Say What? DNC Never Let DHS Look at the Email Server???

[DKW 86 7,419]

DNC Never Let DHS Look at the Email Server???

 "Why would the victim of a crime refuse to turn over the evidence of that crime?"

I do not like either party. Trump is about to abuse 25M People with the AHCA. Hard as I try tho...I cant find a way to embrace what I see as obviously shady people on the other side of the aisle. Why would you not let law enforcement have the "evidence of the crime" you have been screaming about for over 10 months? 

1) Wikileaks was right? The crime was simply a disgruntled staffer, a Bernie Fan that saw how he was getting shafted. Remember, this is the Wikileaks story, with witnesses.

2) Whatever else is on that server is even more embarrassing than the email revelations?

[TexasTiger 12,835]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

DNC Never Let DHS Look at the Email Server???

 "Why would the victim of a crime refuse to turn over the evidence of that crime?"

I do not like either party. Trump is about to abuse 25M People with the AHCA. Hard as I try tho...I cant find a way to embrace what I see as obviously shady people on the other side of the aisle. Why would you not let law enforcement have the "evidence of the crime" you have been screaming about for over 10 months? 

1) Wikileaks was right? The crime was simply a disgruntled staffer, a Bernie Fan that saw how he was getting shafted. Remember, this is the Wikileaks story, with witnesses.

2) Whatever else is on that server is even more embarrassing than the email revelations?

I don't care to defend either party, but I will challenge the speculation that there had to be something worse on the server as the reason they didn't want to turn it over the summer of a presidential campaign they were very confident they would win. They hadn't really seen where it was going at that point, i.e. They weren't really feeling like crime victims yet.

[DKW 86 7,419]

There is a timeline issue here.  The FBI was warning of hacking attempts going into the summer of 2016. The first time Gowdy and Johnson talked about this was DECEMBER of 2016, post election. Even now, June 2017, no one from law enforcement has been allowed to see the server or gather any forensics from it. Of course now, who would care? Chain of custody etc would make any forensics a court room joke. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I do not like either party. Trump is about to abuse 25M People with the AHCA. Hard as I try tho...I cant find a way to embrace what I see as obviously shady people on the other side of the aisle.

The thing the Democrats have to really come to terms with is that Trump didn't become possible because America's latent racists and xenophobes suddenly came to life.  Trump was possible because the Democrats failed to be a viable alternative at the national level to such a boor.  Think about how terrible Trump was and is and how inept, oblivious and compromised you have to be as an opposing force not to beat him.  Despite the skewed electoral college numbers, this was a close election.  A few votes here and there in a few states changes the election.  But they couldn't convince tons of people who voted for Obama to 1) vote for Hillary, 2) not vote for Trump or 3) vote for anyone at all.  

This election should have been a lay up.  The reason it wasn't was not Trump's brilliance or campaign prowess.  It was the vacuum on the other side of the ballot.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

39 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The thing the Democrats have to really come to terms with is that Trump didn't become possible because America's latent racists and xenophobes suddenly came to life.  Trump was possible because the Democrats failed to be a viable alternative at the national level to such a boor.  Think about how terrible Trump was and is and how inept, oblivious and compromised you have to be as an opposing force not to beat him.  Despite the skewed electoral college numbers, this was a close election.  A few votes here and there in a few states changes the election.  But they couldn't convince tons of people who voted for Obama to 1) vote for Hillary, 2) not vote for Trump or 3) vote for anyone at all.  

This election should have been a lay up.  The reason it wasn't was not Trump's brilliance or campaign prowess.  It was the vacuum on the other side of the ballot.

But that's a bit too easy. Yes, HRC was a lousy candidate with a lousy campaign, but folks chose to vote for a vile, ungodly man who clearly demonstrated almost every day that he not only utterly lacks the temperament or knowledge to do the job, but has an impulsiveness and egocentricism that makes him dangerous. The whole world sees it, but enough Americans embraced him despite or because of all that. The Dems have problems they need to figure out, but they pale in comparison to the hollowness of the Republican Party after Trump and the depravity of a society that cheered him on.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

There is a timeline issue here.  The FBI was warning of hacking attempts going into the summer of 2016. The first time Gowdy and Johnson talked about this was DECEMBER of 2016, post election. Even now, June 2017, no one from law enforcement has been allowed to see the server or gather any forensics from it. Of course now, who would care? Chain of custody etc would make any forensics a court room joke. 

Again, not defending the inept DNC, but this exchange also speaks to Gowdy. If Mueller is somehow compromised, what is Gowdy after Benghazi? His performance here is the equivalent of a defense attorney trying to raise doubt about his client's guilt by smearing the other side. The victim in this, however, is not the DNC-- it's the American people and our system of government. This time the Dems, but what about next time? Partisans miss the larger issue that even Rubio readily saw.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

But that's a bit too easy. Yes, HRC was a lousy candidate with a lousy campaign, but folks chose to vote for a vile, ungodly man who clearly demonstrated almost every day that he not only utterly lacks the temperament or knowledge to do the job, but has an impulsiveness and egocentricism that makes him dangerous. The whole world sees it, but enough Americans embraced him despite or because of all that. The Dems have problems they need to figure out, but they pale in comparison to the hollowness of the Republican Party after Trump and the depravity of a society that cheered him on.

There were enough votes in play out there to swing this election the other way if the Democrats hadn't squandered perhaps the easiest election to win in my lifetime.  They didn't give anyone on the fence a reason to vote for them.  "Not as bad as the other guy" isn't a campaign strategy.  Neither is deliberately snubbing anyone in the other camp who was on the fence by going even harder left on controversial issues.  

The Dems blew this election way more than Trump won it.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

There were enough votes in play out there to swing this election the other way if the Democrats hadn't squandered perhaps the easiest election to win in my lifetime.  They didn't give anyone on the fence a reason to vote for them.  "Not as bad as the other guy" isn't a campaign strategy.  Neither is deliberately snubbing anyone in the other camp who was on the fence by going even harder left on controversial issues.  

The Dems blew this election way more than Trump won it.

Not disagreeing with that, but you ignored my point.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

10 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Not disagreeing with that, but you ignored my point.

You sort of skirted mine first.  

There is a certain percentage of people, diehards on each side, who are never going to vote for the other party no matter who is running.  They'll gripe about their candidate all the way, but in the end hold their nose and go with party loyalty anyway.  I've seen it almost every election in my life.  

But this one was different.  There were a lot of people who normally vote Republican who were actually up for grabs.  Not enough to create some kind of Reagan Democrat landslide for the Dems or anything, but enough to swing the key states that gave Trump the victory for sure.  But the Dems fumbled the ball at every turn.  From the appearance of a thumb on the scales to quash the Sanders uprising to the entitled, overconfident smugness that they would easily win, to Hillary choosing to go hard left and give no center-right person disturbed by Trump a reason to see her as a viable alternative, they are the main ones to blame for Trump being in the WH.  Yes, people voted for the a**hole.  But it wouldn't have mattered if the Dems didn't fritter away an easy win.  No matter what contortions folks went through to justify a vote for a terrible man, this election was way more squandered by the Dems than won by the GOP.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

52 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You sort of skirted mine first.  

There is a certain percentage of people, diehards on each side, who are never going to vote for the other party no matter who is running.  They'll gripe about their candidate all the way, but in the end hold their nose and go with party loyalty anyway.  I've seen it almost every election in my life.  

But this one was different.  There were a lot of people who normally vote Republican who were actually up for grabs.  Not enough to create some kind of Reagan Democrat landslide for the Dems or anything, but enough to swing the key states that gave Trump the victory for sure.  But the Dems fumbled the ball at every turn.  From the appearance of a thumb on the scales to quash the Sanders uprising to the entitled, overconfident smugness that they would easily win, to Hillary choosing to go hard left and give no center-right person disturbed by Trump a reason to see her as a viable alternative, they are the main ones to blame for Trump being in the WH.  Yes, people voted for the a**hole.  But it wouldn't have mattered if the Dems didn't fritter away an easy win.  No matter what contortions folks went through to justify a vote for a terrible man, this election was way more squandered by the Dems than won by the GOP.

I don't think I skirted yours. I don't dispute a single criticism of HRC or the DNC. But Trump not only demonstrated himself to be clearly unacceptable as a leader by any previously held standard in a Western Democracy, he lied at an amazing rate and clearly demonstrated he had no real leadership ability that could allow him to effectively function outside of a dictatorship. Folks not only "held their nose" and voted for him, they've dismissed and seemingly even fail to recognize the dishonesty and repulsive behavior. For example, Grumps on here claimed there was no proof Trump would grab women by their private parts despite his admission and women's claims it happened to them as Trump said.

[homersapien 11,367]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The thing the Democrats have to really come to terms with is that Trump didn't become possible because America's latent racists and xenophobes suddenly came to life.  Trump was possible because the Democrats failed to be a viable alternative at the national level to such a boor.  Think about how terrible Trump was and is and how inept, oblivious and compromised you have to be as an opposing force not to beat him.  Despite the skewed electoral college numbers, this was a close election.  A few votes here and there in a few states changes the election.  But they couldn't convince tons of people who voted for Obama to 1) vote for Hillary, 2) not vote for Trump or 3) vote for anyone at all.  

This election should have been a lay up.  The reason it wasn't was not Trump's brilliance or campaign prowess.  It was the vacuum on the other side of the ballot.

While that's partially true, let's not forget that "vaccum" received 3 million votes more than Trump.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

To the OP, in hindsight it was stupid not to turn over the server. But considering the witch hunt against the party's golden girl I can see the reason for the hesitation.

 

This election was the perfect storm with varying conditions playing a role. Democrats had a battered candidate in HRC, your average joes were disenfranchised with politicians, there was interference from Russia, a hatred between Sanders and Clinton supporters, and people who just didn't vote. 

Its easy to cast the blame on one factor or condition but I think combined they all are what caused this. And we still don't know the level the Russian interference went in influencing the outcome. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

While that's partially true, let's not forget that "vaccum" received 3 million votes more than Trump.

Yeah, by padding the stats in California and New York.  Her problem is, the vacuum she was in the states she needed and that the Dems had won the last several elections.  You have to have broader appeal than that.

There was simply zero excuse to lose this election.  None.  If the Dems field a competent candidate that doesn't alienate anyone toward the middle of the other side, they win in a walk.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

38 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah, by padding the stats in California and New York.  Her problem is, the vacuum she was in the states she needed and that the Dems had won the last several elections.  You have to have broader appeal than that.

There was simply zero excuse to lose this election.  None.  If the Dems field a competent candidate that doesn't alienate anyone toward the middle of the other side, they win in a walk.

The other side of this if the Republicans had fielded somebody else they probably would have won by a great deal more.

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah, by padding the stats in California and New York.  Her problem is, the vacuum she was in the states she needed and that the Dems had won the last several elections.  You have to have broader appeal than that.

There was simply zero excuse to lose this election.  None.  If the Dems field a competent candidate that doesn't alienate anyone toward the middle of the other side, they win in a walk.

"Padding the stats"? 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Padding the stats"? 

Yeah.  Just because you can run up the score in one or two states doesn't mean you're a viable candidate with broad appeal.  It's one of the things the EC was designed to avoid - one or two huge states in population essentially deciding every election. It would be one thing if she won by 3 million votes and it was spread across a great number of states.  But when one state accounts for the entire difference in popular vote (CA), it doesn't really have the same impact as an argument. 

[alexava 6,973]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

You sort of skirted mine first.  

There is a certain percentage of people, diehards on each side, who are never going to vote for the other party no matter who is running.  They'll gripe about their candidate all the way, but in the end hold their nose and go with party loyalty anyway.  I've seen it almost every election in my life.  

But this one was different.  There were a lot of people who normally vote Republican who were actually up for grabs.  Not enough to create some kind of Reagan Democrat landslide for the Dems or anything, but enough to swing the key states that gave Trump the victory for sure.  But the Dems fumbled the ball at every turn.  From the appearance of a thumb on the scales to quash the Sanders uprising to the entitled, overconfident smugness that they would easily win, to Hillary choosing to go hard left and give no center-right person disturbed by Trump a reason to see her as a viable alternative, they are the main ones to blame for Trump being in the WH.  Yes, people voted for the a**hole.  But it wouldn't have mattered if the Dems didn't fritter away an easy win.  No matter what contortions folks went through to justify a vote for a terrible man, this election was way more squandered by the Dems than won by the GOP.

I agree with this. To take it a step more, had HRC won same could be said on other side. Not exactly the same but similar. I never understand candidates talking points to their base during general elections. I felt Obama almost blew 2012 by coming out in favor of same sex marriage just before election. Anyone in favor of that was already on his side. You lose the guys in the middle. I still think/ hope most people are closer to the middle in most parts  of the country. Except Alabama. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah.  Just because you can run up the score in one or two states doesn't mean you're a viable candidate with broad appeal.  It's one of the things the EC was designed to avoid - one or two huge states in population essentially deciding every election. It would be one thing if she won by 3 million votes and it was spread across a great number of states.  But when one state accounts for the entire difference in popular vote (CA), it doesn't really have the same impact as an argument. 

That misses the point of the proportionality of a state with 55M people. That's where people are and it's an area larger than a several states combined. It's like 7 states along the eastern seaboard or much of the old south combined.

[Grumps 3,704]

10 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The thing the Democrats have to really come to terms with is that Trump didn't become possible because America's latent racists and xenophobes suddenly came to life.  Trump was possible because the Democrats failed to be a viable alternative at the national level to such a boor.  Think about how terrible Trump was and is and how inept, oblivious and compromised you have to be as an opposing force not to beat him.  Despite the skewed electoral college numbers, this was a close election.  A few votes here and there in a few states changes the election.  But they couldn't convince tons of people who voted for Obama to 1) vote for Hillary, 2) not vote for Trump or 3) vote for anyone at all.  

This election should have been a lay up.  The reason it wasn't was not Trump's brilliance or campaign prowess.  It was the vacuum on the other side of the ballot.

^^^THIS.

I think that a LOT of people who voted for Trump did not particularly like him or want to vote for him...and still don't. Trump was a joke of a candidate and he STILL beat HRC. Trump is still somewhat of a joke, but I still wouldn't vote for HRC over him. THAT'S how bad I think she is.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

16 hours ago, Grumps said:

^^^THIS.

I think that a LOT of people who voted for Trump did not particularly like him or want to vote for him...and still don't. Trump was a joke of a candidate and he STILL beat HRC. Trump is still somewhat of a joke, but I still wouldn't vote for HRC over him. THAT'S how bad I think she is.

And to justify your vote you tell yourself there's no evidence Trump grabbed women's private parts because he felt entitled to do so, totally ignoring his own admission.

[PUB78 1,358]

12 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

But that's a bit too easy. Yes, HRC was a lousy candidate with a lousy campaign, but folks chose to vote for a vile, ungodly man who clearly demonstrated almost every day that he not only utterly lacks the temperament or knowledge to do the job, but has an impulsiveness and egocentricism that makes him dangerous. The whole world sees it, but enough Americans embraced him despite or because of all that. The Dems have problems they need to figure out, but they pale in comparison to the hollowness of the Republican Party after Trump and the depravity of a society that cheered him on.

The hollowness of the Republican Party? You mean the party that is in control of the White House, Senate, House of Representatives and a overwhelming majority of the  Governorships and state legislatures throughout the nation? Yeah, pretty hollow group.

[augolf1716 21,109]

Not a Trump fan but everyone will have to deal with him for 3 plus years more. At least

[TexasTiger 12,835]

17 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

The hollowness of the Republican Party? You mean the party that is in control of the White House, Senate, House of Representatives and a overwhelming majority of the  Governorships and state legislatures throughout the nation? Yeah, pretty hollow group.

Talking about what they stand for. 

[bigbird 60,511]

10 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Talking about what they stand for. 

Honestly, its hard to tell what either party stands for and as soon as you figure it out, they will change it.  

[TexasTiger 12,835]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Honestly, its hard to tell what either party stands for and as soon as you figure it out, they will change it.  

Trump clearly ran on a different agenda