Russia probe pile-on: No fewer than 9 teams investigating collusion, meddling

“The main problem is that after months and months of multiple investigations, no one has found any evidence of collusion,” a congressional source told Fox News. “So the Democrats are trying to shift the focus from collusion to obstruction, and since it doesn’t look like that will pan out for them either, they surely have some new accusation ready to put out there. It’s in their political interest to drag out these investigations as long as possible.”

& the F.B.I. has been at it for a year.

He mopped the fuckin' floor with her fuckin' ass.

& they can't get over it. Tougheth lucketh.

You have to love it when the "congressional source" gives such quotes anonymously.

Nice Fox News article. Fair and balanced! amirite?

Independent Counsel investigate Clinton for seven years. Can dish out. Can't take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Independent Counsel investigate Clinton for seven years. Can dish out. Can't take.

---

8 different Repug committees, $10M wasted

Benghazi! :lol

Hillary personally shot those 4 US people in Benghazi!

democrats will top that

Clinton was guilty even the former fbi said basically

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

Clinton was guilty even the former fbi said basically

---

is that before or after he said that no reasonable prosecutor would press charges?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

democrats will top that

---

Mueller not Democrat.

Take it. No bitchy bitchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

is that before or after he said that no reasonable prosecutor would press charges?

---

:lol did you really buy that shit?

Crazy to think that this all might be retaliation for Flynn's lawsuit. Six ways to Sunday right Chucky Schumer?

They're gonna get him and he knows it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

:lol did you really buy that shit?

---

sure. to my knowledge, she wasn't being charged with a strict liability crime. so intent will come into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

:lol did you really buy that shit?

---

You've been shown the SCOTUS rulings that govern how these cases are to be tried. You've been shown several times by several people.

So are you too stupid to understand, is your memory that shitty, are you so arrogant you think you know better than the high court, or you just being willfully idiotic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

“The main problem is that after months and months of multiple investigations, no one has found any evidence of collusion,” a congressional source told Fox News. “So the Democrats are trying to shift the focus from collusion to obstruction, and since it doesn’t look like that will pan out for them either, they surely have some new accusation ready to put out there. It’s in their political interest to drag out these investigations as long as possible.”

---

ROFL, your siggy, holy fuck, that's funny.

100% of 23,000,000 is 23,000,000...

"more than 100%" of 23,000,000 would mean that somehow a negative number of people are covered under Ocare.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wh...rticle/2627135

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

:lol did you really buy that shit?

---

So when Trump prosecute Hillary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

You've been shown the SCOTUS rulings that govern how these cases are to be tried. You've been shown several times by several people.

So are you too stupid to understand, is your memory that shitty, are you so arrogant you think you know better than the high court, or you just being willfully idiotic?

---

You and others didn't even have the correct statute.

I've already shown what statute she violated hundreds of times and intent is no where to be found.

I don't claim to know more than the high courts, but Comey's statement was bullshit as there were plenty of Federal prosecutors who would have tried her and won their case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

sure. to my knowledge, she wasn't being charged with a strict liability crime. so intent will come into play.

---

“As a former federal prosecutor with more than 350 criminal cases under my belt, I take serious issue with Director Comey’s conclusions,” said Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor in Texas and Virginia. “The applicable statute does not require specific intent to violate the law. Indeed, the only real issue is whether Secretary Clinton allowed classified information to be transmitted to her personal e-mail account. That alone is a felony count for each e-mail so transmitted — whether marked classified or not.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...uld-charge-her

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

“As a former federal prosecutor with more than 350 criminal cases under my belt, I take serious issue with Director Comey’s conclusions,” said Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor in Texas and Virginia. “The applicable statute does not require specific intent to violate the law. Indeed, the only real issue is whether Secretary Clinton allowed classified information to be transmitted to her personal e-mail account. That alone is a felony count for each e-mail so transmitted — whether marked classified or not.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...uld-charge-her

---

that statute also requires the documents to be of "national defense" not merely classified, and courts construe "national defense" very narrowly in this context. not to mention, in comey's statement back in july, he even specifically said they DID look at the statute that only requires gross negligence and didnt recommend charges for that either

Quote:

---

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

---

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Mueller not Democrat.

Take it. No bitchy bitchy.

---

all his lawyers he hired are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

all his lawyers he hired are

---

No.

No bitchy bitchy. You take it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

You and others didn't even have the correct statute.

I've already shown what statute she violated hundreds of times and intent is no where to be found.

I don't claim to know more than the high courts, but Comey's statement was bullshit as there were plenty of Federal prosecutors who would have tried her and won their case.

---

And again you have been shown the SCOTUS decision that weighs the various statutes and case law telling how these cases are to be tried and judged.

You are on repeat and apparently too stupid to understand the difference between individual legislation and the role of the SCOTUS and their rulings.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...2/19/case.html

Apparently you are so pigheaded you think you can interpret law better than SCOTUS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

that statute also requires the documents to be of "national defense" not merely classified, and courts construe "national defense" very narrowly in this context. not to mention, in comey's statement back in july, he even specifically said they DID look at the statute that only requires gross negligence and didnt recommend charges for that either



https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

---

She had 7 email chains containing Top Secret/SAP level classifications.

And after your edit I see you did indeed buy the bullshit. Comey went through an entire list of Clinton's gross negligence, even you could have won that case against her.

even if you disagree with SCOTUS, or are absolutely certain that SCOTUS got it wrong that's irrelevant. the SCOTUS opinion is the governing law, and that's what prosecutors are bound to abide by... even if they know that scotus got it wrong

comey referenced the statute you keep bringing up, that does not include specific intent, but only gross negligence. and he said there isn't a good case even by that standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

She had 7 email chains containing Top Secret/SAP level classifications.

And after your edit I see you did indeed buy the bullshit. Comey went through an entire list of Clinton's gross negligence, even you could have won that case against her.

---

he went through mistakes she made and careless decisions. that's not the same as gross negligence, which is a legal standard, not a just two words that you interpret through a dictionary or thesaurus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

And again you have been shown the SCOTUS decision that weighs the various statutes and case law telling how these cases are to be tried and judged.

You are on repeat and apparently too stupid to understand the difference between individual legislation and the role of the SCOTUS and their rulings.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...2/19/case.html

Apparently you are so pigheaded you think you can interpret law better than SCOTUS.

---

You don't have the correct statute.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

18 US Code 793 (f)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

She had 7 email chains containing Top Secret/SAP level classifications.

And after your edit I see you did indeed buy the bullshit. Comey went through an entire list of Clinton's gross negligence, even you could have won that case against her.

---

Great. So when Trump prosecute her?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

he went through mistakes she made and careless decisions. that's not the same as gross negligence, which is a legal standard, not a just two words that you interpret through a dictionary or thesaurus

---

what's the legal standard of gross negligence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

You don't have the correct statute.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

18 US Code 793 (f)

---

the purpose of that case is to show how they define national defense in the espionage act altogether. "military or naval establishments and related activities of national preparedness for war"

you dont need a case on the espionage act to get a definition for gross negligence. that's a legal standard used in dozens/hundreds of different applications

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

the purpose of that case is to show how they define national defense in the espionage act altogether. "military or naval establishments and related activities of national preparedness for war"

you dont need a case on the espionage act to get a definition for gross negligence. that's a legal standard used in dozens/hundreds of different applications

---

Are you now claiming none of the Clinton emails had anything to do with national defense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Are you now claiming none of the Clinton emails had anything to do with national defense?

---

i have not read through clinton's emails, so im not making that claim. im pointing out the relevance of that case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

what's the legal standard of gross negligence?

---

unfortunatley, it varies on subject matter. gross negligence in a contract claim is different than it would be in a criminal matter. and even within the scope of crimes, it would be different in the context of a homicide vs unauthorized use/access of classified data. you'd need to review case law on similar crimes to see the federal standard. generally speaking, negligence is a deviation from the reasonable standard of care, and gross negligence is a gross deviation. what constitutes a gross deviation is based on precedent and interpretation, and it's not defined in the statute.

so comey saying she was extremely careless isn't the same as saying she was grossly negligent by any legal standard... which is why he brought up the statute you refer to (where only gross negligence, as opposed to specific intent, is required), said she was careless, and still didn't recommend prosecution based on their investigation.

i'm sure you can look through a bunch of online dictionaries and find places where they say negligence = careless as one of the definitions and say "a-ha!"... but that has no bearing in court

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

unfortunatley, it varies on subject matter. gross negligence in a contract claim is different than it would be in a criminal matter. and even within the scope of crimes, it would be different in the context of a homicide vs unauthorized use/access of classified data. you'd need to review case law on similar crimes to see the federal standard. generally speaking, negligence is a deviation from the reasonable standard of care, and gross negligence is a gross deviation. what constitutes a gross deviation is based on precedent and interpretation, and it's not defined in the statute.

so comey saying she was extremely careless isn't the same as saying she was grossly negligent by any legal standard

---

Will let voat decide.

All I know is Hillary eat children and Trump do nothing!

its frustrating that the answer tends to be "need to look up the case law" but that's simply a result of setting up standards like negligence/recklessness/specific intent rather than spelling out every possible way in which the statute can be violated

my point in all this is that you cant simply say "lol he said careless and careless = negligent so she's guilty"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

unfortunatley, it varies on subject matter. gross negligence in a contract claim is different than it would be in a criminal matter. and even within the scope of crimes, it would be different in the context of a homicide vs unauthorized use/access of classified data. you'd need to review case law on similar crimes to see the federal standard. generally speaking, negligence is a deviation from the reasonable standard of care, and gross negligence is a gross deviation. what constitutes a gross deviation is based on precedent and interpretation, and it's not defined in the statute.

so comey saying she was extremely careless isn't the same as saying she was grossly negligent by any legal standard... which is why he brought up the statute you refer to (where only gross negligence, as opposed to specific intent, is required), said she was careless, and still didn't recommend prosecution based on their investigation.

i'm sure you can look through a bunch of online dictionaries and find places where they say negligence = careless as one of the definitions and say "a-ha!"... but that has no bearing in court

---

You should re-read his statement after his recent testimony concerning Lynch

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

its frustrating that the answer tends to be "need to look up the case law" but that's simply a result of setting up standards like negligence/recklessness/specific intent rather than spelling out every possible way in which the statute can be violated

my point in all this is that you cant simply say "lol he said careless and careless = negligent so she's guilty"

---

If you think he just said she was extremely careless you do in fact need to re-read his statement.

In the case the defense argued that "relating to the national defense" was too vague and there was no way for the defendant to know what fell under that definition. The majority disagreed as long as was present "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States."

TSA's poor memory and generally poor intellect strikes again.

You are wasting your time on a red herring. The need for intent arises from a different part of the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

You should re-read his statement after his recent testimony concerning Lynch

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system

---

this is the july 2016 statement where he just says careless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

In the case the defense argued that "relating to the national defense" was too vague and there was no way for the defendant to know what fell under that definition. The majority disagreed as long as was present "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States."

TSA's poor memory and generally poor intellect strikes again.

You are wasting your time on a red herring. The need for intent arises from a different part of the law.

---

they bring up intent because the statute in question in that case required intent.

i do get that they are trying to warn that "national defense" could be dangerously vague, and in the context of this case, the intent requirement alleviated that concern. still, i dont know that they have made any sort of determination specific to section F that doesn't require intent. it would stand to reason that they would think it's too vague, but it hasn't been challenged yet to my knowledge. i haven't done comprehensive research to answer either way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

this is the july 2016 statement where he just says careless

---

He says much more than just careless when describing her illegally set up unsecured servers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

You don't have the correct statute.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

18 US Code 793 (f)

---

That is a subsection of the espionage act, dumbfuck.

Quote:

---

The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ense-info.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

In the case the defense argued that "relating to the national defense" was too vague and there was no way for the defendant to know what fell under that definition. The majority disagreed as long as was present "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States."

TSA's poor memory and generally poor intellect strikes again.

You are wasting your time on a red herring. The need for intent arises from a different part of the law.

---

why did you leave this part out? "or to the advantage of a foreign nation"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

That is a subsection of the espionage act, dumbfuck.

---

Can you find the word intent in section (f) ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

He says much more than just careless when describing her illegally set up unsecured servers.

---

not really. he said they were careless and then gave a few examples to demonstrate the carelessness. he didnt give a separate legal determination and never suggested their actions rose to the level of gross negligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Can you find the word intent in section (f) ?

---

Again, SCOTUS addresses that directly. Can you find the phrase "related to the national defense?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

why did you leave this part out? "or to the advantage of a foreign nation"

---

Take it up with the Supreme Court, dim.

TSA... the point is,

1 - you keep bringing up subsection F which does not require specific intent, only gross negligence.

2 - in comey's address, he agrees that it was proper to look at that subsection (he doesn't recite the statute code, but he says "either intentionally or a grossly negligent way"). so he's on the same page that 793(F) is appropriate

3 - comey said they were extremely careless, and gave examples to show it

4 - however, he did not recommend charges

the disconnect in my eyes is that you are equating the extremely careless comment with the legal standard of gross negligence. they sound similar-ish, and i'm sure some dictionaries will equate them. but the legal standard is defined through case law and precedent, not by websters dictionary. to get a good answer to the question, you'd have to have somebody dive through a bunch of appellate level decisions relating to gross negligence under the espionage act or other similar statutes with a gross negligence quality. comey said they looked into past cases and could not come across case with this set of facts that was prosecuted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Take it up with the Supreme Court, dim.

---

You specifaccly left that part out. Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

they bring up intent because the statute in question in that case required intent.

i do get that they are trying to warn that "national defense" could be dangerously vague, and in the context of this case, the intent requirement alleviated that concern. still, i dont know that they have made any sort of determination specific to section F that doesn't require intent. it would stand to reason that they would think it's too vague, but it hasn't been challenged yet to my knowledge. i haven't done comprehensive research to answer either way

---

Quote:

---

We there said that the statute "condemns no act or omission;" that the vagueness is such as to violate due process. [Footnote 12]

But we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. [Footnote 13] The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign

Page 312 U. S. 28

nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established.

---

Please point to me that part that speaks to the specifics of the case and not the Espionage Act itself.

So when Trump lock Clinton up for espionage?

TSA say is slam dunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

ROFL, your siggy, holy fuck, that's funny.

100% of 23,000,000 is 23,000,000...

"more than 100%" of 23,000,000 would mean that somehow a negative number of people are covered under Ocare.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wh...rticle/2627135

:lmao

---

RG, imho, ducks' Obamacare blurb is correct. 100% of 10.3 million is 10.3 million. 23 million - 10.3 million = 12.7 million. 12.7 million > 10.3 million. ACA's estimate was off by more than 100% (of what eventually happened) - this last bit in parentheses is what should be assumed/understood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

You specifaccly left that part out. Why?

---

Why don't you cherry pick a different portion and ask why I left that out too.

If you can explain how "relating to the national defense" is dependent on that completely different sentence then great.

Bottomline is that SCOTUS addressed the espionage act and that subset and declared that intent is required for sanctions. Deal with it.

Greta just took the pickle over at MSNBC. Not confrontational enough. & I have to admit, anytime I sent it over there and found her I just went back to CNN.

[[[As evidenced by Coale's comments, it appears that the news arrived abruptly on Thursday even for Van Susteren herself. A friend of Van Susteren's told CNNmoney that she was given no prior notice of the decision.
The same source said that Van Susteren was informed that she had not been confrontational enough in her on-air presentation, perhaps a suggestion that MSNBC is once again embracing its liberal roots and adopting a more adversarial posture toward President Donald Trump.]]]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/medi...out/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

TSA... the point is,

1 - you keep bringing up subsection F which does not require specific intent, only gross negligence.

2 - in comey's address, he agrees that it was proper to look at that subsection (he doesn't recite the statute code, but he says "either intentionally or a grossly negligent way"). so he's on the same page that 793(F) is appropriate

3 - comey said they were extremely careless, and gave examples to show it

4 - however, he did not recommend charges

the disconnect in my eyes is that you are equating the extremely careless comment with the legal standard of gross negligence. they sound similar-ish, and i'm sure some dictionaries will equate them. but the legal standard is defined through case law and precedent, not by websters dictionary. to get a good answer to the question, you'd have to have somebody dive through a bunch of appellate level decisions relating to gross negligence under the espionage act or other similar statutes with a gross negligence quality. comey said they looked into past cases and could not come across case with this set of facts that was prosecuted

---

1. We disagree on what constitutes gross negligence
2. The servers were set up intentionally. There are emails of Clinton instructing to scrub classified headers and send insecure. There was both intent and gross negligence.
3. Agreed, and just disagree to what extent.
4. It's not Comey's job to recommend charges

We haven't even gotten into Comey testifying about DOJ pressure during the investigation or the fact that 5 key witnesses were granted immunity and no evidence was subpoenaed, and witness laptops were purposely deby the FBI. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Why don't you cherry pick a different portion and ask why I left that out too.

If you can explain how "relating to the national defense" is dependent on that completely different sentence then great.

Bottomline is that SCOTUS addressed the espionage act and that subset and declared that intent is required for sanctions. Deal with it.

---

you specifically left out the portion immediately following "or"

"that they are to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation"

Why did you leave that part out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

1. We disagree on what constitutes gross negligence
2. The servers were set up intentionally. There are emails of Clinton instructing to scrub classified headers and send insecure. There was both intent and gross negligence.
3. Agreed, and just disagree to what extent.
4. It's not Comey's job to recommend charges

We haven't even gotten into Comey testifying about DOJ pressure during the investigation or the fact that 5 key witnesses were granted immunity and no evidence was subpoenaed, and witness laptops were purposely deby the FBI. :lol

---

our agreement on gross negligence is immaterial. it's a legal standard, not a standard of public opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

1. We disagree on what constitutes gross negligence
2. The servers were set up intentionally. There are emails of Clinton instructing to scrub classified headers and send insecure. There was both intent and gross negligence.
3. Agreed, and just disagree to what extent.
4. It's not Comey's job to recommend charges

We haven't even gotten into Comey testifying about DOJ pressure during the investigation or the fact that 5 key witnesses were granted immunity and no evidence was subpoenaed, and witness laptops were purposely deby the FBI. :lol

---

comey testified that the DOJ has never influenced an investigation. he said he was troubled by lynch's request/order to refer to it as a matter instead of investigation. he never said the investigation itself was hampered or influenced in any way by the DOJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

you specifically left out the portion immediately following "or"

"that they are to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation"

Why did you leave that part out?

---

Do we really need to have a grammar lesson and discuss the difference between subject and predicate? intent is in the subject and applies to all portions of the predicate including the omitted part. Again if you want to point out how the omission makes a difference than have at it but all I get out of this is that your reading skills are poor.

I get that you are grasping at straws and this is the best you can do but ffs your stupidity is tiresome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Do we really need to have a grammar lesson and discuss the difference between subject and predicate? intent is in the subject and applies to all portions of the predicate including the omitted part. Again if you want to point out how the omission makes a difference than have at it but all I get out of this is that your reading skills are poor.

I get that you are grasping at straws and this is the best you can do but ffs you're stupidity is tiresome.

---

I'm trying to figure out why you left it out and now why you won't answer a simple question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

comey testified that the DOJ has never influenced an investigation. he said he was troubled by lynch's request/order to refer to it as a matter instead of investigation. he never said the investigation itself was hampered or influenced in any way by the DOJ

---

Tarmac meeting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

I'm trying to figure out why you left it out and now why you won't answer a simple question.

---

Cause the formatting in case law is wonky.

Do you acknowledge that SCOTUS stated that to prosecute under the Espionage Act that proof of intent for bad faith is required?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Tarmac meeting

---

was comey on the tarmac?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

was comey on the tarmac?

---

Didn't need to be and was still influenced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Didn't need to be and was still influenced

---

you dont know that

and with all this put together, why isn't sessions pressing charges? he's not bound by comey's recommendation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

and with all this put together, why isn't sessions pressing charges? he's not bound by comey's recommendation

---

This where TSA turn into Rolfileo.

tsa = trumps semen averter

The Special Counsel alone could go many different directions.
Open the flood gates on all sorts of mundane financial crimes.
Thanks for your cooperation Team Trump, why don't you just ask next time you want every possible footstep looked into.

"Please just end it Mr. Comey"
Ok.
Release the Kraken.



You like lawyers and lawsuits, feast on this...

TSA cries about a simple question not being answered and then ignores one in turn. He has no idea what honor even is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

The Special Counsel alone could go many different directions.
Open the flood gates on all sorts of mundane financial crimes.
Thanks for your cooperation Team Trump, why don't you just ask next time you want every possible footstep looked into.

"Please just end it Mr. Comey"
Ok.
Release the Kraken.



You like lawyers and lawsuits, feast on this...

---

Yeah, firing Comey was a major fuck up. All because Comey wouldn't publicly announce Trump wasn't under investigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Yeah, firing Comey was a major fuck up. All because Comey wouldn't publicly announce Trump wasn't under investigation.

---

The intransigence Team Trump illustrated was stupidity.
I guess when one is so used to steam rolling people in private business...

Welcome to democracy. When will Trump accept the concept. He could have got a whole lot done by now. Idiot gets everything tied up in court. Overstepping constantly. No subtle abilities. Seems he really does wanna be like Putin. Although Trump is fully challenging Putin in Syria in ways Obama would not have touched. Who knows if this is a good approach or not. Based on the recklessness so far it may be trouble.

He won the election. It's done. Get over it and get to work.
Everyone. Please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

The intransigence Team Trump illustrated was stupidity.
I guess when one is so used to steam rolling people in private business...

Welcome to democracy. When will Trump accept the concept. He could have got a whole lot done by now. Idiot gets everything tied up in court. Overstepping constantly. No subtle abilities. Seems he really does wanna be like Putin. Although Trump is fully challenging Putin in Syria in ways Obama would not have touched. Who knows if this is a good approach or not. Based on the recklessness so far it may be trouble.

He won the election. It's done. Get over it and get to work.
Everyone. Please.

---

Doesn't help when he focuses his attention on attacking specific media personalities. What a waste of time. If he really wants to make America better, he should resign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

The intransigence Team Trump illustrated was stupidity.
I guess when one is so used to steam rolling people in private business...

Welcome to democracy. When will Trump accept the concept. He could have got a whole lot done by now. Idiot gets everything tied up in court. Overstepping constantly. No subtle abilities. Seems he really does wanna be like Putin. Although Trump is fully challenging Putin in Syria in ways Obama would not have touched. Who knows if this is a good approach or not. Based on the recklessness so far it may be trouble.

He won the election. It's done. Get over it and get to work.
Everyone. Please.

---

Trump president, not Clinton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

Trump president, not Clinton.

---

El Donaldo Presidente No La Chola

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/4539758/im...MP-628x314.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/4539758/im...MP-628x314.jpg

---

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3f...-for-trump.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3f...-for-trump.jpg

---

Faded pigment.
The horror...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

Trump president, not Clinton.

---

He mopped the floor.

Guess that's working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

RG, imho, ducks' Obamacare blurb is correct. 100% of 10.3 million is 10.3 million. 23 million - 10.3 million = 12.7 million. 12.7 million > 10.3 million. ACA's estimate was off by more than 100% (of what eventually happened) - this last bit in parentheses is what should be assumed/understood.

---

um, it isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of basic math.

If I tell you I am going to give you $100 dollars, but only give you $50, what percentage did you get out of what was promised?

0%? or some other number?

100%-100% = 0

100% - More than 100% = (negative number)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

RG, imho, ducks' Obamacare blurb is correct. 100% of 10.3 million is 10.3 million. 23 million - 10.3 million = 12.7 million. 12.7 million > 10.3 million. ACA's estimate was off by more than 100% (of what eventually happened) - this last bit in parentheses is what should be assumed/understood.

---

Alternately:

If I promise to give you $100, and someone says what you actually got was less by 100% of this figure, how much money do you have?