Meh, either he could testify/inform congress in the 90 days or not. So there is no anger about his Sept 28th testimony on this subject because it was positive for Hillary even though it is now inaccurate? But he can not update this information to make it accurate, we just need the citizens believe that the whole issue is resolved.



Did they previously testify about Trump's tax return and give what is now misleading testimony? It really seems to me that your upset about how it impacts Hillary and not that he can inform congress the actual facts or update wrong information.

but surely the states are related not independent. A bookie won't give you a parley on trump winning "Michigan+Colorado+Ohio+Florida+Iowa".

We've also hit the last week of the modern campaign tradition: GOP stops in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b06_story.html

You'll see the right-wing newsophere play this as "look how the candidate is opening up the map!" instead of the traditional battlegrounds they were playing for (in this case, Nevada, North Carolina, Colorado) look increasingly distant. See McCain in 2008, Romney in 2012. See:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...omment-page-7/

November 1, 2012:

I think the Sept. 28th hearings were inappropriate. They were clearly partisan. I think (and have said) that a lot of the information the FBI has released is clearly inappropriate and is not information they'd release in any other case. The press conference with Comey editorializing was clearly inappropriate and not something they would do in any other case.

But besides all of that, saying an investigation is done with no charges recommended, is not the same as saying that its opening an investigation or on-going.



Read above, there is a lot that stinks about the way the FBI has acted here in blatant disregard to how they treat every other case.

But if you're so concerned with testimony, what would you say if a Democratic controlled committee called in the IRS and wanted testimony about the tax returns of Donald Trump? Does that all of a sudden make it ok for the IRS to provide that information?

John Pfaff ‏@JohnFPfaff 22m22 minutes ago
John Pfaff Retweeted Dave Weigel
1. As of 2007, four states’ ENTIRE INDIGENT DEFENSE BUDGET were “single-digit millionaires.”

Maine: $9.6M
ND: $5M
SD: $8.8M
WY: $8.9M

If Trump wins it is because the polls are not reflecting people don't want to be polled out of fear of Fema death camps.

Sometimes it comes down to a judgement call where both doing something and doing nothing are both 'acting on feels'.

There are laws that the IRS can not disclose that information even to congress. So no it would not be ok for the IRS to break the law. But if the law was different and Dem Committee had them testify and that testimony latter was found to be inaccurate, no problem with them correcting the record so that the information provided to the congress/public is the truth.

That specific question was not asked at the 3-6-16 debate, but also:

"leaking" that there will be a question on lead in water at a debate in ****ING FLINT, MICHIGAN is not leaking anything of value.

to be fair, how sure are we that this is bad strategy? In order to win, he has to turn '08 and '12 blue states red. With VA, CO, NC looking increasingly difficult, upper midwest (+FL and maybe +PA) is the best path, no?

Trump campaigning in new mexico seems like the worst idea ever. Like, can anyone justify that? New Mexico is 5 evs and also one of the worst states ever for Trump. Maybe he could spend the week campaigning in hawaii and washington dc too. I dont get it.

If NC really is lost for Trump then there are zero paths for victory for him barring a huge polling error or something which seems extremely unlikely. I think in the end Hillary winning her firewall +NC and maybe Florida as the most likely outcome even with the most recent events.

Here is some information from the initial instance of Brazile emailing the Clinton campaign:

politico story

Video clip:

russian sponsored voting machine hacking has been his only path for many weeks now imo

Really? Because in one case people have pointed to clear policy and laws that can be followed by the individual. And in the other case, people have pointed out *feels*.

Pretty much this.

Seems strange so far that the only (attempted) voter fraud articles I've seen pointed out has been done by paranoid Trump supporters who are deathly scared of a Hillary presidency.

not all that surprising since Trump is openly encouraging his army of morons to do it

Awice, are you still taking bets and at what price? Getting 1/3 at paddypower right now.

So if Hillary loses then you are going to claim/assume it is rigged? How does this make you any better than the Trumpkins who have been spouting this nonsense for months. There are ways Trump could win which would be legitimate but they mostly revolve around the polls being completely wrong (very unlikely) and turnout favoring Trump (again very unlikely although I do think there is an enthusiasm gap which could result in this although Hillary's superior GOTV operation should more than negate any possible edge there).

And as if on cue, CNN has severed ties with Donna Brazile

Politico story.

Seems like there are two sets of rules in this election...

That may be the case, others may disagree about it being so clear.

Either way, if in his judgement a letter was the best course of action then he could have been a lot clearer about a lack of content.

The irony is delicious.

Yet CNN keeps Corey Lewandowski on the payrolls after he is on Trump's private plane months after quitting as his campaign manager and working for CNN...

CNN trying so hard, but no matter how they pander to conservatives as soon as they report that Latinos aren't mostly criminals and that voter fraud isn't widespread, they're "Clinton News Network" all over again.