That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
In an email this evening, a veteran publishing source calls the latest Hillary Clinton book, Hard Choices, a memoir of her State Department years, a “bomb.” The source is referring to the early but underwhelming sales figures.
“Between us, they are nervous at S&S [Simon & Schuster],” says the source, who gave permission for his email to be published. “Sales were well below expectations and the media was a disaster.”
According to this source, a Simon & Schuster insider, “They sold 60,000 hard covers first week and 24,000 ebooks.” The publishing house was “hoping and praying for 150,000 print first week.”
“The 60k represents a less than 10% sell thru based on what they shipped,” says the source.
It’s been reported that one million copies of Clinton’s book were shipped weeks before the June 10 publication date. “They will be lucky to sell 150,000 total lifetime,” the source writes in the email.
Hillary reportedly received a near-$14 million advance, a sum the publishing house will unlikely make back.
“It’s a bomb but it will be interesting to see how they spin it.”
Apparently not since Trump was elected, now anonymous sources are enough to launch special counsel investigations these days.Andrew Wonser wrote:Wait.. is it ok to use anonymous sources now? I thought that was considered fake news.
If you're Trump, they're great when they praise you, fake news when they don't.Andrew Wonser wrote:Wait.. is it ok to use anonymous sources now? I thought that was considered fake news.
Sheesh, you and Hil should just stop this Sam and Diane schtick and get on with it.Rip wrote:I can easily come up with better, just not as funny.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/publishin ... cle/795079
<Rip doing the internet equivalent of pulling on the ponytail of a girl he likes.>
It is measured in how bad it makes Hillary look. If it will don't release it, otherwise the public has an interest.Moliere wrote:Since Rip is slacking I will post this here:
FBI denies FOI request regarding Hillary's emails because of a lack of public interest.
How is public interest measured in a case like this?
It would probably take a lawspeaker to make real sense of this, but one passage caught my eye:Moliere wrote:Since Rip is slacking I will post this here:
FBI denies FOI request regarding Hillary's emails because of a lack of public interest.
How is public interest measured in a case like this?
That implies that nothing in the files supports any contention that Clinton committed anything along the line of "proven violations of public trust", if nothing else.Some public interest factors are properly taken into consideration and accorded great weight. For example, the courts have found the public interest in disclosure to be strong when requested information would inform the public about proven violations of public trust. See, e.g., Columbia Packing Co., Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 563 F.2d 495, 499 (1st Cir. 1977) (federal employees found guilty of accepting bribes); Congressional News Syndicate v. Department of Justice, 438 F. Supp, 538, 544 (D.D.C. 1977) (misconduct by White House staffers). As one court has observed, there is an "obvious public interest in a full and thorough airing of . . . serious abuses that did in fact occur, in the hope that such abuses will not occur in the future." Tax Reform Research Group v. IRS, 419 F. Supp. 415, 418 (D.D.C. 1976).
Which is pretty much what the conclusion of all the GOP Benghazi! witch hunt investigations as well as the FBI investigation were.Max Peck wrote:It would probably take a lawspeaker to make real sense of this, but one passage caught my eye:Moliere wrote:Since Rip is slacking I will post this here:
FBI denies FOI request regarding Hillary's emails because of a lack of public interest.
How is public interest measured in a case like this?That implies that nothing in the files supports any contention that Clinton committed anything along the line of "proven violations of public trust", if nothing else.Some public interest factors are properly taken into consideration and accorded great weight. For example, the courts have found the public interest in disclosure to be strong when requested information would inform the public about proven violations of public trust. See, e.g., Columbia Packing Co., Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 563 F.2d 495, 499 (1st Cir. 1977) (federal employees found guilty of accepting bribes); Congressional News Syndicate v. Department of Justice, 438 F. Supp, 538, 544 (D.D.C. 1977) (misconduct by White House staffers). As one court has observed, there is an "obvious public interest in a full and thorough airing of . . . serious abuses that did in fact occur, in the hope that such abuses will not occur in the future." Tax Reform Research Group v. IRS, 419 F. Supp. 415, 418 (D.D.C. 1976).
I like the juxtaposition.Holman wrote:It's worth pointing out that Trump has had like a dozen campaign emails released, and *every one of them* is worse than anything in the Clinton/Podesta/DNC dumps of thousands.
Worked for Trump - his whole schtick is essentially affirmative action for whites.Moliere wrote: Hillary blaming Sanders for offering even more free stuff to get votes.
BENGHAZI!Isgrimnur wrote:...and?
You have a sitting president willing to cause economic harm to American companies because their CEO resigns from one of his councils, but Clinton is all about settling scores.
Saying it would provide a candid account of her experiences writing an unsuccessful tell-all, sources confirmed Thursday that Hillary Clinton is already working on a follow-up book casting blame for the failures of her previous memoir What Happened. “From my agent negotiating that underwhelming deal with Simon & Schuster, to the graphic designer’s lackluster cover art, to my so-called supporters who couldn’t be bothered to drop $17.99 for the hardcover copy—everyone had a hand in undermining my last book’s success,” reads a passage from the introduction to Clinton’s What Also Happened, which repeatedly decries her prior book’s “indecipherable” font and dedicates an entire chapter to lashing out at her copy editor for making her look like “an idiot third-grader.”
It's an interesting thought experiment to consider - is there anything Clinton could say publicly that would not be widely attacked?Holman wrote:Given how weird, contentious, and culturally significant the 2016 election was, it's crazy that people think there's something wrong in Clinton telling her side of it. The attacks on her for writing a book are part of the same pattern that keeps Sean Hannity harping on her emails even today. And never mind, of course, that .1% of the people complaining about the book have actually opened it.
Meanwhile, I can think of someone prominent who complains, brags, or tweets about the 2016 election pretty much every day.
Mortoned.Holman wrote:And never mind, of course, that .1% of the people complaining about the book have actually opened one.
Can you even begin to imagine the book that Trump would have released had he lost? My God, the amount of thrashing and flailing about in an effort to blame everyone but himself would have been epic. I can't wait for his ass to get bounced in 2020 so that book comes to fruition.Holman wrote:Given how weird, contentious, and culturally significant the 2016 election was, it's crazy that people think there's something wrong in Clinton telling her side of it. The attacks on her for writing a book are part of the same pattern that keeps Sean Hannity harping on her emails even today. And never mind, of course, that .1% of the people complaining about the book have actually opened it.
Meanwhile, I can think of someone prominent who complains, brags, or tweets about the 2016 election pretty much every day.
[fingers crossed]hepcat wrote:Can you even begin to imagine the book that Trump would have released had he lost? My God, the amount of thrashing and flailing about in an effort to blame everyone but himself would have been epic. I can't wait for his ass to get bounced in 2020 2018 so that book comes to fruition.Holman wrote:Given how weird, contentious, and culturally significant the 2016 election was, it's crazy that people think there's something wrong in Clinton telling her side of it. The attacks on her for writing a book are part of the same pattern that keeps Sean Hannity harping on her emails even today. And never mind, of course, that .1% of the people complaining about the book have actually opened it.
Meanwhile, I can think of someone prominent who complains, brags, or tweets about the 2016 election pretty much every day.
How archaic to care about things like how a policy would actually work and its practical feasibility.
Why Milton Friedman Supported a Guaranteed Income (5 Reasons).GreenGoo wrote:Obama is the anti-christ because only rich people should expect to live, but somehow the right is on-board with free money for everyone?
Also, minimum wage is bad, but we'll just take your money and give it away works?
I'm totally missing your point. Could you spell it out for me?GreenGoo wrote:Until I see Rush's name in there, I think you're missing the point.
Hillary is a big fan of their Tom Sawyer song. And Mark Twain advocated for Guaranteed Basic Income. Do you see the connection now?ImLawBoy wrote:I'm totally missing your point. Could you spell it out for me?GreenGoo wrote:Until I see Rush's name in there, I think you're missing the point.
