Trump - not even sworn in and yet covered in scandal.

[Soggy in NOLA]

Some of the Crooked Hillary seem like folks needing a restraining order against them after a breakup. The Donald won, get over it and move on in life! It is a great time to be alive!

It's so pathetic that you would rather deflect to this butthurt theme over the election than to actually examine Trump's never ending list of billshit. Grow a pair, and defend Trump if you think he's worth defending.

What's billshit? Is that Hillary's pet name for Bubba?

 

[boilermaker55]

How fucking stupid of you , burying your head in the sand during the entire election process doesn't make your case, fool.
Your statement happens to be one of the foolish and most stupid ones ever made.
Trump sucker!

'the donald" and you!

We have a bigot and a racist that some people voted for to put in office.
Not me.
Funny that comes from those who voted for the pair of ass wipes, T/P trump pence.

Show me where he is wrong???

People need to put away their bigotry and racism and unite for the good of the country. Donald Trump is the president. Period.

who's the bigot and who's the racist?

post up how he is a bigot and me a racist. let's go bubba, you make a claim back it up.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So you don't know the difference between FBI investigations and civil lawsuits? Seriously? Anyone can file a civil lawsuit, Fakey

And a civil suit can become a criminal suit if they right discovery is made. You are not very bright at this, are you?

Seriously? That sounded good to you? You typed it in, read it, smacked your lips and clicked "post reply?" Then you saw it on the page and didn't delete it thinking it sounds good that you think that civil suits are the same as criminal suits? LOL, of course you did

Kaz, no, civil lawsuits are not criminal lawsuits, as you seem to think, but they can become criminal lawsuits depending on the discovery. That will continue all of Trump's short career.

You just called me stupid for telling you that civil suits are not criminal investigations. So which is it, Jake? Are they or aren't they? On another topic, can you see the bottom of the bottle yet?

Kaz, go back and read. You are confused. That's usual for you, of course.

Once again, HRC's investigations mean nothing.

Once again, lawsuits against Trump can become criminal if disovery comes up with the criminality.

"if discovery comes up with the criminality"? Seriously Jake.

Most people would have said "if the individual has been found to have violated a local, state or federal LAW then it's classified as a criminal case".

Otherwise an action that is brought on by a corporation or a private citizen that seeks compensation through monitary damages, or a collection of money owed, then it's classified as a civil case. See how that works?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And a civil suit can become a criminal suit if they right discovery is made. You are not very bright at this, are you?

Seriously? That sounded good to you? You typed it in, read it, smacked your lips and clicked "post reply?" Then you saw it on the page and didn't delete it thinking it sounds good that you think that civil suits are the same as criminal suits? LOL, of course you did

Kaz, no, civil lawsuits are not criminal lawsuits, as you seem to think, but they can become criminal lawsuits depending on the discovery. That will continue all of Trump's short career.

You just called me stupid for telling you that civil suits are not criminal investigations. So which is it, Jake? Are they or aren't they? On another topic, can you see the bottom of the bottle yet?

Kaz, go back and read. You are confused. That's usual for you, of course.

Once again, HRC's investigations mean nothing.

Once again, lawsuits against Trump can become criminal if disovery comes up with the criminality.

"if discovery comes up with the criminality"? Seriously Jake.

Most people would have said "if the individual has been found to have violated a local, state or federal LAW then it's classified as a criminal case".

Otherwise an action that is brought on by a corporation or a private citizen that seeks compensation through monitary damages, or a collection of money owed, then it's classified as a civil case. See how that works?

You are obviously unaquainted with law.

Trump and his companies are subject to 75 investigations.

If discovery produces criminal grounds, then the investigations will also move to criminal status.

 

[kaz]

He said exactly what I said, she exposed our secrets. You actually don't know what exposed means. I guess other than when you're wearing your overcoat ....

LOL...No matter what the quote says its wrong! Kaz knows what he really meant!

The quote said exactly what I did, she exposed our secrets. Whether they got them or not, Comey said essentially it's impossible to believe they didn't, but he can't prove they did

So if he cant prove that anyone got to the information that would be the exact opposite of you claiming our secrets have been exposed.

You really don't know what "exposed" means, do you, klown? What you just said is a non-sequitur. This is truly komic, but you are the kommunist klown, driver of the kommunist klown kar. And you earn it every day ...

When you put the word "possibly" in front of exposed does that mean it happened or it didnt?

When you put "possibly" in front of it, you're wrong. Comey said it was exposed, he didn't say it was possibly exposed.

He also said it was probably hacked, but he couldn't confirm it.

We also have that you don't know what the word exposed means

 

[BlindBoo]

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked

Kaz be like: This means she WAS successfully hacked!

He said exactly what I said, she exposed our secrets. You actually don't know what exposed means. I guess other than when you're wearing your overcoat ....

Again, that's just a Senate rule. After Obamacare, the Republicans have zero reason to not change the rule for Supreme Court nominees since Democrats ignored it at their whim for national healthcare

There is no requirement of an up/down vote for confirmation in the Constitution. To stop a change to the long standing filibuster rules the Dems will only need a few GOP senators to vote against it.

Furthermore the ACA got passed because they overcame the 60 vote threshold, not because they ignored it at their whim. Is that willful ignorance or do you actually believe it to be the case?

who was the one republican then that voted for it?

Senator Knoe Wun that's who.

Arlan Spector, who changed to democrat in 2009. Then Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman independents, not one republican voted for the bill.

He's dreaming. There were many Republicans who made the mistake of not changing Senate rules under W for the reason that they didn't want Democrats to change the rules when they were back in power. At that point it was flagrantly clear that Democrats were going to change the rules when they were back in power. The idiots wouldn't listen.

Then of course the Democrats did change the rules. Democrats have blown their wad. There is no pretense anymore. BlindBoo is blind, that's for sure. No Republican has any reason now to hold to the old rules that are left and help Democrats

I fully expect the Republicans to try and do just that. They will overplay their hand again and the pendulum will swing back.......

 

[kaz]

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked

Kaz be like: This means she WAS successfully hacked!

He said exactly what I said, she exposed our secrets. You actually don't know what exposed means. I guess other than when you're wearing your overcoat ....

LOL...No matter what the quote says its wrong! Kaz knows what he really meant!

No matter what the quote says its wrong
or not

The klown actually doesn't understand the word "exposed"

 

[kaz]

You mean Slick?

Yup - Clinton, who was The Best Job Creating President in History!!!

None of them. Presidents don't create net jobs. Socialists are sad, you know zero about economics. Every dollar spent by government is taken out of the economy

 

[kaz]

And a civil suit can become a criminal suit if they right discovery is made. You are not very bright at this, are you?

Seriously? That sounded good to you? You typed it in, read it, smacked your lips and clicked "post reply?" Then you saw it on the page and didn't delete it thinking it sounds good that you think that civil suits are the same as criminal suits? LOL, of course you did

Kaz, no, civil lawsuits are not criminal lawsuits, as you seem to think, but they can become criminal lawsuits depending on the discovery. That will continue all of Trump's short career.

You just called me stupid for telling you that civil suits are not criminal investigations. So which is it, Jake? Are they or aren't they? On another topic, can you see the bottom of the bottle yet?

Kaz, go back and read. You are confused. That's usual for you, of course.

Once again, HRC's investigations mean nothing.

Once again, lawsuits against Trump can become criminal if disovery comes up with the criminality.

"if discovery comes up with the criminality"? Seriously Jake.

Most people would have said "if the individual has been found to have violated a local, state or federal LAW then it's classified as a criminal case".

Otherwise an action that is brought on by a corporation or a private citizen that seeks compensation through monitary damages, or a collection of money owed, then it's classified as a civil case. See how that works?

No, he doesn't

 

[kaz]

Seriously? That sounded good to you? You typed it in, read it, smacked your lips and clicked "post reply?" Then you saw it on the page and didn't delete it thinking it sounds good that you think that civil suits are the same as criminal suits? LOL, of course you did

Kaz, no, civil lawsuits are not criminal lawsuits, as you seem to think, but they can become criminal lawsuits depending on the discovery. That will continue all of Trump's short career.

You just called me stupid for telling you that civil suits are not criminal investigations. So which is it, Jake? Are they or aren't they? On another topic, can you see the bottom of the bottle yet?

Kaz, go back and read. You are confused. That's usual for you, of course.

Once again, HRC's investigations mean nothing.

Once again, lawsuits against Trump can become criminal if disovery comes up with the criminality.

"if discovery comes up with the criminality"? Seriously Jake.

Most people would have said "if the individual has been found to have violated a local, state or federal LAW then it's classified as a criminal case".

Otherwise an action that is brought on by a corporation or a private citizen that seeks compensation through monitary damages, or a collection of money owed, then it's classified as a civil case. See how that works?

You are obviously unaquainted with law.

Trump and his companies are subject to 75 investigations.

If discovery produces criminal grounds, then the investigations will also move to criminal status.

You think a civil suit is an "investigation," you're an intellectual child, Jakey

 

[JakeStarkey]

You mean Slick?

Yup - Clinton, who was The Best Job Creating President in History!!!

None of them. Presidents don't create net jobs. Socialists are sad, you know zero about economics. Every dollar spent by government is taken out of the economy

Clinton and Obama created more jobs than Bush. So you know little about economics, OK.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz, no, civil lawsuits are not criminal lawsuits, as you seem to think, but they can become criminal lawsuits depending on the discovery. That will continue all of Trump's short career.

You just called me stupid for telling you that civil suits are not criminal investigations. So which is it, Jake? Are they or aren't they? On another topic, can you see the bottom of the bottle yet?

Kaz, go back and read. You are confused. That's usual for you, of course.

Once again, HRC's investigations mean nothing.

Once again, lawsuits against Trump can become criminal if disovery comes up with the criminality.

"if discovery comes up with the criminality"? Seriously Jake.

Most people would have said "if the individual has been found to have violated a local, state or federal LAW then it's classified as a criminal case".

Otherwise an action that is brought on by a corporation or a private citizen that seeks compensation through monitary damages, or a collection of money owed, then it's classified as a civil case. See how that works?

You are obviously unaquainted with law.

Trump and his companies are subject to 75 investigations.

If discovery produces criminal grounds, then the investigations will also move to criminal status.

You think a civil suit is an "investigation," you're an intellectual child, Jakey

Any suit is an investigation, you silly.

 

[kaz]

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked

Kaz be like: This means she WAS successfully hacked!

He said exactly what I said, she exposed our secrets. You actually don't know what exposed means. I guess other than when you're wearing your overcoat ....

There is no requirement of an up/down vote for confirmation in the Constitution. To stop a change to the long standing filibuster rules the Dems will only need a few GOP senators to vote against it.

Furthermore the ACA got passed because they overcame the 60 vote threshold, not because they ignored it at their whim. Is that willful ignorance or do you actually believe it to be the case?

who was the one republican then that voted for it?

Senator Knoe Wun that's who.

Arlan Spector, who changed to democrat in 2009. Then Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman independents, not one republican voted for the bill.

He's dreaming. There were many Republicans who made the mistake of not changing Senate rules under W for the reason that they didn't want Democrats to change the rules when they were back in power. At that point it was flagrantly clear that Democrats were going to change the rules when they were back in power. The idiots wouldn't listen.

Then of course the Democrats did change the rules. Democrats have blown their wad. There is no pretense anymore. BlindBoo is blind, that's for sure. No Republican has any reason now to hold to the old rules that are left and help Democrats

I fully expect the Republicans to try and do just that. They will overplay their hand again and the pendulum will swing back.......

Yes, Democrats went with the nuclear option, now we don't want Republicans to "overplay their hand" and get anything back. You're just a Democrat hack, but you are the ones who ended the filibuster. Republicans are just rolling the dead body out of the way

 

[JakeStarkey]

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked

Kaz be like: This means she WAS successfully hacked!

He said exactly what I said, she exposed our secrets. You actually don't know what exposed means. I guess other than when you're wearing your overcoat ....

who was the one republican then that voted for it?

Senator Knoe Wun that's who.

Arlan Spector, who changed to democrat in 2009. Then Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman independents, not one republican voted for the bill.

He's dreaming. There were many Republicans who made the mistake of not changing Senate rules under W for the reason that they didn't want Democrats to change the rules when they were back in power. At that point it was flagrantly clear that Democrats were going to change the rules when they were back in power. The idiots wouldn't listen.

Then of course the Democrats did change the rules. Democrats have blown their wad. There is no pretense anymore. BlindBoo is blind, that's for sure. No Republican has any reason now to hold to the old rules that are left and help Democrats

I fully expect the Republicans to try and do just that. They will overplay their hand again and the pendulum will swing back.......

Yes, Democrats went with the nuclear option, now we don't want Republicans to "overplay their hand" and get anything back. You're just a Democrat hack, but you are the ones who ended the filibuster. Republicans are just rolling the dead body out of the way

I have always thought the 60 vote requirement was stupid and unAmerican. Let the party who gets the majority, rule.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Trump managed to make one scandal go away. His Trump U civil suit for Fraud and Racketeering for a mere $25,000,000.00.

And he already paid one IRS fine for the Trump Foundation.

But he is still under several investigations. There is the Florida Attorney General bribery case. Then there is running an uncertified and illegal charity Foundation. For that, he already received a "cease and desist" order. Even if it was an illegal foundation, he still can't spend money from the charity, which he stopped giving to in 2008, but got plenty of "OPM" (other people's money).

How 75 pending lawsuits could distract a Donald Trump presidency

If elected, the open lawsuits will tag along with Trump. He would not be entitled to immunity, and could be required to give depositions or even testify in open court. That could chew up time and expose a litany of uncomfortable private and business dealings to the public.

--------------------------------
75 pending lawsuits. Oops, 74 now.

See ya in court!

You voted for a woman who was under investigation by the FBI during the campaign, not once, but twice.

 

[KissMy]

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked

Kaz be like: This means she WAS successfully hacked!

He said exactly what I said, she exposed our secrets. You actually don't know what exposed means. I guess other than when you're wearing your overcoat ....

LOL...No matter what the quote says its wrong! Kaz knows what he really meant!

The quote said exactly what I did, she exposed our secrets. Whether they got them or not, Comey said essentially it's impossible to believe they didn't, but he can't prove they did

The FBI can't show Hillary Clinton's server was hacked, because her server was not hacked. There are many clues to hacks & they found none!

 

[Lovebears65]

Trump managed to make one scandal go away. His Trump U civil suit for Fraud and Racketeering for a mere $25,000,000.00.

And he already paid one IRS fine for the Trump Foundation.

But he is still under several investigations. There is the Florida Attorney General bribery case. Then there is running an uncertified and illegal charity Foundation. For that, he already received a "cease and desist" order. Even if it was an illegal foundation, he still can't spend money from the charity, which he stopped giving to in 2008, but got plenty of "OPM" (other people's money).

How 75 pending lawsuits could distract a Donald Trump presidency

If elected, the open lawsuits will tag along with Trump. He would not be entitled to immunity, and could be required to give depositions or even testify in open court. That could chew up time and expose a litany of uncomfortable private and business dealings to the public.

--------------------------------
75 pending lawsuits. Oops, 74 now.

See ya in court!

Clinton would have way more on her then Trump does

 

[BlindBoo]

.....and exposed our secrets to our enemies.

Where did he say that?

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI

Here you go, idiot. There were also lots of other references to it:

"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

Except no where does he state that her actions exposed any secrets to our enemies. Without any evidence he asserted what was possible. That also means that is was possible that no hostile actors gained access to her personal e-mail account.

Jesus liberals are stupid. Exposing our secrets means she made them available, it doesn't mean they did or didn't get them. Comey also said we wouldn't know and he said her server was well known. If they didn't get them, he's saying it was a fluke.

Seriously, what difference does it make if they got them or not? Exposing them was betraying her country. You actually consider this defending her? That maybe despite her handing them our secrets on a silver platter it's possible though unlikely they didn't find them?

He never claimed she exposed our secrets. He never claimed she handed them our secrets. He never said it was a fluke if they didn't. These things are all in your head.

 

[kaz]

You mean Slick?

Yup - Clinton, who was The Best Job Creating President in History!!!

None of them. Presidents don't create net jobs. Socialists are sad, you know zero about economics. Every dollar spent by government is taken out of the economy

Clinton and Obama created more jobs than Bush. So you know little about economics, OK.

I don't typically listen to people who only didn't starve through nepotism. But in this case ... I'll stick with that rule. Presidents destroy jobs with spending, they don't create them. You don't know what you're talking about. Your normal situation.

How could a President even remove money from the economy and hire someone with it and create a job without producing anything? It's just idiotic

 

[kaz]

.....and exposed our secrets to our enemies.

Where did he say that?

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI

Here you go, idiot. There were also lots of other references to it:

"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

Except no where does he state that her actions exposed any secrets to our enemies. Without any evidence he asserted what was possible. That also means that is was possible that no hostile actors gained access to her personal e-mail account.

Jesus liberals are stupid. Exposing our secrets means she made them available, it doesn't mean they did or didn't get them. Comey also said we wouldn't know and he said her server was well known. If they didn't get them, he's saying it was a fluke.

Seriously, what difference does it make if they got them or not? Exposing them was betraying her country. You actually consider this defending her? That maybe despite her handing them our secrets on a silver platter it's possible though unlikely they didn't find them?

He never claimed she exposed our secrets. He never claimed she handed them our secrets. He never said it was a fluke if they didn't. These things are all in your head.

He clearly did, read his statement, simpleton. This is tired. You read an explicit statement where he says she put secret and top secret information on an unsecured e-mail server which was widely known and we wouldn't know if they did hack it, repeats it over and over and you just keep saying no, he didn't say what he said.

Yes, he did. And you read the quote. Stop the stupid shit