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

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