Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Pelosi’s Daughter and 9 Other Electors Want Briefing on Alleged Russian Election Interference

Pelosi’s Daughter and 9 Other Electors Want Briefing on Alleged Russian Election Interference

The first rule of holes…

The Russian hacking/tainted election story line is a particularly fascinating coping mechanism in leftist elite circles.

All signs point to a painfully out of touch party platform, the world’s worst presidential candidate, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the political landscape, yet Democrats are blaming the Russians for their embarrassing electoral loss.

Worse still, there’s no new evidence to suggest Russians swayed election results. Sure, the Wikileaks stuff was nasty, but that’s old news. Should it be investigated? Probably. Though the same people demanding an investigation into this alleged hacking’s electoral impact NOW also declared with certainty that Hillary’s home-brewed server was never infiltrated by foreign foes.

It’s almost like this story line was cooked up as a last ditch effort to overturn the election results. Almost.

Today, the headlines are abuzz with theories of Russian election interference designed to catapult Trump into the White House. Part of the narrative includes a group of electors (headlines don’t specify how large a group or who that group includes) who are insisting more information about the alleged Russian interloping before voting:

Ten Electoral College electors have asked U.S. intelligence officials for more information on ongoing investigations surrounding President-elect Donald Trump’s relationship with Russia.

The group of electors, which includes the daughter of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), wrote an open letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper asking for the information ahead of their Dec. 19 meeting to formally vote for the next president.

“The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations,” the letter read. “We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States.”

Nine Democrats and one Republican signed the letter. The Republican, Christopher Suprun, has said that he won’t vote for Trump when the Electoral College meets.

Hillary Political Advisor, John Podesta, jumped on the briefing bandwagon, demanding intelligence briefings on Russian involvement prior to the Electoral College vote:

“The bipartisan electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” Podesta said in a statement Monday. “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.”

“Each day that month, our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump,” he said. “Despite our protestations, this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in the campaign. We now know that the CIA has determined Russia’s interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.”

After spending a month decrying the Electoral College vs. Popular Vote “injustice”, I guess Democrats are all about the Electoral College now? I honestly can’t keep up.

If Democrats insist on blaming the commie boogieman instead of owning their role in the loss, that’s fine by me. Ultimately, it will mean prolonged Democratic electoral failure.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


John Podesta wants the intelligence briefing as well.

I think it has something to do with all the nonsense in his ‘hacked’ emails.

    2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to Neo. | December 12, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    Honestly, it doesn’t matter who published it – Russians, French, or Klingons. It doesn’t change the fact that he and his arrogant buddies wrote what they wrote and the MSM ignored it.

It’s a reasonable request. The electors do have a constitutional responsibility, and if they need information to fulfill it they should receive it. Podesta has a reasonable claim to a briefing too, since he’s directly involved.

    MattMusson in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Who gives the Briefing? The CIA who has suggested Russian Involvement? Or, the FBI who does not believe the Russians are involved?

    This is all BS. It is the result of two US intelligence agency factions jockeying for influence. The CIA is pissed that the NSA chief met with Trump and Pledged his allegiance. Trump accepted that faction when he announced publicly that he was considering Petreaus for a Cabinet position. Trump was never really considering Petreaus. He was rehabilitating Petreaus. And, that move REALLY pissed off the CIA faction. So now, the CIA is playing the Russian Card.

    Remember – these are the same people who said there were WMD’s in Iraq.

      There ACTUALLY WERE WMD’s in Iraq. Chemical specifically, but Biological and Nuclear pieces building toward a viable program.

      The Main Stream Morons like to claim “there were no WMD’s in Iraq.” DO THE RESEARCH and READ the reports. The investigator teams found TENS OF THOUSANDS of undeclared Chemical Artillery Shells (most were Mustard Gas, if I recall correctly). Each individual one constituted a WMD.

      Saddam Hussein actually WAS attempting to pursue both a Biological WMD and a Nuclear WMD component. Dual-use tech is easy for manufacturing a lot of weapons-grade biological entities. Anthrax is EASY to manufacture and easy to clean-up after. Once you’ve got weapons-grade, you just need a willing martyr host to deliver it. But it’s not overly effective as it usually requires person-to-person transmission (areosolization it is the HARD part).

      Further, you don’t hold onto 550 METRIC TONS of Yellow-Cake Uranium unless you’re planning on eventually DOING something with it (it was at the nuclear site at Tuwaitha, Bombed by the Israelis in 1981, then the US in 1991, and sealed and under UN Guard, but subject to camera and seal monitoring, but only “snap” inspections, which could have been bypassed without a lot of effort).

      When a MORON tells you “there were no WMD’s in Iraq” you need to know that person is a MORON Low Info individual. Treat them accordingly.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Chuck Skinner. | December 13, 2016 at 6:45 pm

        Yep, the left likes to say that there were “no WMD’s in Iraq” which is liberal speak is translated to “there were no active nuclear weapons”. The thing about that is that no one ever claimed that he had active nukes, we also know he had chemical weapons because he used them on his own people.

        We also know from an Iraqi Air Force General who defected that While Bush 43 waited on congressional approval to take military action that Saddam was moving the worst of his chemical weapons into Syria, which is where Assad got his from, he just kept them after Saddam was deposed.

        The left likes to act as if “WMD” only means Nukes, but that is just stupid and untrue.

        I have a buddy who was one of the Chemical Engineers tasked with dealing with that crap and he lost a couple of good men in the process. If you tell him there where no WMD’s in Iraq he will be happy to calmly explain to you why you are a moron….that is after you regain consciousness and stop the bleeding.

    Sanddog in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    The electors are not entitled to more information than the average voter.

      Milhouse in reply to Sanddog. | December 12, 2016 at 2:51 pm

      The average voter has no constitutional role. Electors do.

        CloseTheFed in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 4:34 pm

        The average voter, votes. Pretty damn important.

        Mercyneal in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm

        Shouldn’t you be over at Daily Kos?

        Millhouse – Not to be rude, but: so what? What would make “electors” entitled to any information not available to the
        “average voter?”

        Just because they have a Constitutionally delegated role does not mean that by their selection they become All Powerful Guardians of the Republic. No. They are simply individuals endowed with the power to act on behalf of the general public to express the will of a State on the election of the United States President, in a prescribed manner as directed by individual State law.

        If you can cite some ~legislative authority~ (State of Federal) which gives those “electors” special access to information, I will be happy to reevaluate my position.

    dystopia in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Sure — and while we are out it let’s have an investigation to see if you are violating U.S. Copyright Law with unauthorized use of the “Milhouse” character. It is a legal duty.

      Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | December 12, 2016 at 2:51 pm

      It’s fair use.

        healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 3:15 pm

        Yes, of course, you are right, it’s fair use…probably. But let’s have a briefing and a full scale investigation just to be sure and make a big grandstand out of it.

        CloseTheFed in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 4:36 pm

        I actually don’t think it is fair use. “Fair use” is to examine and discuss the material so the public is informed, not to make it your own personal trademark.

        Using it as a trademark is basically what you’re doing, or as an avatar… Nothing “fair use” about it.

        Draw your own cartoon or make up your own symbol.

        artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 4:52 pm

        You misspelled it. That’s unfair. I wanna briefing by all 17 intelligence agencies about your motivations for doing that.

          Liberty Bell in reply to artichoke. | December 12, 2016 at 8:51 pm

          We definitely need to investigate him. There is a possibility this “Milhouse” impersonator could be tied into Russian hackers. We can’t rule it out.

          The “Milhouse” impersonator could be liable for Statutory Copyright damages. An investigation is definitely warranted to ensure the integrity of the copyright laws.

    Petrushka in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    Is this the same CIA that installed the Shah of Iran? WTF are they doing meddling in an American election? This is the responsibility of the FBI.

      Milhouse in reply to Petrushka. | December 12, 2016 at 2:53 pm

      The CIA did no such thing.
      They are not interfering in anything.
      How is it not the CIA’s role to investigate Russians cracking an American computer?

        gospace in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 4:53 pm

        Because that’s the role of the FBI. Possible the NSA, but we don’t really know what they do. It would be the job of the CIA to eliminate/neutralize those who did it, if they’re oversea, if indeed they did it. Without leaving any hint of US involvement.

        artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm

        I’ll admit I don’t know for sure. We have 17 intelligence agencies. Is this investigation one for the CIA, or one of the other 16?

        I figure there’s a 1/17 chance, 6%, that it’s CIA’s proper job to do this, given that it rises to the level that it should be bothered with at all — which for all I’ve seen, it doesn’t.

        Tom Servo in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2016 at 10:05 am

        I know that progs don’t think history is very important, but you really should educate yourself a bit. The Shah of Iran was installed in his seat on August 19, 1953, by a coup that was organized and financed by the CIA. And even the CIA has admitted this in recent years.

        This is the root source of all of our troubles with Iran; the anti-American outburst during the Carter administration was a direct reaction to the 1953 coup. Now this is not to say that I agree with the current Iranian govm’t on anything at all, but we have to admit that we worked hard to earn the hatred they have for us now.

        The CIA also organized the fall of Allende in Chile. Now most people think that was a pretty good move, but still, we interfered with their political process quite a bit.

          “…by a coup that was organized and financed by the CIA. And even the CIA has admitted this in recent years.”

          Bullshit, maybe, maybe not. You left out the British, certainly as involved, likely more so. The only CIA officer with direct knowledge of the CIA role is long dead and took his secrets to the grave. Nothing written can be verified.

          You write with such certainty yet leave out the major player. You don’t know what you are talking about.

      Ragspierre in reply to Petrushka. | December 12, 2016 at 3:20 pm

      “Is this the same CIA that installed the Shah of Iran?”

      Certainly not. It’s not even the CIA of a decade ago.

      As far as a conflict of intelligence agencies goes, I’m fer it.

      Remember how the Clinton administration homogenized and firewalled intel? How’d that work out?

      The CIA has had plenty of practice toppling governments.

    iconotastic in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    Without clearances the electors cannot receive anything more than they have read in the media. Furthermore, the CIA leak to the Democrat paper of record does not have the institutional backing of the CIA.

    This is a huge nothingburger spun up by the infinitely sore losers on the left.

    RodFC in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    Is there any information that may appear in the briefing that will cause the electors to change their vote?

    If not then how can they “need” the information?

    inspectorudy in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    An elector does not have a security clearance to receive any such briefing so there cannot be any intelligence briefing for them. Their only job is to fulfill the obligation of their individual state to reflect the results of the statewide vote in accordance with their state laws. They have no other responsibility or purpose and need nor deserve any further information on the president-elect. Is that too hard for you to understand?

“The Republican, Christopher Suprun, has said that he won’t vote for Trump when the Electoral College meets”

He knew Trump was a candidate when he wanted to be an elector.
He knew Trump was the candidate after the convention. He still wanted to be an elector.

I think he is a fraud and he is unethical.

“Nine Democrats and one Republican signed the letter.”
No, ten Democrats signed the letter.

    Milhouse in reply to TX-rifraph. | December 12, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    And he still wants to be an elector. But after what he’s seen of Trump he’s changed his mind about voting for him, as is his constitutional right.

      userpen in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 3:54 pm

      If the electors have a constitutional right to change their minds why is that twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize such electors?

        Gremlin1974 in reply to userpen. | December 12, 2016 at 6:21 pm

        Because Millhouse is talking out of his butt as usual. But at least he is entertaining.

        He may have the “right” to change his vote as an Elector, but he may not have the “power” to change his vote.

        I’m only passingly familiar of the “faithless elector” rules regarding Mr. Christopher Suprun’s proposed non=Trump vote.

        However Texas law authorizes state parties to impose affidavit obligations on electors, by requiring the elector “must be nominated as a political party’s elector candidate in accordance with party rules.” see Texas Statutes 192.003.

        Texas Republicans require elector candidates sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury to support the nominee of the party and the will of the voters. SCOTUS blessed this arrangement in 1952

        More likely what will happen is this:

        Section 192.007 of the Texas statutes authorize electors “may appoint a replacement elector by a majority vote of the qualified electors present” whenever any elector is “declared ineligible.” Texas law authorizes the parties to determine when an elector is ineligible.

      inspectorudy in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 6:05 pm

      When any leaked or exposed or once thought private document is made public the first thing that should be looked at is the content of the material leaked. It needs to be verified and then reacted to. The very last thing in the list of actions to take is to go after the leaker. The Dems and the msm have done just the opposite. They have ignored the content or tried to say that it had been “Altered”, only to have the nation’s geeks come out in force to discredit that theory. The only thing they have left is that somehow these leaked documents altered the campaign of the worst/unliked candidate in US history and stole the election from her without one example of proof of how it happened. This has the clinton machine fingerprints all over it!

        DaveGinOly in reply to inspectorudy. | December 12, 2016 at 6:48 pm

        Assuming the Ruskies were behind the hacks that led to the WikiLeaks documents, then the Russians are guilty of trying to influence the US election with real information, while the US MSM attempted to influence the election with “fake news” (both manufactured fake news, and news that was fake for the information it did not transmit). Which party, the Russians or the MSM, is the more guilty? The Russians for attempting to influence an election if a sovereign foreign country? Or the MSM for attempting to rig the election in its own country? We should also remember that Obama has made statements as POTUS that could be viewed as attempts to interfere with foreign elections. If he can do it, there’s not much to stand on with an accusation against the Russians.

    Massinsanity in reply to TX-rifraph. | December 12, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    While not voting for Trump he has also stated he will not vote for Hilary.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Massinsanity. | December 13, 2016 at 6:49 pm

      If he has a problem voting for the candidate that was chosen by a majority of his state in a fair election then he should do what that other guy did and step down, that is the only honorable way to handle it, step down and let someone else take your place. Otherwise you are just eating up taxpayer dollars so you can attend swanky functions in DC.

    artichoke in reply to TX-rifraph. | December 12, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    Clearly Suprun was unethical to remain an elector. He knew the voters were seeing “Trump / Pence” on the ballot and that voters selecting it would get him as an elector. Yet he planned to be faithless and remained an elector.

    People really should be asking what his address is and where he works. This is pretty bad.

      Tom Servo in reply to artichoke. | December 13, 2016 at 10:11 am

      One guy freelancing out of a desperate need for attention is no big deal. Early next year, the Texas Legislature should change state law so that there are heavy fines and possibly prison terms for anyone who tries pulling this trick again.

      Up until now, we could trust people to be honorable and to live up to their vows. But ok, if we’ve got to back it up with jail time, then fine.

      And as Milthouse pointed out in a backwards way, States have the authority to set any standards they want for their electors. A Federal Judge in Colorado just agreed that this State authority is absolute.

legalizehazing | December 12, 2016 at 1:53 pm

Worthwhile read on what NSA veteran William Binney has to say about it


A mere four percent of the electors who aren’t going to vote for Trump anyway are playing along with this Russian Hack-job charade.

The Dems are falling apart; not so long ago they at least had airtight party discipline.

    Milhouse in reply to tom swift. | December 12, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    It doesn’t matter how they now plan to vote; as electors they’re entitled to the information they need to decide.

      userpen in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 3:23 pm

      Who decides what they need?

      inspectorudy in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 6:07 pm

      Wrong again! They only need to comply with the laws of the state they are representing. There is nothing else for them to know or request to carry out that mission.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 6:19 pm

      They aren’t entitled to a damned thing except what the voters of their state have ordered them to do. If they aren’t trustworthy enough to do what the people of their state have told them to do then they certainly aren’t trustworthy enough for an intelligence briefing.

        Tom Servo in reply to Gremlin1974. | December 13, 2016 at 10:12 am

        The funny thing is, if they don’t get this, what are they going to do? Is Nancy Pelosi’s daughter going to refuse to vote for Hillary in protest?

“Bi-Partisan” : 9 Dems and one obligate Rino. Sounds about right. Obama uses US gov to try and influence Britain and Israel to go Left and Russia “tries” to influence USA to go “right”? I have a feeling Russia and Putin were more concerned about instability under a paranoid labile ashtry throwing Parkinson’s patient seizing with her finger on the nuke button (after blowing the reset button).

My opinion is that the hacking is almost definitely true.

Nevertheless, it was the American voter who chose Trump. The hacking suspicions were already known when the election occurred, so everyone who voted had ample opportunity to weigh this information when making their choices. The bottom line is that Trump was legally elected President. While the electoral college vote is a formality required by the Constitution, there is 0% probability that it will change anything.

    Milhouse in reply to M.K.. | December 12, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Trump hasn’t legally been elected anything yet. And these are electors, whom the constitution entrusts with electing the president. Thus they’re entitled to information relevant to their jobs, exactly as congressmen are entitled to information relevant to their jobs.

      userpen in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 3:25 pm

      Who decides what’s relevant?

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2016 at 6:18 pm

      The only thing electors need to know is what he majority of the people in their state have ordered them to do. This should the be standard.

      This isn’t the 13 colonies or the pre-civil war US where Electors are seen as someone special. They are there to do as they are told, period, they got to express any opinion they had when they voted, their supposed conscience be damned.

    artichoke in reply to M.K.. | December 12, 2016 at 5:20 pm

    I don’t think there was Russian hacking. Maybe Russian propaganda intended to move the electorate, on their own outlets like . But everyone’s free to do that.

    Voters knew of the Democrats’ assertions of Russian hacking. Podesta SAYS that in the last month they mentioned this EVERY DAY. Voters heard it and made up their minds with that allegation available to them. Trump even responded to the point, saying that in his view the content of the emails was more important than why we saw them. Voters had that to consider.

    Only one of the guys around at the writing of the Constitution said the electors should be thinking of changing the voters’ decision. That guy, Hamilton, is one who never got elected to anything! Quoting Hamilton should be seen with this in mind.

    DaveGinOly in reply to M.K.. | December 12, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    Depends on what is meant by “hacking.” Are you referring to the hacking that led to the WikiLeaks document releases? Or are you implying that the Russians hacked the voting results? If the latter, there’s not an iota of evidence for it. If the former, then 1.) Assange says it’s not true, and 2.) even if true, the information that was released was accurate. If there is a gripe here it’s that the Russkies didn’t hack the RNC and release similar material, exposing both parties. But if that had happened, which WikiLeaks would we have heard about from the MSM?

      There’s greater than a 50% possibility that this was more “leaking” than “hacking”.

      And quite possibly from the same CIA that the “unnamed sources” claim to work for.

      Would be hard to believe that 100% of those in the DNC or in the intelligence community are blindly faithful to the Clintons. Especially after what they did to Bernie.

Seems to me that if Russia could hack the elections then so could China and all of our Western Allies. And I’m sure they would all leave little traces leading away from themselves.

Its not a reasonable request unless it comes at the state level. Its the states that run elections and send the Presidential electors. If someone is claiming interference, they should file suit with the state challenging the results (like Jill Stein has) or give specific examples of voter disenfranchisement, like poll places being closed early in minority areas.

Also, if the Democrats / CIA are claiming only that Russia hacked the DNC and made public confidential information then they don’t have a case at all. Candidates making negative claims about their opponents, true or not, backed by evidence or not, goes back to Jefferson & Adams. Jefferson won that election but his hatchet man, James Callendar, went to jail for slander and then spilled the beans about TJ having an affair with one of his slaves. His fitting end involved a drunken stupor and the James river.

That’s also why Dan Rather was able to go on the air days before an election with the ultimate in fake news – the Killian documents – and when it blew up in his face, not get tried for election tampering. Bush could have sued him for slander, but since he was already President it wouldn’t have accomplished anything.

First of all, An Elector has only one legal duty, that is to vote for a Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate based solely upon the criteria and legal directives established by his respective state. an Elector has NO Constitutional right to vote contrary to the rules established by the state which he represents. An Elector “voting his consciences” may be a violation of law and could result in criminal penalties.

Second, not only does an elector have NO need or authority to demand any kind of intelligence briefing, but the average elector would not possess the requisite security clearances for most of the information in such a briefing.

If an elector can not vote as directed by the state he represents, then he would have to resign the post and an alternate would take his place. He has no authority to vote in opposition to the people whom he represents.

Remember, this story is NOT supposed to convince the electors to switch their votes. The sole purpose of this story is to be splashed in BIG letters across the screen, run every 15 minutes on NPR, and repeated ad infinitum until everybody in the Low Information Voter crowd believes it, regardless of how much pure hooey it is. This is Tina Fey’s “I can see Russia from my house” line repeated over and over until it sinks into the American voter.

The story is not about truth. It’s about how loud the lie can be repeated until it is all used up. Then it’s off to the next lie.

As to the charge that Russia, or anyone else, hacked voting machines and vote servers is groundless. NO evidence has been presented which even suggests that such a thing has happened. We know that email accounts, and possibly the servers, belonging to the DNC were hacked. This is unquestionably a criminal act. But, again, we have no hard evidence as to who was responsible.

It is interesting to note that the MSM has chosen to give quite a bit of coverage to this phantom menace, while completely ignoring the large voting irregularities already apparent in Wayne County MI and the potential ones in such states as California and Virginia.

    tom swift in reply to Mac45. | December 12, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    We know that email accounts, and possibly the servers, belonging to the DNC were hacked. This is unquestionably a criminal act.

    We don’t even know that. From the information itself we can’t tell if it was hacked or leaked.

    Of course if it was leaked, the Russian Hack story wouldn’t get very far.

    tyates in reply to Mac45. | December 12, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    Legally, it doesn’t matter. Sony went through this a while back – all their emails were hacked and published. Hacker was never caught, so their lawyers started sending letters to every media outlet, threatening to sue if they were published. Media published anyway since case law going back to the 60s protects the publisher, especially if the information is “a matter of public concern” (Pearson v Dodd).

    BTW when those Sony emails were hacked, people were 100% sure it was North Korea, due to the treats about screening the movie “The Interview” and Obama even put additional sanctions on North Korea. Now most people think it was an inside job, which makes sense given that over 100TB of data was copied in a short period of time.

Is it actually possible that they are staging a coups and stealing this election???? Can that happen?

Let’s let everyone see what their evidence is. I’m sure it’s really strong evidence, and that’s why they’re anonymously leaking this stuff to WaPo a month after the election. While we’re at it, let’s also declassify the details of the CIA’s operations to arm terrorists in Libya and Syria, so the American people can better judge the credibility of these people.

Amazing how quick wind-up-rinos Ryan and McConnell jumped on the democrat bandwagon.

It’s us against them, and ‘them’ will always includes the GOPe.

“It’s a reasonable request.”

Nope. A reasonable person would look at their statement and immediately pick out the unreasonable demands that smell like bs.

For example, Team Trump must prove that they had no contact with the Russians. Prove a negative. Prove you are not a witch. That is not reasonable.

Team Trump must also disavow the Russians and denounce Russian hacking. Again. Very much like they “you haven’t denounced David Duke recently” game the Dems were playing pre-election. More bullshit.

Surprised they didn’t demand an answer to “how long have you been beating wife?”

“The electors do have a constitutional responsibility, and if they need information to fulfill it they should receive it.”

There is a difference between the electors asking for information and a minority of partisan electors demanding the rest of the electors sit through a propaganda film.

Also, as others have noted, no one “hacked” the election.

Someone’s server may have been hacked. Or a campaign insider leaked. And embarrassing emails were released to the public.

This is like saying the MSM “stole” the election because they released a tape of two men having a private conversation about grabbing women by the pussy.

The Left is on a babyhunt. Trump should be cautious of abortionists lurking in the twilight.

I’m going to break my oath of silence to fill you all in the hacking.
The Rooooskies did hack hilldawg’s calendar and deleted Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania from her campaign stops.
They also hacked the paper ballots in Wisconsin as they knew it was going to be close and additionally they inserted into the teleprompter the word “deplorable” to anger 1/4 or more of the voters nationwide.
So now you know the real story. However, they couldn’t hack the bathroom server hilldawg had because security was sooooo tight.
Had we hired her staff to run the election she’d be president now.

    userpen in reply to 4fun. | December 12, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    The Clinton campaign suspects the Russians might also have hacked the vodka stash, because frequently after a bout of drinking Hillary would say,”Damn, those Rooooskies sure make good vodka.”

A secret, the russkies are in league with the democrats, just like they always have been. They will be happy to help “push” this story in order to damage the incoming US president.

The left we expect to do this. They are simply anti American.

Then there are those on the “right” pushing this. What are they?

The exact same.

    Barry in reply to Barry. | December 12, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    1) Shrillary’s Reset button (couldn’t even spell reset in russkie)

    2) Obama caught on an open Mike sending the message to Pukin that he would be “more flexible” after the election

    3) B. Clinton’s half million dollar speech in Moscow

    4) Shrillary’s involvement in sale of US uranium (20%) to Moscow

    5) Podesta’s massive investment in Russia

    6) Obama does nothing to impede russkie invasion of Crimea

    7) Various other cheerleading by the left for the commies over the last 100 years

We actually know who leaked to Wikileaks, pretty much. It was Seth Rich and perhaps another guy who died about at the same time and worked for the DNC. Wikileaks didn’t confirm them as the source, because it is not their policy to reveal their sources. In addition, the email files look like an internal download, since threads from all over the place are in them.

As for John Podesta, we definitely know he was spear-phished, and his password was stupid.

The investigation needs to focus on Seth Rich, unless of course, they just want to blame the Russians.

FBI Director Comey should give the electors a briefing on the investigation of the Clinton email server, the investigation of the death of Jon Benet Ramsey and the last known location of Judge Joseph Force Crater.