I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
Yeah and why? Was it politically motivated?
The Comey letter was the nail in the coffin. She lost the EC by about 77,000 votes. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
Whether it was politically motivated or not, it was real and it was known. Democrats nominated her anyways. How do they then act surprised and wronged when it blows up in their faces?
It blew up in their faces because of Comey. The FBI had closed their bullshit investigation months before the election.
Comey's letter came out a week or so before the election right? That was devastating. The session several months before where he said "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case" was a plus...not a minus.
Agreed. I think the right is grossly underestimating the impact that Comey letter had on the election (because that doesn't support their biases).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
Yeah and why? Was it politically motivated?
The Comey letter was the nail in the coffin. She lost the EC by about 77,000 votes. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
Whether it was politically motivated or not, it was real and it was known. Democrats nominated her anyways. How do they then act surprised and wronged when it blows up in their faces?
It blew up in their faces because of Comey. The FBI had closed their bullshit investigation months before the election.
Comey's letter came out a week or so before the election right? That was devastating. The session several months before where he said "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case" was a plus...not a minus.
I for one cannot believe there were that many people who still hadn't made up their minds by that point that it made a difference. I think she was dead in the water long before anyone knew.
I think Comey's letter served two purposes
1. Energize the anti-Clinton vote....piss people off who might have thought Trump didn't have a chance and possibly give me more of a chance 2. Take some momentum away from the pro Clinton vote.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
Yeah and why? Was it politically motivated?
The Comey letter was the nail in the coffin. She lost the EC by about 77,000 votes. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
Whether it was politically motivated or not, it was real and it was known. Democrats nominated her anyways. How do they then act surprised and wronged when it blows up in their faces?
It blew up in their faces because of Comey. The FBI had closed their bullshit investigation months before the election.
Comey's letter came out a week or so before the election right? That was devastating. The session several months before where he said "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case" was a plus...not a minus.
But if there's no investigation it can't blow up in their faces. This is the opposite of the chicken and the egg. We know which came first.
And, yes, he did say no reasonable prosecutor would pursue case. Which is why I kinda doubt he was trying to screw her over. Otherwise why not just recommend charges?
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
Yeah and why? Was it politically motivated?
The Comey letter was the nail in the coffin. She lost the EC by about 77,000 votes. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
Whether it was politically motivated or not, it was real and it was known. Democrats nominated her anyways. How do they then act surprised and wronged when it blows up in their faces?
It blew up in their faces because of Comey. The FBI had closed their bullshit investigation months before the election.
Comey's letter came out a week or so before the election right? That was devastating. The session several months before where he said "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case" was a plus...not a minus.
But if there's no investigation it can't blow up in their faces. This is the opposite of the chicken and the egg. We know which came first.
And, yes, he did say no reasonable prosecutor would pursue case. Which is why I kinda doubt he was trying to screw her over. Otherwise why not just recommend charges?
He created the idea that she might still be prosecuted...the "oh hey we just found some more shit let's open this back up" scenario
then a few days later "still nothing here"
That's fucked up. He was pushed to write that initial letter for a reason. That's plain as day.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
Yeah and why? Was it politically motivated?
The Comey letter was the nail in the coffin. She lost the EC by about 77,000 votes. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
Whether it was politically motivated or not, it was real and it was known. Democrats nominated her anyways. How do they then act surprised and wronged when it blows up in their faces?
It blew up in their faces because of Comey. The FBI had closed their bullshit investigation months before the election.
Comey's letter came out a week or so before the election right? That was devastating. The session several months before where he said "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case" was a plus...not a minus.
But if there's no investigation it can't blow up in their faces. This is the opposite of the chicken and the egg. We know which came first.
And, yes, he did say no reasonable prosecutor would pursue case. Which is why I kinda doubt he was trying to screw her over. Otherwise why not just recommend charges?
He created the idea that she might still be prosecuted...the "oh hey we just found some more shit let's open this back up" scenario
then a few days later "still nothing here"
That's fucked up. He was pushed to write that initial letter for a reason. That's plain as day.
Maybe. I don't understand why he didn't just recommend charges in the first place then.
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
Yeah and why? Was it politically motivated?
The Comey letter was the nail in the coffin. She lost the EC by about 77,000 votes. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
Whether it was politically motivated or not, it was real and it was known. Democrats nominated her anyways. How do they then act surprised and wronged when it blows up in their faces?
It blew up in their faces because of Comey. The FBI had closed their bullshit investigation months before the election.
Comey's letter came out a week or so before the election right? That was devastating. The session several months before where he said "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case" was a plus...not a minus.
But if there's no investigation it can't blow up in their faces. This is the opposite of the chicken and the egg. We know which came first.
And, yes, he did say no reasonable prosecutor would pursue case. Which is why I kinda doubt he was trying to screw her over. Otherwise why not just recommend charges?
He created the idea that she might still be prosecuted...the "oh hey we just found some more shit let's open this back up" scenario
then a few days later "still nothing here"
That's fucked up. He was pushed to write that initial letter for a reason. That's plain as day.
Maybe. I don't understand why he didn't just recommend charges in the first place then.
Charges for what exactly? I never saw anything that actually seemed to justify charges. Isn't that the issue??
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
Yeah and why? Was it politically motivated?
The Comey letter was the nail in the coffin. She lost the EC by about 77,000 votes. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
Whether it was politically motivated or not, it was real and it was known. Democrats nominated her anyways. How do they then act surprised and wronged when it blows up in their faces?
It blew up in their faces because of Comey. The FBI had closed their bullshit investigation months before the election.
Comey's letter came out a week or so before the election right? That was devastating. The session several months before where he said "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case" was a plus...not a minus.
But if there's no investigation it can't blow up in their faces. This is the opposite of the chicken and the egg. We know which came first.
And, yes, he did say no reasonable prosecutor would pursue case. Which is why I kinda doubt he was trying to screw her over. Otherwise why not just recommend charges?
He created the idea that she might still be prosecuted...the "oh hey we just found some more shit let's open this back up" scenario
then a few days later "still nothing here"
That's fucked up. He was pushed to write that initial letter for a reason. That's plain as day.
Maybe. I don't understand why he didn't just recommend charges in the first place then.
Because there was nothing there. The emails that contained "classified info" (of which there were like four) had such worthless information in them that he couldn't possibly recommend any censure or charges.....which he didn't.
He did his best with the comment about "reckless disregard" but that comment was referring to the private server....the server that didn't get hacked. The server that was set up for a former POTUS to have in his home.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
Yeah and why? Was it politically motivated?
The Comey letter was the nail in the coffin. She lost the EC by about 77,000 votes. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
Whether it was politically motivated or not, it was real and it was known. Democrats nominated her anyways. How do they then act surprised and wronged when it blows up in their faces?
It blew up in their faces because of Comey. The FBI had closed their bullshit investigation months before the election.
Comey's letter came out a week or so before the election right? That was devastating. The session several months before where he said "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case" was a plus...not a minus.
But if there's no investigation it can't blow up in their faces. This is the opposite of the chicken and the egg. We know which came first.
And, yes, he did say no reasonable prosecutor would pursue case. Which is why I kinda doubt he was trying to screw her over. Otherwise why not just recommend charges?
He created the idea that she might still be prosecuted...the "oh hey we just found some more shit let's open this back up" scenario
then a few days later "still nothing here"
That's fucked up. He was pushed to write that initial letter for a reason. That's plain as day.
Maybe. I don't understand why he didn't just recommend charges in the first place then.
Charges for what exactly? I never saw anything that actually seemed to justify charges. Isn't that the issue??
Believe me, the last thing I want to do this afternoon is relitigate the FBI investigation. I don't think there was anything that justified charges either. But there was classified info on a private server. Not much but it was there. What I'm saying is if Comey wanted to screw her, reasonable prosecution or not, why not just recommend charges when he had the chance? Force the justice department to either follow through and prosecute or look partisan for overruling the FBI. Why clear her? So when a new trove of emails appears and he notifies congress about them, I'm not as convinced as most that he was out to get Clinton.
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
Yeah and why? Was it politically motivated?
The Comey letter was the nail in the coffin. She lost the EC by about 77,000 votes. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
Whether it was politically motivated or not, it was real and it was known. Democrats nominated her anyways. How do they then act surprised and wronged when it blows up in their faces?
It blew up in their faces because of Comey. The FBI had closed their bullshit investigation months before the election.
Comey's letter came out a week or so before the election right? That was devastating. The session several months before where he said "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case" was a plus...not a minus.
But if there's no investigation it can't blow up in their faces. This is the opposite of the chicken and the egg. We know which came first.
And, yes, he did say no reasonable prosecutor would pursue case. Which is why I kinda doubt he was trying to screw her over. Otherwise why not just recommend charges?
He created the idea that she might still be prosecuted...the "oh hey we just found some more shit let's open this back up" scenario
then a few days later "still nothing here"
That's fucked up. He was pushed to write that initial letter for a reason. That's plain as day.
Maybe. I don't understand why he didn't just recommend charges in the first place then.
Charges for what exactly? I never saw anything that actually seemed to justify charges. Isn't that the issue??
Believe me, the last thing I want to do this afternoon is relitigate the FBI investigation. I don't think there was anything that justified charges either. But there was classified info on a private server. Not much but it was there. What I'm saying is if Comey wanted to screw her, reasonable prosecution or not, why not just recommend charges when he had the chance? Force the justice department to either follow through and prosecute or look partisan for overruling the FBI. Why clear her? So when a new trove of emails appears and he notifies congress about them, I'm not as convinced as most that he was out to get Clinton.
Because he couldn't...because he knew that a prosecutor wouldn't touch it.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
Yeah and why? Was it politically motivated?
The Comey letter was the nail in the coffin. She lost the EC by about 77,000 votes. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
Whether it was politically motivated or not, it was real and it was known. Democrats nominated her anyways. How do they then act surprised and wronged when it blows up in their faces?
It blew up in their faces because of Comey. The FBI had closed their bullshit investigation months before the election.
Comey's letter came out a week or so before the election right? That was devastating. The session several months before where he said "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case" was a plus...not a minus.
But if there's no investigation it can't blow up in their faces. This is the opposite of the chicken and the egg. We know which came first.
And, yes, he did say no reasonable prosecutor would pursue case. Which is why I kinda doubt he was trying to screw her over. Otherwise why not just recommend charges?
He created the idea that she might still be prosecuted...the "oh hey we just found some more shit let's open this back up" scenario
then a few days later "still nothing here"
That's fucked up. He was pushed to write that initial letter for a reason. That's plain as day.
Maybe. I don't understand why he didn't just recommend charges in the first place then.
Charges for what exactly? I never saw anything that actually seemed to justify charges. Isn't that the issue??
Believe me, the last thing I want to do this afternoon is relitigate the FBI investigation. I don't think there was anything that justified charges either. But there was classified info on a private server. Not much but it was there. What I'm saying is if Comey wanted to screw her, reasonable prosecution or not, why not just recommend charges when he had the chance? Force the justice department to either follow through and prosecute or look partisan for overruling the FBI. Why clear her? So when a new trove of emails appears and he notifies congress about them, I'm not as convinced as most that he was out to get Clinton.
Because he couldn't...because he knew that a prosecutor wouldn't touch it.
Why couldn't he? He was only making a recommendation. It seems if he wanted to screw her that would have been the perfect way. But he didn't.
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
I don't think it matters: whether undue influence was the tipping point now or in four or eight or forty years doesn't change the fact that undue influence should be investigated. Whether it's internal or external, the government should be defining what undue influence is, and should not tolerate it (and I'm not passing judgment on either Comey or Russia in saying this). If you let your dog shit in your kitchen today, it's safe to say that you can expect to see more shit in your kitchen tomorrow (and just because today's doesn't stink, doesn't mean tomorrow's won't).
To add to this, the scope of either of these sources of influence is literally unknowable, and I don't understand why it's still being discussed.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
Yeah and why? Was it politically motivated?
The Comey letter was the nail in the coffin. She lost the EC by about 77,000 votes. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
Whether it was politically motivated or not, it was real and it was known. Democrats nominated her anyways. How do they then act surprised and wronged when it blows up in their faces?
It blew up in their faces because of Comey. The FBI had closed their bullshit investigation months before the election.
Comey's letter came out a week or so before the election right? That was devastating. The session several months before where he said "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case" was a plus...not a minus.
But if there's no investigation it can't blow up in their faces. This is the opposite of the chicken and the egg. We know which came first.
And, yes, he did say no reasonable prosecutor would pursue case. Which is why I kinda doubt he was trying to screw her over. Otherwise why not just recommend charges?
He created the idea that she might still be prosecuted...the "oh hey we just found some more shit let's open this back up" scenario
then a few days later "still nothing here"
That's fucked up. He was pushed to write that initial letter for a reason. That's plain as day.
Maybe. I don't understand why he didn't just recommend charges in the first place then.
Charges for what exactly? I never saw anything that actually seemed to justify charges. Isn't that the issue??
Believe me, the last thing I want to do this afternoon is relitigate the FBI investigation. I don't think there was anything that justified charges either. But there was classified info on a private server. Not much but it was there. What I'm saying is if Comey wanted to screw her, reasonable prosecution or not, why not just recommend charges when he had the chance? Force the justice department to either follow through and prosecute or look partisan for overruling the FBI. Why clear her? So when a new trove of emails appears and he notifies congress about them, I'm not as convinced as most that he was out to get Clinton.
Was there really classified info though? What I read suggested that it was marked classified retroactively, and only "confidential" info was sent at the time.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
I don't think it matters: whether undue influence was the tipping point now or in four or eight or forty years doesn't change the fact that undue influence should be investigated. Whether it's internal or external, the government should be defining what undue influence is, and should not tolerate it (and I'm not passing judgment on either Comey or Russia in saying this). If you let your dog shit in your kitchen today, it's safe to say that you can expect to see more shit in your kitchen tomorrow (and just because today's doesn't stink, doesn't mean tomorrow's won't).
To add to this, the scope of either of these sources of influence is literally unknowable, and I don't understand why it's still being discussed.
I agree. It should be investigated. Fully.
I'm still discussing because I find it interesting and I believe it's important. I can't speak for anyone else.
I don't know why this is such an issue. Pretty unprecedented for a nominee to have to deal with the Russian shit and Comey's bullshit.
Pretty unprecedented to have a nominee who is the subject of an active FBI investigation, too.
I don't disagree that this election was unusual, that Comey hurt her, or that Russia may have worked against her. I just don't buy that Comey and Russia were the primary reasons she lost.
Yeah and why? Was it politically motivated?
The Comey letter was the nail in the coffin. She lost the EC by about 77,000 votes. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.
Whether it was politically motivated or not, it was real and it was known. Democrats nominated her anyways. How do they then act surprised and wronged when it blows up in their faces?
It blew up in their faces because of Comey. The FBI had closed their bullshit investigation months before the election.
Comey's letter came out a week or so before the election right? That was devastating. The session several months before where he said "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case" was a plus...not a minus.
But if there's no investigation it can't blow up in their faces. This is the opposite of the chicken and the egg. We know which came first.
And, yes, he did say no reasonable prosecutor would pursue case. Which is why I kinda doubt he was trying to screw her over. Otherwise why not just recommend charges?
He created the idea that she might still be prosecuted...the "oh hey we just found some more shit let's open this back up" scenario
then a few days later "still nothing here"
That's fucked up. He was pushed to write that initial letter for a reason. That's plain as day.
Maybe. I don't understand why he didn't just recommend charges in the first place then.
Charges for what exactly? I never saw anything that actually seemed to justify charges. Isn't that the issue??
Believe me, the last thing I want to do this afternoon is relitigate the FBI investigation. I don't think there was anything that justified charges either. But there was classified info on a private server. Not much but it was there. What I'm saying is if Comey wanted to screw her, reasonable prosecution or not, why not just recommend charges when he had the chance? Force the justice department to either follow through and prosecute or look partisan for overruling the FBI. Why clear her? So when a new trove of emails appears and he notifies congress about them, I'm not as convinced as most that he was out to get Clinton.
Was there really classified info though? What I read suggested that it was marked classified retroactively, and only "confidential" info was sent at the time.
I don't even know anymore. It became an issue where you could find articles saying almost anything. Each one seemed to contradict the last. My understanding was that there were a few emails marked classified at the time they were sent. But I've been wrong before.
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Clinton, sued? For "fraudulent campaign donations"? I think these big money campaign donors understand how an election works somewhat better than you do, if you think they believed a win was guaranteed.
yes, but did not Clinton spend millions on a victory celebration that did not happen ? I feel it was possible that bets on a sure win were made although like you say, they had to know it was a risky investment.
Of course she/her party prepped for a victory celebration. You don't pull these things off on a couple of hours notice and the winning party/candidate needs to be ready. If anyone donated expecting that it was a lock, they should stay away from the stock market.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Clinton, sued? For "fraudulent campaign donations"? I think these big money campaign donors understand how an election works somewhat better than you do, if you think they believed a win was guaranteed.
yes, but did not Clinton spend millions on a victory celebration that did not happen ? I feel it was possible that bets on a sure win were made although like you say, they had to know it was a risky investment.
Of course she/her party prepped for a victory celebration. You don't pull these things off on a couple of hours notice and the winning party/candidate needs to be ready. If anyone donated expecting that it was a lock, they should stay away from the stock market.
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Clinton, sued? For "fraudulent campaign donations"? I think these big money campaign donors understand how an election works somewhat better than you do, if you think they believed a win was guaranteed.
yes, but did not Clinton spend millions on a victory celebration that did not happen ? I feel it was possible that bets on a sure win were made although like you say, they had to know it was a risky investment.
Of course she/her party prepped for a victory celebration. You don't pull these things off on a couple of hours notice and the winning party/candidate needs to be ready. If anyone donated expecting that it was a lock, they should stay away from the stock market.
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Clinton, sued? For "fraudulent campaign donations"? I think these big money campaign donors understand how an election works somewhat better than you do, if you think they believed a win was guaranteed.
yes, but did not Clinton spend millions on a victory celebration that did not happen ? I feel it was possible that bets on a sure win were made although like you say, they had to know it was a risky investment.
Of course she/her party prepped for a victory celebration. You don't pull these things off on a couple of hours notice and the winning party/candidate needs to be ready. If anyone donated expecting that it was a lock, they should stay away from the stock market.
She didn't have a concession speech planned.
Has this been confirmed?
And did he?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Now that the true constituency of this Democratic party - the big donors - are demanding answers, look for the introspection I've hoped for to finally take place.
But in the weeks since, the wealthy Democrats who helped pump over $1 billion into Clinton’s losing effort have been urging their local finance staffers, state party officials, and campaign aides to provide a more thorough explanation of what went wrong. With no dispassionate, centralized analysis of how Clinton failed so spectacularly, they insist, how can they be expected to keep contributing to the party?
“A lot of the bundlers and donors still are in shock and disbelief by what happened. They’re looking for some introspection and analysis about what really happened, what worked and what didn’t,” said Ken Martin, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a top campaign bundler himself. "It may take some time to do that, but people are still just scratching their heads."
reading it sounds like (between the lines) that the bundlers and donors are not getting what they have paid for in advance ? Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party seems to want something along the lines of easier immigration access for cheaper farm labor (no $15 an hour labor) or maybe something different ? but it would be interesting to know what returns were expected for the Billion dollar investment made by these labor leaders, business executives and owners and even the foreign contributor's, I wouldn't be surprised he she was sued at some point for fraudulent campaign donations by these same people.
Clinton, sued? For "fraudulent campaign donations"? I think these big money campaign donors understand how an election works somewhat better than you do, if you think they believed a win was guaranteed.
yes, but did not Clinton spend millions on a victory celebration that did not happen ? I feel it was possible that bets on a sure win were made although like you say, they had to know it was a risky investment.
Of course she/her party prepped for a victory celebration. You don't pull these things off on a couple of hours notice and the winning party/candidate needs to be ready. If anyone donated expecting that it was a lock, they should stay away from the stock market.
She didn't have a concession speech planned.
Has this been confirmed?
And did he?
If I were to guess I would say she had a concession speech written but it was drastically rewritten before she gave it the next day. And while Trump surely had a victory speech written it was likely the concession speech his people were thinking he would give.
Comments
1. Energize the anti-Clinton vote....piss people off who might have thought Trump didn't have a chance and possibly give me more of a chance
2. Take some momentum away from the pro Clinton vote.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
And, yes, he did say no reasonable prosecutor would pursue case. Which is why I kinda doubt he was trying to screw her over. Otherwise why not just recommend charges?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
then a few days later "still nothing here"
That's fucked up. He was pushed to write that initial letter for a reason. That's plain as day.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
He did his best with the comment about "reckless disregard" but that comment was referring to the private server....the server that didn't get hacked. The server that was set up for a former POTUS to have in his home.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
To add to this, the scope of either of these sources of influence is literally unknowable, and I don't understand why it's still being discussed.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I'm still discussing because I find it interesting and I believe it's important. I can't speak for anyone else.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
1. True blue Dems, vote Dem no matter who
2. ABT, anybody but Trump
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
https://mobile.twitter.com/davidfrum/status/810264298853376001
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."