CVille Dem's picture

    Can Americans Sue Comey?

    My sister just texted me that she thinks Hillary should sue Comey.  I responded that Hillary should just enjoy her life doing whatever will make her happy, and not get into the dirt of any lawsuit.   

    Then I began thinking about who was really damaged by his actions, and half of the country was.  I haven't been able to find anything on the possibility of having a Class Action lawsuit against him for the aggrieved parties.  I realize that it would be impossible if he had followed protocols, but he didn't, and even went against his boss's verbal instructions not to do what he did.

    Whether is he found guilty of violating the Hatch Act is really irrelevant, because, as my lawyer friends like to say:

    The Situation Speaks For Itself, or -- YEP!  That is some shit sandwich!

    Richard Painter worked in the White House Counsel’s office between 2005 and 2007, serving as the chief ethics lawyer for then-President Bush 43.  On Sunday, Painter penned an op-ed in The New York Times explaining his decision to file an ethics complaint against the FBI Director.

    Any ideas, Dagbloggers?  


    Comey, like the sniveling GOP shill he is, would just say-Hillary you won the popular vote, it's the antiquated electoral college fault.......

    The electoral college was set up by the elites for the sole purpose of stopping an unruly mob of illiterate morons from electing a huckster like Trump. It's ironic that it's the way he got selected president.

    A losing candidate will always find a reason to blame the Electoral College for their defeat.  However, if we switched to just a popular vote, the loser would then claim that the vote of a few densely populated cities does not represent all of America.  If we counted only the popular vote, it would mean that the country would be dominated by the most populated states, like New York and California.   From where I sit, that wouldn't be so bad ... but it would be wrong just the same in my opinion.

    As for Comey ... Recess is coming and his time on the playground is going to involve a whole lot of noogies, wedgies, purple nurples and knuckle sandwiches ... to say the very least.

    Speaking of recess - maybe Obama can put in a Supreme Court Justice during the next one.

    I expect that he  will--Trump's sister

    where do we start those petitions?


    That's ridiculous and also completely false. After an election with a candidate constantly spouting off lies I'm sick and tired of people spouting off false statements, especially here. Carter didn't blame the electoral college for his defeat. Dukakis didn't. Mondale didn't. Dole didn't. Bush didn't McCain didn't. Romney didn't. Kerry didn't. How far back do you want to go? Ford didn't. McGovern didn't. Nixon didn't. A losing candidate almost never blames the electoral college for their defeat because it almost never has any effect. The only time a losing candidate finds a reason to blame the electoral college for their defeat is when the electoral college is clearly the cause of their defeat. The small number of times the popular vote is different than the electoral vote. Can you give me one example of a time the popular vote picked the same person as the electoral vote and the losing candidate blamed the electoral college? If the always do it you should be able to find one. It's no wonder Trump won when even here there are people who can't tell the difference between facts and bullshit.

    Democracy is a system where the people get to choose their leaders with their vote. In every election except the president they do.

    The electoral vote has 2 big defects,

    :1. It is not proportional so 49% of the voters in a state votes may essentially count for nothing in the Presidential race. Zilch. Nothing. Wasted. Needn't have bothered.

    2. California gets 55 electoral votes for 39 million people. Wyoming 3 for 1/2 million. By California ratio Wyoming should only get 0.7 electoral votes, or California about 240 by Wyoming ratio.

    Oh Ocean, calm down, you're taking me far too literally.   Perhaps I should have written it this way. ... "Some supporters of some losing candidates will, in some cases, want to blame the electoral college for their candidate's defeat, even though, as most of us know, that usually isn't the case."   Okay?  Is that better?

    Now, as for the times it did matter, I do have a small bit of family history when it comes to that.  My great-grand uncle on my father's side was a man named Isadore H. Burgoon.  He was an elector from Ohio to the electoral college that deadlocked, and after a compromise, selected Rutherford B. Hayes as President even though he lost the popular vote to the Democrat, Samuel Tilden.

    "Although a galaxy of famous Republican speakers, and even Mark Twain, stumped for Hayes, he expected the Democrats to win. When the first returns seemed to confirm this, Hayes went to bed, believing he had lost. But in New York, Republican National Chairman Zachariah Chandler, aware of a loophole, wired leaders to stand firm: "Hayes has 185 votes and is elected." The popular vote apparently was 4,300,000 for Tilden to 4,036,000 for Hayes. Hayes's election depended upon contested electoral votes in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida. If all the disputed electoral votes went to Hayes, he would win; a single one would elect Tilden.

    Months of uncertainty followed. In January 1877 Congress established an Electoral Commission to decide the dispute. The commission, made up of eight Republicans and seven Democrats, determined all the contests in favor of Hayes by eight to seven. The final electoral vote: 185 to 184."  - From: website

    What the quote doesn't mention is that the deadlock was broken by an informal back-room deal called the Compromise of 1877, which basically ended Reconstruction by forcing Hayes to agree to remove all Federal troops from the South.

    But, in spite of that, I simply disagree with those who think a popular vote alone is better than what we have now; an imperfect, but workable system that usually gets it right.    We can argue about the percentages, but a  popular vote would make small, less populated states irrelevant and, I believe would make it easier for big money interests to influence elections. 

    I may be wrong, but I'm still not convinced by the argument that a popular vote makes for a level playing field in a country this large and this diverse.   I am open to convincing, however.






    No it's not better at all. When the popular vote is for one candidate and the electoral college picks another it's clear that the will of the people was thwarted. The only time people complain about that is when it happens.

    You can attempt to make the argument that some people's vote should count more than other people's vote. You can argue why you think that's more "fair." You can give your reason's why that person's vote should count more. But you'll never convince me that it's more "fair" or better than one person, one vote.

    But I'll be all for the system if we can agree that if someone is named smith their vote only counts as 3/4 of a vote and if a person has Kat or Cat in their name their vote counts as 1.5 times a regular vote. And since rural voters have been getting a more worthy vote for two centuries for the next two hundred years if you live in a large city your vote counts as 1.3 times a regular vote.

    Agree. The antiquated electoral vote system, along with voter disenfranchising, gerrymandering and when all else fails Supreme Court one time 'not meant as a precedent' orders to stop vote counting have allowed Republicans to get a complete grip on power in all 3 branches by:

    "fooling some of the people all of the time"

    Oh God, another electoral college debate to whinge about. yeah, we either boost Wyoming or make all the same. one is a kind of rural affirmative action like we support for racial and sex didferences but were put in place 230 years ago, unlike the more atrocious gerrymandering that keeps people marginalized at the district level. A waste of digital ink - it's largely irrelevant, because if you change it they'll steal the election somehow under the new rules.


    Well, if you put it that way ... There's no point to any of it. 

    I thought Republicans were the ones who fought for State's Rights, and the Democrats fought for a stronger Federal government ...  I guess I picked a bad day to give up reading.

    It's "tastes great" vs. "less filling" - there's no absolute. If you change it to absolute vote, we'll focus on New York and Texas and California. Currently we focus on 6 or 8 swing states. Neither is particularly "democratic" or expressing the "will of the people" across the country as a whole. Florida and Ohio and Arizona will get attention either way, but sadly not New Mexico or Montana. To me it's good enough, but open to suggestions that make a difference, and there are more important undemocratic forces at play, such as what's with all the disinformation shaping our votes. Who are all these people being kept from voting?

    For me the system isn't good enough when two candidates in the last 16 years won the election and didn't get to be president. The first time I buried my anger. Not this time.

    It¨s irrelevant  - I don't see us having a particular advantage, and if it's popular vote, then they'll campaign and focus their efforts on stealing the popular vote instead. I'm sure they can manage.

    Top 20 states have 3/4 the population: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Arizona, Mass, Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, Wisconsin - playing field look familiar? Aside from CA & NY, maybe IL we don't really control the levers to prevent the mass obstruction and gerrymandering and other facets that go on. If they can put their thumb on the scale to steal another 10% of electoral votes, they can put their thumb on the scale to steal another 5-10% popular vote.

    My great-grand uncle on my father's side was a man named Isadore H. Burgoon.  He was an elector from Ohio 


    Get the fuck outta town!

    Dagblog: Where the historians meet the history...

    First off,  we don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic in which we elect people to represent our interests.  

    When Lawrence O'Donnell did his segment on getting rid of the Electoral College, he mentioned most of the points that you cite.  Here's what I think are reasons for keeping it.

    If you think the influence of big money is ruining politics, it would be even worse if we had only a popular vote for President.  The electoral college tries to make sure that any candidate for President has wide regional support, not just a lot of money from one area or a single well-financed group.

    We have a vested interest in making sure the entire country feels they contributed to electing the President.  If the vote totals in the more densely populated Eastern states decide the election before the polls close in the West. why would people in the West even bother to vote?  Or feel any allegiance to a country in which their vote didn't matter?  New Yorkers will decide every election while Californians are still having breakfast.  An Electoral College contributes to our stability as a nation.

    We have a system, which most of the time, works.  You want to do away with the Electoral College because we lost an election.  I think we shouldn't rush into something.  I think that doing away with it, will be like playing Jenga,  where you pull out the wrong stick and the whole tower comes crashing down.  If you get rid of the checks and balances in our system, there's a possibility that Democracy could fall down.







    We have a system that works when the democratic candidate over performs enough to overcome the inherent bias of the electoral college. The population is now so evenly divided and elections are so close that twice in the last 16 years the loser has become president. I feel like my vote didn't matter. My contribution to the electoral process was nullified by the electoral college. I feel like this election was stolen. I'm not the only one who feels that way. You're telling me I have to let the loser of the election become president so those who voted for the loser will feel allegiance to the country. Fuck that and fuck them.

    It's amazing to me that you continue to post nonsense. 6.5 million voters in New York will never decide an election with over 120 million voters. Even if every eligible voter in New York voted it wouldn't decide the election. Even if every single voter in New York voted for the same candidate they couldn't decide the election before California voted. Even the whole population of the east coast is insufficient to decide the election before the midwest and the west coast votes. I can't imagine how you can post such obviously factually wrong statements without being embarrassed.

    I can't possibly see how using the popular vote would make the influence of money worse. Right now the lion's share of the money a campaign spends is in a few battle ground states. That money might move to other states but I fail to see how that makes the problem worse.

    And by the way, I also want to do something about the fact that 500 thousand people in Wyoming get the same number of senators as 40 million in California. If the people in Wyoming and other low density states get their feelings hurt because they can't dominate our government any more fuck them. If they don't feel allegiance to the US because their vote isn't worth 80 times a vote in California fuck them 80 times over.

    There's no need to get angry with me.  I understand your frustration.  I voted for Hillary too.  I voted for Gore too. I understand why you're angry. I'm angry too that Trump got elected.  Very angry and sad.  I just think that changing things will not fix anything other than the immediate problem and may create even more problems for us later.

    I don't see the electoral college discriminating against Democrats in particular, despite the last two times the losers won the popular votes and lost the election, they were Democrats.  Would you still be calling for the elimination of the Electoral College if Hillary Clinton and Al Gore had won?  I doubt it.   What if eliminating the Electoral College meant Mitt Romney won?

    Look, if we do what you suggest, we can't go back later and complain when we lose the popular vote through a bullying of the electorate.   Without an electoral college, there would most certainly be a greater coordinated effort to disenfranchise minority voters through trumped-up state laws or local chicanery in all Republican-controlled states. 

    Anyway, I don't want to argue with you. 

    Let's just pretend you convinced me and we both agree on everything.  

    You were right. I was wrong.  I'm going back to sleep.





    If the electoral college gave us wins I'd still call for it's repeal. I have values other than just winning. A more fair  democracy is one of them. Just as I would not support voter suppression laws by dems that targeted poor republican voters. Also I have long term goals as well as short term goals. Often the long term goals are more important than the short term goals.

    Back in 05 the republicans were threatening the nuclear option. I was cheering them on. I hated the filibuster and I was hoping they would end it. It's undemocratic. Any blame would fall on the republicans and in the long term it would benefit the democrats more than the republicans. Even though in the short term it meant Bush could more easily get more of his judicial nominations through the senate. If republicans ended the filibuster for judicial nominees it would make it easier for democrats to take the next step and end it all together when they reclaimed the senate. I was pissed when the Gang of 14 reached a compromise that preserved the filibuster.

    I would sue Giuliani as well for not reporting a crime in progress. I'd go for monetary damages, since the courts are extremely unlikely to provide any kind of electoral remedy to the situation. Even then, it will be hard to prove Comey acted outside his official duties, however incompetently, and he thus probably has immunity - but Giuliani doesn't. Use that to then get an information search to find out what the Trump campaign knew and how much they were colluding with the FBI in violation of the Hatch Act. Take a page from Judicial Watch.

    It should be noted, however, as Digby mentioned earlier - that Comey stands to be our most moderate, least compromised official in the Trump administration.

    Thanks for actually commenting on the subject of this blog.  You are right about Giuliani; he admitted on tape that he had advance knowledge of what was going on in the FBI.  

    I still would very much like to know if suing them:  Comey, Giuliani, and the Trump team for illegally influencing the election.

    Jolly?  Anyone?

    Not sure about this questions, CVille.

    If anyone wants a catharsis of sorts, and possibly a good cry, watch Kate McKinnon sing Hallelujah on SNL.

    Oh yes.  I don't know how even SHE made it through.  It was lovely.  Here is another one that always makes me cry:

    Latest Comments