The Comey thing was resurrected because there were people in the FBI who were out to get Hillary. I usually reject conspiracy theories but I am fairly sure without Weiner SOMETHING would have come out right before.

Oh absolutely; Hillary is a terrible campaigner with awful political instincts, and she is surrounded by too many people who don’t know what the hell they’re doing too often. But they weren’t so bad that with a fair media they couldn’t have easily won.

I think there very well could have been some other “surprise” even without Weiner. There were elements in the FBI who were desperate to take down Hillary Clinton.

See above; I don’t really think so.

Ahh, good point. Yes, that was an indirect cause, though I suspect SOMETHING would have come up from the FBI right before the election, even if Weiner hadn’t been skeezy. Comey’s problems went well beyond his timing of the last thing he did; I think one of the biggest problems was he didn’t control people in the FBI…

They meant nothing, really. At the end of the day the election results were driven mostly by: (1) James Comey, and (2) the hacks at the New York Times and Associated Press who spent a year (well, 20 years in the NYT’s case) desperately trying to drag Hillary’s reputation through the mud through non-stories (we don’t…

Yep, my e-reader is the best. And I even mostly read the non-e-ink one; I can highlight text, make notes, then load up the app on my computer and see all my annotations.

You think thin sheets of cellulose last forever?

You can literally mark just an X and it will be accepted as a signature. My own signature bears little relation to my actual name.

“There’s evidence that actually writing something by hand better encodes it into longer term memory.”

It’s simple; there were salary negotiations, and Kutchner demanded three times more money than Portman demanded. I...don’t understand what people expect here. All these salaries are negotiated. Why didn’t Portman ask for more money?

Everybody knows already.

Affirmative action?

And still the New York Times and Associated Press have continued their decades-long vendetta against Hillary, publishing hack anti-Clinton pieces while her opponent has made punishing the papers after he’s elected a campaign plank.

I do not mean to aim this at Anna (or just at Anna) because I honestly think she very gracefully apologized over it and has been doing great work on the story since then, but I don’t know if Jezebel in terms of the writers or commenters are the best people to tsk over the failure to rigorously fact check Jackie’s…

Thomas practiced law, working for a Federal agency on law-related issue, or was an appellate judge all the way from law school to his appointment as SCOTUS.

Legally? No. But of course I was not talking about the legal requirements of the Constitution. Literally anybody can be a Justice of the Supreme Court: you, me, your 12-year-old Call of Duty-playing nephew, the Archbishop of Krakow, Brett Favre, etc. etc..

Sure, he’d make a good Justice.

Technically if he wins Utah and Hillary and Trump tie the EV, then Congress could legally pick him as President.

Why do we place so much importance on what spoiled Hollywood types think politically? I don’t go to political scientists for acting advice, why would I go to actors for political advice?