Finally Gowdy Opens Investigation Into DOJ’s Exoneration of Hillary Clinton

[G-Man]

Just seems odd to me that most of those saying the current POTUS is divisive (NOT just on this board) are the same ones who are rioting, committing crimes in the name of protest, and refusing to abide by the Constitutional election results. This election is only divisive because of the naysayers.

And believing all this hate just popped up in the last year is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.   

From the second Obama mentioned running for president, those that disagreed with his politics were labelled racist.  The hate didn't even start then, but that's when it became OK to label and hate others, out loud, who disagreed with you.  It's like we went from an acoustic guitar to a loud electric one with insane distortion in 2007.

[Chrisj CMA]

Just seems odd to me that most of those saying the current POTUS is divisive (NOT just on this board) are the same ones who are rioting, committing crimes in the name of protest, and refusing to abide by the Constitutional election results. This election is only divisive because of the naysayers.

And believing all this hate just popped up in the last year is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.   

From the second Obama mentioned running for president, those that disagreed with his politics were labelled racist.  The hate didn't even start then, but that's when it became OK to label and hate others, out loud, who disagreed with you.  It's like we went from an acoustic guitar to a loud electric one with insane distortion in 2007.

 

G-Man that was a profound way of putting it.  Seems accuate and true but so few can see it (many refuse to see it) and far less can articulate as clearly as you have done here.  Agree 100% 

[Rams]

I still haven’t figured out why Hillary lost. Was it the Russians? or was it wikileaks ? or was it Podesta ? Or Comey ? or was it a sexual predator husband ? or was it her chief of staff's husband Wiener’s pictures of his penis ? was it a subpoena violation ? or was it the corrupt Clinton foundation ? or was it the congressional lies ? or was it the Bengazi bungle that cost several lives ? or was it pay for play ? or was it the travel gate scandal ? or was it the Whitewater scandal ? or the cattlegate scandal ? Or the Trooper Gate scandal ? Or was it the $15 million for Chelsea’s apt bought with foundation money ? Or Comey's investigation ? Or her husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation ? Or was it stealing debate questions ? Was it forensically deleting 30,000 emails ? Was it the Seth Rich murder ? Was it calling half the USA deplorable ? Was it the underhanded immoral treatment of Bernie Sanders ? Was it the Vince Foster murder ? The Jennifer Flowers assault ? The Jennifer Flowers settlement ? The Paula Jones law suit ? The $800,000 Paula Jones settlement ? The lie about taking on sniper fire in Eastern Europe ? The impeachment ? The $6 billion she "lost" when in charge of the State dept. ? The $10 million she took for the pardon of Marc Rich ? Gee, I just can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems to be right in front of me.

Maybe this investigation should include more of HRC and her husband's adventure to wealth and power and just not look into who actually paid for the Russian crap or, who's foundation got millions when the uranium was sold to the Russians, or Benghazi...........................................   Where the heck does their corruption end?

[Robert]

Actually Hillary was not really ever investigated for the email scandal and why do I say this? Because the decision NOT to prosecute Hillary was made before the completion of the investigation.

So the new investigation is for the FBI and Comey that decided before the completion of the investigation that he would not prosecute Hillary.

Plus the fact that Comey decided the direction of the prosecution was also wrong since it was Lynch or the dept of Justice that should have made it Maybe this was the reason for the tarmac meeting Lynch was involved with.

So anyone who says Hillary was not charged with a crime was correct since she bribed or colluded with or somehow changed the mind of the investigative agency.

Kind of like every western we see where the bad guy has the sheriff in his pocket and runs the town and murders people without any law.

FYI:

For over a year, the Hillary Clinton campaign, other Democrats and liberal pundits have pummeled President Trump and his men with one main weapon: a dossier.

Written by former British spy Christopher Steele, who was paid by opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which received the money from the Clinton campaign, the 35 pages of memos became the Democrats’ vehicle to promote supposed Trump-Russia collusion in the presidential election.

The irony: Virtually all of Mr. Steele’s sources are Russian, meaning Democrats have been indirectly colluding with Moscow disinformation to bash the Trump team for purportedly doing the same thing.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Opposition research is usually done by the opposition. Something everybody seems to be overlooking is this was originally started by one of his opponents in the Primaries. (Most likely Bush)

[Rams]

Opposition research is usually done by the opposition. Something everybody seems to be overlooking is this was originally started by one of his opponents in the Primaries. (Most likely Bush)

Easy to throw a dart but one is supposed to hit a target, not the wall the target hangs on.

Most likely?   Hmmm..............

[f6john]

I'm not interested in seeing more millionaires in jail, there are things far worse for most of these people. We need the evidence that is irrefutable that these people did what we think they did. We need the evidence so Hilliary can't get on fake news and say it's just the same old baloney the right has been peddling for years. We have members here that seem to share her view so we need to get down to the nitty gritty. I want them, whoever they are, disgraced to the point that even Jerry Springer wouldn't have them on his show. I want Joe and Mika to wake up and say, dayum Hilliard you really screwed the pouch didn't you!

"Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord"

Have no quarrel that. Jesus also said, he who is without sin cast the first stone and he also told a sinner after he had intervened to go and sin no more. I don't need a lecture on the Bible. We just need our elected officials to follow the principles therein and we would be talking a lot more about riding.

I am no one to be lecturing anyone on the Bible. And it wasn't meant to be. Your comments sounded like you were more interested in vengeance and ridicule than anything else.

Let me clairify. I have two grandsons. They are twins but they are as different in personality as any two children could be. I and my wife have spent the first two years of their lives as their full time care givers while mom and dad are at work. Now to the point. They test us daily to see what they can get away with, playing with electrical outlets, climbing on furniture (everything) biting each other and the list goes on. There is no shortage of love in their home but there has to be discipline too. I'm of the opinion that the most important lesson I can instill in them is, " actions have consequences ". It's working but it's a slow methodical process. I hope that what I can instill in them now will save them from a multitude of problems later in life.

Using Hilliard as an example. Millions of people support her and would maybe vote for her again and that's ok. But if she has broken the law or worse, the deeds need to be exposed. I don't need to see her in jail, "vengeance " ,but I do need for her to feel the conquences of her actions. Insert whatever action you think that should be. You can substitute any name you like for Hilliaries in the above statement and I would be fine with it. Look at Trumps situation, he and his campaign being investigated, I say let the chips fall where they may. So far it appears that most of the chips are falling on the Democratic side of things. He was very vocal from the beginning that there was no colusion on his part and so far...........

"if" is the operative word in your statement. So far after all the investigations of her there has been nothing charged. How long and how many dollars do you feel we should investigate her with ? I assume from your statement if the Mueller investigation finds Trump or his subordinates have committed crimes you will be ok with charging them ? Or will it be "Fake News" ?

I must be a poor communicator. Unlike the Dems, left, liberals, (I hate having to resort to labels all the time) who are as pure as fresh snowfall and as innocent as a newborn if Trump is guilty he should pay the price. I think he is a very decent man with flaws that anyone would see exposed to the media as he has been both voluntarily and thrust upon him. Such scrutiny, I'm sure is intense, exhausting and frustrating. Trump just won't play fair or should I say he won't fall in line with all the power brokers that are used to having their way.

When it comes to fake news, if I'm told the sun is shining, I go look outside. It seems what is real news today can become fake news tomorrow once some facts are verified. The reason we have fake news is that everyone of our outlets are ratings and advertising driven. News outlets seem to feel they have to put a spin on every story, I'll let you decide why that is.

I hope that is clear enough to quell any doubts you may have about my position.

[Rams]

The reason we have fake news is that everyone of our outlets are ratings and advertising driven. News outlets seem to feel they have to put a spin on every story, I'll let you decide why that is.

I hope that is clear enough to quell any doubts you may have about my position.

Very clear IMHO.   But I'm not sure I whole heartedly agree with you on why.   Both printed and electronic media have proven to me (IMHO) to have a left leaning bias.   I was reading in my local paper today about President Trump's recent opiate EO.   You'd think there would be some praise but no, all the co-authored editorial did was knock what he didn't do.   Never a positive comment.    When there is something positive, they never give this administration credit even though it is obviously due.

Yeah, they lean so far left it hard to understand how they can remain standing.

It's ironic that I even defend President Trump, he was (by far) my least favorite candidate on the Republican side.    Personally, I blame the Democrats for Mr. Trump being in the Oval Office.   If they had put up any kind of worth while candidate, there would be a Dem sitting in that chair.   I honestly don't personally know a single person that will admit voting for HRC.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The reason we have fake news is that everyone of our outlets are ratings and advertising driven. News outlets seem to feel they have to put a spin on every story, I'll let you decide why that is.

I hope that is clear enough to quell any doubts you may have about my position.

Very clear IMHO.   But I'm not sure I whole heartedly agree with you on why.   Both printed and electronic media have proven to me (IMHO) to have a left leaning bias.   I was reading in my local paper today about President Trump's recent opiate EO.   You'd think there would be some praise but no, all the co-authored editorial did was knock what he didn't do.   Never a positive comment.    When there is something positive, they never give this administration credit even though it is obviously due.

Yeah, they lean so far left it hard to understand how they can remain standing.

It's ironic that I even defend President Trump, he was (by far) my least favorite candidate on the Republican side.    Personally, I blame the Democrats for Mr. Trump being in the Oval Office.   If they had put up any kind of worth while candidate, there would be a Dem sitting in that chair.   I honestly don't know a single person that will admit voting for HRC.

yes you do.

[Rams]

The reason we have fake news is that everyone of our outlets are ratings and advertising driven. News outlets seem to feel they have to put a spin on every story, I'll let you decide why that is.

I hope that is clear enough to quell any doubts you may have about my position.

Very clear IMHO.   But I'm not sure I whole heartedly agree with you on why.   Both printed and electronic media have proven to me (IMHO) to have a left leaning bias.   I was reading in my local paper today about President Trump's recent opiate EO.   You'd think there would be some praise but no, all the co-authored editorial did was knock what he didn't do.   Never a positive comment.    When there is something positive, they never give this administration credit even though it is obviously due.

Yeah, they lean so far left it hard to understand how they can remain standing.

It's ironic that I even defend President Trump, he was (by far) my least favorite candidate on the Republican side.    Personally, I blame the Democrats for Mr. Trump being in the Oval Office.   If they had put up any kind of worth while candidate, there would be a Dem sitting in that chair.   I honestly don't know a single person that will admit voting for HRC.

yes you do.

Apparently, I wasn't clear and concise enough.   While I didn't think I needed to clarify this, I have gone back and attempted to make it clearer.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The reason we have fake news is that everyone of our outlets are ratings and advertising driven. News outlets seem to feel they have to put a spin on every story, I'll let you decide why that is.

I hope that is clear enough to quell any doubts you may have about my position.

Very clear IMHO.   But I'm not sure I whole heartedly agree with you on why.   Both printed and electronic media have proven to me (IMHO) to have a left leaning bias.   I was reading in my local paper today about President Trump's recent opiate EO.   You'd think there would be some praise but no, all the co-authored editorial did was knock what he didn't do.   Never a positive comment.    When there is something positive, they never give this administration credit even though it is obviously due.

Yeah, they lean so far left it hard to understand how they can remain standing.

It's ironic that I even defend President Trump, he was (by far) my least favorite candidate on the Republican side.    Personally, I blame the Democrats for Mr. Trump being in the Oval Office.   If they had put up any kind of worth while candidate, there would be a Dem sitting in that chair.   I honestly don't know a single person that will admit voting for HRC.

yes you do.

Apparently, I wasn't clear and concise enough.   While I didn't think I needed to clarify this, I have gone back and attempted to make it clearer.

I thought you and Baldo met at Inzane ?

[Rams]

I thought you and Baldo met at Inzane ?

There ya go thinking again...........   

We may differ on definitions.   I don't consider a 10 second meeting where someone says hello, I'm Bob to be sufficient to say I personally know someone.   I can say I've met him.   But if it makes you feel better, you can say you got me on that one. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I thought you and Baldo met at Inzane ?

There ya go thinking again...........   

We may differ on definitions.   I don't consider a 10 second meeting where someone says hello, I'm Bob to be sufficient to say I personally know someone.   I can say I've met him.   But if it makes you feel better, you can say you got me on that one. 

Dude, ease up. I didn't realize it was so important for you to be able to say you don't consort with the enemy. 

[Rams]

I thought you and Baldo met at Inzane ?

There ya go thinking again...........  

We may differ on definitions.   I don't consider a 10 second meeting where someone says hello, I'm Bob to be sufficient to say I personally know someone.   I can say I've met him.   But if it makes you feel better, you can say you got me on that one.  

Dude, ease up. I didn't realize it was so important for you to be able to say you don't consort with the enemy.  

Consort: VERB

habitually associate with (someone), typically with the disapproval of others:
"you chose to consort with the enemy"
synonyms: associate · keep company · mix · go around · spend time · socialize · fraternize · have dealings · run around · hang around/out · be thick

You assume much.
I find it interesting and note how you seem to find a way to throw a side insult or jab into most posts.  

[old2soon]

I still haven’t figured out why Hillary lost. Was it the Russians? or was it wikileaks ? or was it Podesta ? Or Comey ? or was it a sexual predator husband ? or was it her chief of staff's husband Wiener’s pictures of his penis ? was it a subpoena violation ? or was it the corrupt Clinton foundation ? or was it the congressional lies ? or was it the Bengazi bungle that cost several lives ? or was it pay for play ? or was it the travel gate scandal ? or was it the Whitewater scandal ? or the cattlegate scandal ? Or the Trooper Gate scandal ? Or was it the $15 million for Chelsea’s apt bought with foundation money ? Or Comey's investigation ? Or her husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation ? Or was it stealing debate questions ? Was it forensically deleting 30,000 emails ? Was it the Seth Rich murder ? Was it calling half the USA deplorable ? Was it the underhanded immoral treatment of Bernie Sanders ? Was it the Vince Foster murder ? The Jennifer Flowers assault ? The Jennifer Flowers settlement ? The Paula Jones law suit ? The $800,000 Paula Jones settlement ? The lie about taking on sniper fire in Eastern Europe ? The impeachment ? The $6 billion she "lost" when in charge of the State dept. ? The $10 million she took for the pardon of Marc Rich ? Gee, I just can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems to be right in front of me.

Maybe this investigation should include more of HRC and her husband's adventure to wealth and power and just not look into who actually paid for the Russian crap or, who's foundation got millions when the uranium was sold to the Russians, or Benghazi...........................................   Where the heck does their corruption end?

                        BUTBUTBUT aren't ya confusing the issues with what may in hindsight be facts?  I personally notice and take note of the difference on How the current POTUS is portrayed in the "news media"-a term I use sparingly-versus how the former potus was portrayed was in the "news media". I have lost most if not all my belief in "news media" since around bout Vietnam. RIDE SAFE.

[Willow]

I still haven’t figured out why Hillary lost. Was it the Russians? or was it wikileaks ? or was it Podesta ? Or Comey ? or was it a sexual predator husband ? or was it her chief of staff's husband Wiener’s pictures of his penis ? was it a subpoena violation ? or was it the corrupt Clinton foundation ? or was it the congressional lies ? or was it the Bengazi bungle that cost several lives ? or was it pay for play ? or was it the travel gate scandal ? or was it the Whitewater scandal ? or the cattlegate scandal ? Or the Trooper Gate scandal ? Or was it the $15 million for Chelsea’s apt bought with foundation money ? Or Comey's investigation ? Or her husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation ? Or was it stealing debate questions ? Was it forensically deleting 30,000 emails ? Was it the Seth Rich murder ? Was it calling half the USA deplorable ? Was it the underhanded immoral treatment of Bernie Sanders ? Was it the Vince Foster murder ? The Jennifer Flowers assault ? The Jennifer Flowers settlement ? The Paula Jones law suit ? The $800,000 Paula Jones settlement ? The lie about taking on sniper fire in Eastern Europe ? The impeachment ? The $6 billion she "lost" when in charge of the State dept. ? The $10 million she took for the pardon of Marc Rich ? Gee, I just can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems to be right in front of me.

Maybe this investigation should include more of HRC and her husband's adventure to wealth and power and just not look into who actually paid for the Russian crap or, who's foundation got millions when the uranium was sold to the Russians, or Benghazi...........................................   Where the heck does their corruption end?

I know that was meant to be humorous but here is why I believe Hillary lost the election.

Hillary Clinton alienated a large portion of the voting populace not only with the deplorable remark but basically in the way she dealt with middle America.  She did this on the assumption that there were enough committed liberals that she did not need to draw from the undecided pool in the middle.

Hillary Clinton lost a lot when she believed the polls and largely ignored or at least didn't concentrate on the middle America voters that she needed to add to her quiver.  She did this largely believing that she would win all the large electoral vote states and would not need middle America.

Hillary Clinton alienated a lot of the Democratic party voters when the party manipulated her winning over Bernie Sanders in states where he actually got more votes.

The conservatives won by a very small margin of votes where they needed them.  The conservatives need more than one term to recover from the previous eight years.  They do need to be careful to gain more support from the middle and not drive them away.

Oh, and if the Supreme Court nominations had not been such a prominent issue Hillary Clinton would have likely won the election.
 

[Rams]

Oh, and if the Supreme Court nominations had not been such a prominent issue Hillary Clinton would have likely won the election.
 

That particular issue is what I believe drove more Conservatives to the polls than anything else. just my opinion but, that came up in every pre-election conservation I had with everyone.   We most surely didn't need another Liberal on SCOTUS for life.   But, yes you are on target with everything you said.   

[G-Man]

Hillary Clinton lost a lot when she believed the polls and largely ignored or at least didn't concentrate on the middle America voters that she needed to add to her quiver.  She did this largely believing that she would win all the large electoral vote states and would not need middle America.
 

Coastal democrats don't give a rats a$$ about middle America (except for Chicago's votes, they don't care about Chicago's murders).  I have "discussions" regularly about the electoral college and democrats/liberals/progressives/etc. believe it should be abolished.  They believe the popular vote should be all that's needed to win a presidential election.  When I counter that by asking if they think it's right that 6 or 7 major cities should pick the president from now on they all answer YES.

Cheryl and I were riding in Wisconsin and saw a sign for a town that said population was 800.  Cheryl mentioned that there are more than 800 people living in one luxury apt. building in Manhattan.

 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'd be willing to bet the percentages of both sides against the Electoral College are pretty close. (I'm not one)

[Willow]

I'd be willing to bet the percentages of both sides against the Electoral College are pretty close. (I'm not one)

I'll take that bet and you'll lose.  I'm sitting on 18G available to bet.  You in?

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'd be willing to bet the percentages of both sides against the Electoral College are pretty close. (I'm not one)

I'll take that bet and you'll lose.  I'm sitting on 18G available to bet.  You in?

I'm afraid your available wagering change dwarf's mine. I be lucky to come up with $18. 

[Valker]

I'd be willing to bet the percentages of ignorant, easily swayed on both sides against the Electoral College are pretty close. (I'm not one)

FTFY. I'm not one either.

[scooperhsd]

I'm not either - I've ALWAYS (since I first heard about the E.C. in High School civics) have thought it's time to abolish it - regardless of party / politics. There was a time in our history I could see the necessity - but not now, with modern communications / travel options etc.

Now the conservatives will have a heart attack about abolishing it - because it means they need to go win the hearts and minds of the cities as well their traditional "flyover states" base.  it also means that liberals needs to go after the traditionally conservative states. I think competition in this arena is a good thing.

[Rams]

I'm not either - I've ALWAYS (since I first heard about the E.C. in High School civics) have thought it's time to abolish it - regardless of party / politics. There was a time in our history I could see the necessity - but not now, with modern communications / travel options etc.

Now the conservatives will have a heart attack about abolishing it - because it means they need to go win the hearts and minds of the cities as well their traditional "flyover states" base.  it also means that liberals needs to go after the traditionally conservative states. I think competition in this arena is a good thing.

Personally, I believe that killing the EC would be a fatal move for this republic.   When the fly over states (as you referred to them) no longer have a say in how this country is led, they will eventually lose interest in being part of this nation and the "food basket and energy source" of this nation will cease to feed and serve the more populated areas that can't support themselves.   That will eventually lead to either a civil war and/or, two (maybe three) separate nations instead of one united nation.

Actually, all that has to happen is to shut off the food and energy resources the "population centers" you speak of need and they might come around all on their own.   While there is a major difference in the numbers, most of those population centers couldn't survive without those folks in those "fly over" states.

[Gavin_Sons]

I'm not either - I've ALWAYS (since I first heard about the E.C. in High School civics) have thought it's time to abolish it - regardless of party / politics. There was a time in our history I could see the necessity - but not now, with modern communications / travel options etc.

Now the conservatives will have a heart attack about abolishing it - because it means they need to go win the hearts and minds of the cities as well their traditional "flyover states" base.  it also means that liberals needs to go after the traditionally conservative states. I think competition in this arena is a good thing.

So you want California and Florida to decide our president every year? Screw what the rest of the country wants let's just leet the most populated states choose our fate.   

[Jess from VA]

I'm not either - I've ALWAYS (since I first heard about the E.C. in High School civics) have thought it's time to abolish it - regardless of party / politics. There was a time in our history I could see the necessity - but not now, with modern communications / travel options etc.

Now the conservatives will have a heart attack about abolishing it - because it means they need to go win the hearts and minds of the cities as well their traditional "flyover states" base.  it also means that liberals needs to go after the traditionally conservative states. I think competition in this arena is a good thing.

So you want California and Florida to decide our president every year? Screw what the rest of the country wants let's just let the most populated states choose our fate.   

Actually, it would be the Free crap Army deciding all future national elections. (and there is no changing their minds possible)

[scooperhsd]

I'm not either - I've ALWAYS (since I first heard about the E.C. in High School civics) have thought it's time to abolish it - regardless of party / politics. There was a time in our history I could see the necessity - but not now, with modern communications / travel options etc.

Now the conservatives will have a heart attack about abolishing it - because it means they need to go win the hearts and minds of the cities as well their traditional "flyover states" base.  it also means that liberals needs to go after the traditionally conservative states. I think competition in this arena is a good thing.

So you want California and Florida to decide our president every year? Screw what the rest of the country wants let's just leet the most populated states choose our fate.  

Why don't you take a look at the RAW numbers of votes ?

Of the 7 largest states (California, Florida, Illinois, new York,  Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas) -

Clinton received 30,104,089 votes out of her total of 66,495,553
Trump received 24,564,030 votes out of his total of 63,816,233

One straight thing you can see right away - Trump DID win based on the smaller states (and electoral votes).

So the election is not totally dominated by the Democrats in the largest states - the whole country DID have an impact.

[G-Man]

......because it means they need to go win the hearts and minds of the cities as well their traditional "flyover states" base.  it also means that liberals needs to go after the traditionally conservative states. I think competition in this arena is a good thing.

This is why you NEED the EC... You just proved it's worth.  Well, half.  The conservatives will have to go after the cities, but the Left doesn't have to go after the conservative areas because as long as they have the cities (and only a handful of them) they have the popular vote.  The EC makes the Left go after conservative and leaning areas, the ones Clinton forewent. 

Without the EC, 6 metropolitan areas will pick the president.  Judging by all of the criteria we judge success of a community on, I'd rather the thinking behind those cities stay there and NOT run the rest of the country.  I wouldn't want Sun Beam's or Diblasio/Helmut's or Rom's nonsense ruling over the entire country.  We see the debt and division the last 8 years under their nonsense has lead us. 

[Oss]

The E.C. is as relevant today than ever before for the same reasons as when the less populous states were scared of Virginia and New York

This past electrion demonstrated the perils of demonizing and considering a portion of the voting public either irrelevant or deplorable

Really looking forward to next year's elections to see if the trend to conservatism and the disgust with both entrenched incumbents breaks the logjam in washington dc

Locally I am supporting a man who came to my door running for county legislator  He didnt care what my political affiliation was  He told me his agenda his qualifications and I knew the former officer, volunteer EMT was the person right for the job over the other candidate who treated the office like calf treats a hind tit

[Tx Bohemian]

I still haven’t figured out why Hillary lost. Was it the Russians? or was it wikileaks ? or was it Podesta ? Or Comey ? or was it a sexual predator husband ? or was it her chief of staff's husband Wiener’s pictures of his penis ? was it a subpoena violation ? or was it the corrupt Clinton foundation ? or was it the congressional lies ? or was it the Bengazi bungle that cost several lives ? or was it pay for play ? or was it the travel gate scandal ? or was it the Whitewater scandal ? or the cattlegate scandal ? Or the Trooper Gate scandal ? Or was it the $15 million for Chelsea’s apt bought with foundation money ? Or Comey's investigation ? Or her husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation ? Or was it stealing debate questions ? Was it forensically deleting 30,000 emails ? Was it the Seth Rich murder ? Was it calling half the USA deplorable ? Was it the underhanded immoral treatment of Bernie Sanders ? Was it the Vince Foster murder ? The Jennifer Flowers assault ? The Jennifer Flowers settlement ? The Paula Jones law suit ? The $800,000 Paula Jones settlement ? The lie about taking on sniper fire in Eastern Europe ? The impeachment ? The $6 billion she "lost" when in charge of the State dept. ? The $10 million she took for the pardon of Marc Rich ? Gee, I just can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems to be right in front of me.

Maybe this investigation should include more of HRC and her husband's adventure to wealth and power and just not look into who actually paid for the Russian crap or, who's foundation got millions when the uranium was sold to the Russians, or Benghazi...........................................   Where the heck does their corruption end?

I know that was meant to be humorous but here is why I believe Hillary lost the election.

Hillary Clinton alienated a large portion of the voting populace not only with the deplorable remark but basically in the way she dealt with middle America.  She did this on the assumption that there were enough committed liberals that she did not need to draw from the undecided pool in the middle.

Hillary Clinton lost a lot when she believed the polls and largely ignored or at least didn't concentrate on the middle America voters that she needed to add to her quiver.  She did this largely believing that she would win all the large electoral vote states and would not need middle America.

Hillary Clinton alienated a lot of the Democratic party voters when the party manipulated her winning over Bernie Sanders in states where he actually got more votes.

The conservatives won by a very small margin of votes where they needed them.  The conservatives need more than one term to recover from the previous eight years.  They do need to be careful to gain more support from the middle and not drive them away.

Oh, and if the Supreme Court nominations had not been such a prominent issue Hillary Clinton would have likely won the election.
 

Do they need to STOP THE PRESSES and add this to the "What Happened" book?

Maybe you can give clinton a call because evidently she's still trying to figure it out!!

And IMO Rams statement is more sad than humorous.

[scooperhsd]

......because it means they need to go win the hearts and minds of the cities as well their traditional "flyover states" base.  it also means that liberals needs to go after the traditionally conservative states. I think competition in this arena is a good thing.

This is why you NEED the EC... You just proved it's worth.  Well, half.  The conservatives will have to go after the cities, but the Left doesn't have to go after the conservative areas because as long as they have the cities (and only a handful of them) they have the popular vote.  The EC makes the Left go after conservative and leaning areas, the ones Clinton forewent. 

Without the EC, 6 metropolitan areas will pick the president.  Judging by all of the criteria we judge success of a community on, I'd rather the thinking behind those cities stay there and NOT run the rest of the country.  I wouldn't want Sun Beam's or Diblasio/Helmut's or Rom's nonsense ruling over the entire country.  We see the debt and division the last 8 years under their nonsense has lead us. 

My alternative to the current method shows a somewhat surprising result -

Alternative - instead of "all or None" for each states electors - split them up based on proportion of the vote. If you do this, Clinton gets 265, Trump gets 266 - thereby throwing the election to the House ....