Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they've found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The Clinton camp is running out of time to challenge the election. According to one of the activists, the deadline in Wisconsin to file for a recount is Friday; in Pennsylvania, it's Monday; and Michigan is next Wednesday. Whether Clinton will call for a recount remains unclear. The academics so far have only a circumstantial case that would require not just a recount but a forensic audit of voting machines.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Give it up she lost.

#1 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-22 08:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hill lost the election, though it wouldn't be the first stolen election this century if this turns out to be true, but..........

The Dems need to suck it up accept the loss, and let the alt-right ----- F this up so bad (since they control congress and presidency there will be no one but them to blame), and they all get tossed out on their asses in 4 years.

#2 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2016-11-22 08:10 PM | Reply

The Dems need to suck it up accept the loss, and let the alt-right ----- F this up so bad (since they control congress and presidency there will be no one but them to blame), and they all get tossed out on their asses in 4 years.

#2 | POSTED BY ABORTED_MONSON

Heck, if they end up sucking as bad as the Obama Democrats did they could end up losing the House in a landslide in as little as 2 years.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-22 08:12 PM | Reply

She should do everything she can to keep Trump out of the WH.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-22 08:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's too late, Danni.

She already gave her concession speech.

Trump is our next president.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-22 08:17 PM | Reply

Why not challenge the results? What does she have to lose?

#6 | Posted by moder8 at 2016-11-22 08:18 PM | Reply

If they think there's a real case, they should try. Prediction, they don't.

#7 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-22 08:22 PM | Reply

Definitely they should try. If there is evidence of criminal interference with the election process of course it should be pursued vigorously. This is a no-brainer for anyone who cares about democracy, regardless of which candidate you support.

#8 | Posted by moder8 at 2016-11-22 08:28 PM | Reply

This would expose the true nature of US Democracy. A country obsessed with monitoring other countries.

But the people who actually run this country do not tolerate the truth. We've witnessed this before. They will destroy records, send planeloads of demonstrators to obstruct any recount, create judicial entanglement and delay that will then become a justification for doing the partisan thing. Then everyone goes back to their job, because they can't afford to do anything else.

#9 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-11-22 08:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It's too late, Danni. She already gave her concession speech.

There's no legal significance to a concession speech.

If there are irregularities in a potentially decisive number of states, she should call for a recount and avail herself of any other legal rights available.

She should fight to win, even if the chances are 1 in 1,000. If there's any chance of a hack in a swing state it needs to be exposed, for the good of the country even if it does not change the outcome.

#10 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-22 08:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

A reversal of results would make it difficult for Obama to pardon her. With all of the R's in Congress, well, I don't think she wants to be the first woman President to be impeached.

#11 | Posted by Whizzo at 2016-11-22 08:42 PM | Reply

Well, well what have we here,eh? Heard a short while ago that she's up by 1.7+/- million votes in CA. She owes her supporters to challenge these counts ASAP.

#12 | Posted by b_al at 2016-11-22 08:45 PM | Reply

The past is prologue(?):

Anonymous, Karl Rove and 2012 Election Fix?
#s 8-9-10 are right.

And believe it or not, in this case I hope the analysts are wrong because them being might tear apart the country. But we do need to research this even if the results aren't binding. If Voter ID is important, the integrity of our election results are far, far, far more important. Anyone thinking less about the latter than the former is a hypocrite of the highest order.

This is about criminal right and wrong, not partisan left nor right.

#13 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-22 08:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"She should fight to win, even if the chances are 1 in 1,000"

If she wants lawyers to take this on, she might give it better odds...

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-22 08:51 PM | Reply

This is about criminal right and wrong, not partisan left nor right.

#13 | Posted by tonyroma

No it isn't, Tony Truther.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-22 08:52 PM | Reply

If there was election fraud, I think we all want to know that.

#16 | Posted by LEgregius at 2016-11-22 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"If there are irregularities in a potentially decisive number of states, she should call for a recount and avail herself of any other legal rights available"

how 'bout recounting states that are heavily Hispanic? Obama urged illegals to vote!!

#17 | Posted by Maverick at 2016-11-22 08:54 PM | Reply

Hey where was ACORN this election year? LOL

FACT: DEMOCRATS CHEAT!! just ask Bernie

#18 | Posted by Maverick at 2016-11-22 08:55 PM | Reply

She should give it a go, but I can't help but wonder how such an action would be received on this website and elsewhere if the roles were reversed and Trump was being suggested that he should challenge the election results.

#19 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-22 08:58 PM | Reply

1) it is unlikely she tries a challenge
2) it would be disastrous and chaotic to have such a reversal...

#20 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-22 08:59 PM | Reply

It would prove there is a God. I found it odd, and I've mentioned this on other sites, that all three of those states were so far off from the polls. I didn't think it was any nationwide monkey-business, but I wonder in rural areas with little supervision if any vote-shredding was going on. Trump's election surprised everyone...and I find that a little odd.

Hopefully she does challenge it and wins, even if it's four years of gridlock, chaos and obstruction. It's better than Trump. Anything is better than Trump (except Pence, Sessions, Flynn, Priebus, Bannon etc...)

#21 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-22 09:12 PM | Reply

Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. Michigan's 16 votes are still not apportioned because that race is still too close to call. It would take overturning the results in both Wisconsin (10 Electoral College votes) and Pennsylvania (20 votes), in addition to winning Michigan's 16, for Clinton to win the Electoral College. There is also the complicating factor of "faithless electors," or members of the Electoral College who do not vote according to the popular vote in their states. At least six electoral voters have said they would not vote for Trump, despite the fact that he won their states.

People like Karl Rove are able to make small changes in the count of just one or two districts, difficult to expose, and flip the result, because of the electoral college system, a 0.3% win takes every electoral vote. Impossible to expose if records are destroyed as they were in 2004 in Ohio.

The only independent analysis of what happened in Ohio was done by Richard Hayes Phillips and published in the book, Witness to a Crime. Phillips and his team analyzed more than 120,000 ballots, 127 polls books, and 141 signature books from Ohio's 2004 election. Phillips found zero irregularities in vote totals from all the counties that reported results before the servers crashed at 11:14pm.

But of the fourteen counties that came in after the crash connected Ohio's election computers to SmartTECH's computers in Chattanooga, every single one of them showed voter irregularities, all that favored George W. Bush. Rethugs own SmartTECH, that takes over when Ohio crashes, which it has done twice at ~11:15.

In Cleveland's Fourth Ward, in 2000, Al Gore won 95% of that ward's vote. But in 2004, the county reported its results after the 11:14 pm crash, and it showed that Kerry had only won 59% of the vote, a 35% drop without any explanation. There were several other abnormalities across Ohio's post-server crash that delivered the state to Bush.

John Kerry never protested the election and to this day, these 2004 voter abnormalities have never been addressed.

#22 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-11-22 09:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Y'all are hoping for a Hillary win and I'm hoping for a sexy body. At least we're hoping for something.

#23 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-22 09:14 PM | Reply

Change takes more than hope.

#24 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-11-22 09:25 PM | Reply

You do pilates Laura and Hillary will lawyer-up. Then everyone can be happy, K princess?

#25 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-22 09:27 PM | Reply

I'm not hoping for a Hillary win. I'm hoping for the integrity of our elections to be taken more seriously.

When you know a foreign state is hacking your political institutions and you know our voting systems have security vulnerabilities, to not investigate every curious result in a state is pathetic weakness. We're supposed to be a superpower. Instead we're acting like a failed state that Russia wants to destabilize and control.

#26 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-22 09:27 PM | Reply

You're delusional if you think Russia played more of a role in our election than certain, supposedly 'neutral' media outlets in this country.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-22 09:28 PM | Reply

...the integrity of our election results are far, far, far more important. -- #13 | Posted by tonyroma

That's exactly it. What Clinton wants is irrelevant. Is it really up to her to challenge the results? Ordinary citizens have a clear interest in having their votes counted correctly.

#28 | Posted by Phoenix at 2016-11-22 09:34 PM | Reply

You're delusional if you think Russia played more of a role in our election than certain, supposedly 'neutral' media outlets in this country.

What a pathetic rationalization for not caring whether Putin hacked our election.

You are eagerly and enthusiastically weak in the face of an obvious and serious foreign act of war. Putin must be laughing at his good fortune at how comfortably today's Republicans surrender.

#29 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-22 09:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#26 | RCADE

Where was this passionate desire for fair elections before the vote took place?

#30 | Posted by Whizzo at 2016-11-22 09:37 PM | Reply

Wikileaks (if that is even what you are referring to) wouldn't even exist if our media did it's fricking job when a Democrat was POTUS. You come across as pissed off that the Democrats' dirty laundry got aired.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-22 09:37 PM | Reply

Each time Ohio's servers crash, a Rethug owned system takes over and results suddenly flip. Rethugs control the Ohio Government and every State with similar anomalies. The Russian story is bunk. But, Rove cannot do this alone. It requires grand conspiracy. Always on those computers, never with paper and pencil.

#32 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-11-22 09:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is it really up to her to challenge the results?
#28 | POSTED BY PHOENIX

That's a great question. These guys are lawyers, can't they bring suit?

#33 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2016-11-22 09:42 PM | Reply

#28
#33

True. If there really is a case, it should be taken up by the ACLU.

#34 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2016-11-22 09:47 PM | Reply

Rethugs and Wussies do not want anyone questioning their legitimacy. Neither does SCOTUS.

#35 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-11-22 09:51 PM | Reply

Hillary is, if nothing else, ruthless. I don't think she would have conceded if her team felt she had an actual chance.

Some of her supporters need to move beyond the denial stage.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-22 09:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nate Silver seems to think it's bunk.
twitter.com

#37 | Posted by Whizzo at 2016-11-22 09:55 PM | Reply

an obvious and serious foreign act of war
#29 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-22 09:35 PM

Amazing how fast that escalated from a handful of lawyers noticing a potential pattern. lol

#38 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-22 10:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I have nothing against hillary challenging the election results in these states.

we should know the truth if our election being messed with.

but she wont and trump will remain Pres

#39 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-11-23 12:01 AM | Reply

Heck, if they end up sucking as bad as the Obama Democrats did they could end up losing the House in a landslide in as little as 2 years.

Don't act as if gerrymandering wasn't a major contribution to that as well as to the Repubs holding onto their death grip on the baby in the bathtub in 2018.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-23 12:01 AM | Reply

Of course gerrymandering played a role. But it's something that has existed as long as this country has existed. Early '09 Democrats controlled the states. That changed dramatically over the past 8 years. Gerrymandering doesn't affect votes for governor or Senator.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-11-23 12:07 AM | Reply

Sort of raises a good argument for nixing the electoral college.

A small amount of hacking and tweaking can dramatically change an electoral outcome.

Shifting the popular vote? Not so much...

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-23 12:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gerrymandering doesn't affect votes for governor or Senator.

You got me on the senator part.

For governor, though, how much of a role do they play in gerrymandering vs the state legislature? I only ask because a. I don't remember and b. a 51% to 49% governor race could then have significant effects on gerrymandering.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-23 12:10 AM | Reply

i dont believe that. the media is just upset he wont have a media pool so they can tell you what he says in a biased way. No one complained about Obama twitter

#44 | Posted by tmaster at 2016-11-23 12:49 AM | Reply

#6. Her dignity.

#45 | Posted by Pirate at 2016-11-23 12:50 AM | Reply

Why not challenge the results? What does she have to lose?

#6 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2016-11-22 08:18 PM | FLAG: If this is the case, why not look into the illegals who voted in all the other states as possible he also would have the popular vote as well. Go ahead, let us open that bucket of worms.

#46 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-23 12:58 AM | Reply

In a remarkable statement that seemed to cast doubt on American democracy, Donald J. Trump said Wednesday that he might not accept the results of next month's election if he felt it was rigged against him -- a stand that Hillary Clinton blasted as "horrifying" at their final and caustic debate on Wednesday.

www.nytimes.com

#47 | Posted by Pirate at 2016-11-23 01:00 AM | Reply

"But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

www.drudge.com

A Russian never drinks half a bottle of vodka, so why would they go halfway with the hacking and not actual influence the election?

Nyet, I say!

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2016-11-23 01:05 AM | Reply

"No one complained about Obama twitter"

Because he doesn't tweet like he's menstruating.

#49 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2016-11-23 04:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A more complete picture of Corky's #48 post is Russia attempted to negotiate and sign an agreement with the USA to prevent hacking and was rebuked by the USA. All we know for certain is what Guccifer knew Russia knew. Guccifer's illegal hacking of Hillary was a consequence of discovering Sidney Blumenthal's computer. Julian Assange does not reveal sources, but strongly denies Russia as a source. The political ramifications of direct Russian interference are staggering and therefore unlikely. No direct interference in the election outcome is proven.

We already know in great detail the lengths Rethugs will go to flip an election outcome. There is solid evidence of their interference in Florida, Ohio and probably New Mexico in the past. Russia certainly has the capability to hack, but the intent implied is pure speculation.

ALL statistical anomalies occur on computer systems. None on paper and pencil/optical systems. Rethugs own the sources of these anomalies and have the knowledge, equipment and personnel to carry out the fraud. It is not necessary to throw in Russian interference.

But the proper place to start, with this egregious crime, is the FBI, not an attorney. First you have to establish that a crime occurred. It didn't happen in Florida or Ohio when impossible anomalies starred investigators in the face. Rethugs and Wussies do not want the legitimacy of the system they control challenged, as it would likely lead to their loss of control. This is why Nixon, Gore and Kerry never pressed too hard.

#50 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-11-23 07:20 AM | Reply

#48 | POSTED BY CORKY

Good to see you're active and fighting the good fight for your beloved, Corky. I've been worried about you and Doc especially but now I'm relieved that you're both OK and are heavily involved in hating conservatives. That should give you both something to do and help you get over such a horrible loss. You know, Corky, I hear Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan are available these days. They're both respected "progressives" and maybe you could stoke up a relationship now that The Hillabeast is gone? Trying to resurrect her with all this crap is futile.

#51 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2016-11-23 07:26 AM | Reply

#47-

I don't think she'll challenge the results, but don't you see a difference between someone making a blanket statement that he won't accept the results unless he wins and someone else challenging the results AFTER potential evidence of tampering surfaces?

I think HRC doesn't challenge this because if she does, it'll throw our whole elections system into question. For the good of the country, we need to maintain the illusion of electoral accuracy.

#52 | Posted by dylanfan at 2016-11-23 07:34 AM | Reply

For the good of the country, we need to maintain the illusion of electoral accuracy.
#52 | POSTED BY DYLANFAN AT 2016-11-23 07:34 AM

Hasn't that ship sailed already? Half the country thinks illegals are voting and the other half thinks Putin is hacking the machines.

#53 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-23 08:10 AM | Reply

Touché.

#54 | Posted by dylanfan at 2016-11-23 08:20 AM | Reply

Given Hillary's deep connections to a vast array of moneyed interests and the current administration, how would we be sure that the audit itself isn't the manipulation of results?

If the voters were cheated and Hillary really won, then Hillary should be president.

But the idea that we can be sure that justice is served should Hillary be declared the winner doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There will be people who will believe what they want on both sides and but the rest of us will have to admit we have no idea what really happened.

#55 | Posted by Sully at 2016-11-23 09:21 AM | Reply

Amazing how fast that escalated from a handful of lawyers noticing a potential pattern. lol

I was talking about the Russian hacks of the DNC and other political organizations, a conclusion reached by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies and numerous cybersecurity experts outside government.

The hack of the vote itself is obviously unproven.

#56 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-23 10:08 AM | Reply

Just put a fork in her already!

#57 | Posted by Gr8Music at 2016-11-23 10:09 AM | Reply

#56 - my mistake.

#58 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-23 10:35 AM | Reply

'Salright. We all make mistakes. I voted for Hillary over Bernie in the primary.

#59 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-23 11:36 AM | Reply

Hillary Clinton's Popular Vote Lead Now Over Two Million

As additional votes have been counted in the presidential election, especially on the West Coast, Hillary Clinton's national popular-vote lead over Donald Trump now exceeds 2 million votes, according to an ongoing tally by the Cook Political Report's David Wasserman.

Hillary Clinton's vote total is 64,223,986 (48.1% of the vote), while Trump's is 62,206,395 (46.6%) - a difference of 2,017,591 votes (1.5%).

To put that popular-vote margin into perspective, Al Gore's popular-vote lead over George W. Bush in 2000 - when Bush won the Electoral College - was 547,000 votes. Also noteworthy: Clinton's 64-plus million votes is nearing in on the 65.9 million Barack Obama won in 2012.

www.nbcnews.com

So much for the will of the People.

And so much for a man date for T-Rump.... well, except for this one...

www.youtube.com

#60 | Posted by corky at 2016-11-23 01:44 PM | Reply

"No one complained about Obama twitter" ...Because he doesn't tweet like he's menstruating. -- #49 | Posted by Alexandrite

I don't know anyone menstruating who tweets like Trump.

I think you mean Obama doesn't tweet like he's Kanye.

#61 | Posted by Phoenix at 2016-11-23 02:27 PM | Reply

I am terrified of the damage that Trump will do to this country and wish with every fiber of my being that Hillary had won the election, but I do not think that she should try to challenge the results and become president. It would throw this country into too much turmoil. And, (unlike Republicans) I am not willing to sacrifice this country just to save it from Trump. The smooth and peaceful transition of power in this country is too important.

That is not to say that I think she should not challenge the results. I think that if there are discrepancies then it is her patriotic duty to expose them. But, she would need to be doing it just to expose flaws in our system, not to try to take the presidency. Even if enough fraud were proven to flip the election results, I think that Donald Trump should still be president.

This is beyond me or my party. I wish there were Republicans who understood that concept.

#62 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2016-11-23 03:06 PM | Reply

Even if enough fraud were proven to flip the election results, I think that Donald Trump should still be president.
#62 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2016-11-23 03:06 PM
Nate Silver seems to think there isn't much to these patterns, so if he's to be believed this is probably a non-issue overall (it'll probably be cited over and over as if it really happened, though), but that said, absolutely disagree with this statement. If cheating was discovered to the extent that it flipped the election, then Hillary should be elected. Letting the cheaters get away with it can't possibly cause any less division and quarreling than flipping the results back.

#63 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-23 03:13 PM | Reply

Hillary wasn't the only other person on the ballot:

talkingpointsmemo.com>Jill Stein Launches Fundraising Effort To Ask For A Recount In 3 States

#64 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-23 03:48 PM | Reply

That should bring the nation together...

#65 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-23 03:59 PM | Reply

In this day and age, all national elections should be centralized, controlled, and micro-scrutinized by multiple third-party independent analysts.

We deserve to know for certain our votes are counted, worth something, and accurate. I call BS on any gov't attempts to keep voting from being streamlined and secured.

#66 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-11-23 04:01 PM | Reply

Every once in a while the good guys win, put your big girl panties on and accept it.

#67 | Posted by visitor_ at 2016-11-23 04:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Also, I support Hillary asking for recounts. Go for it.

If she doesn't, The Butthurts around here will be claiming that she actually won for the next 4 years.

#68 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-11-23 04:06 PM | Reply

If there is a real case, then absolutely go for it. If not, then don't.

#69 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-23 05:01 PM | Reply

Is there any reason why it has to be her contesting the results? If someone has evidence the results may have been manipulated, then surely they could find a number of voters in those states to sign on as plaintiffs?

#70 | Posted by sentinel at 2016-11-23 07:24 PM | Reply

It's going to happen regardless of what Hillary thinks about it:

Jill Stein's Recount Effort Raises Millions In Just Hours

Within hours, Stein's fundraiser rapidly gained traction. Just after 11 p.m. EST, supporters had donated $1.9 million, then it climbed past $2 million before midnight. The goal was surpassed about eight hours after Stein's announcement was delivered over Facebook Live. Just before 3 a.m. EST, the fund surpassed $2.5 million. Stein's campaign originally set out to raise $2 million by Friday afternoon, in time to meet Wisconsin's Nov. 25 deadline and $1.1 million filing fee. But the candidate secured enough funds for all of Wisconsin's, Pennsylvania's and part of Michigan's filing fees before Thursday.

#71 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-11-24 05:07 AM | Reply

-who aren't accepting the results after all the crap they threw at Trump?

They used that tactic on Bernie too. The media (with Clinton campaign echoing) kept pushing Bernie if he would accept the vote of the super-delegates weeks before the convention. They kept pushing for an endorsement. No matter how Bernie answered, they follow up, " Yeah, but, will you concede?"

They did the same thing to Trump, then became all outraged when he wouldn't concede in advance or telegraph his response.

These were the type of tactics that make the Clinton's appear smug, entitled, and unlikeable.

#73 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-11-24 09:49 AM | Reply

SheepDip, I've not heard a single word from Hillary suggesting that she's on board with either the recount effort or the EC challenge.

You got your wish and Trump is your President. I sincerely hope that you're livelihood, freedoms and healthcare are BIGLY affected in a negative way. To the point that you're living in a car and selling oranges on a freeway ramp.

#74 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2016-11-24 10:33 AM | Reply

#71 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Actually, I think that Tofu Palin finally had her very own Ralph Nader Realization. She's just going to have to live with the scorn and culpability that's going to be heaped upon her plate whether it's just or not.

#75 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2016-11-24 10:36 AM | Reply

ACLU should file suit. Clinton should stay out of it.

#76 | Posted by e1g1 at 2016-11-24 08:23 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort