results.) The legal threshold is 100. At best the genetic fingerprint contained in the Starr report can only yield a paternity index of 120. The actual value depends on the mother's DNA.

How Can You Tell If Clinton Is Your Father?

 

Rasmussen is out. Clinton +3. YF's right. Definitely not the result they were hoping for.

 

How Donald Trump Wins Even When He Loses

 

LOL. Not my thoughts at all.

But, funny, considering how many people were amused by the idea of Sarah Palin having sex with an African-American.

 

I think they were amused that she had sex with a famous basketball player.

 

When are you going to unleash one of your patented anti-media screeds on the poor reporting done by Drudge in 1999 and how, if his reporting was flawed then, can we trust it now?

 

Yeah. That was it.

 

Unless I am reading this wrong she was trailing Trump by 5 points prior to the debates and was only up 1 point on Friday. So that would be an 8 point boost since the debates. Isn't that solid for Clinton?

 

LOL. Drudge is not a journalist.

He's a gossip columnist, a provocateur, and a partisan.