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

[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 ....

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.

I liked the filibuster because I like putting up any block to prevent government from doing anything that I can. But the fact is the Democrats killed it. Republicans are just brain dead if they allow themselves to be blocked after the Democrats fully exploded the nuclear option. Sadly the Republicans have shown they can be that stupid

 

[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.

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

You really have not a clue.

 

[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!

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!

First of all, you're full of shit. It can be incredibly hard to tell. You're just making that up. Second, Comey said the opposite. He said they would probably not know. Read his statement

 

[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.

READ HIS STATEMENT. He clearly did say she exposed our secrets. What he said he could not prove is whether they got them or not.

And who gives a shit regarding her if they did or not? Exposing them was the crime and it was the betrayal of her country. To argue she exposed them but they didn't get them is irrelevant to her actions.

And again, Comey clearly said they probably did and if they did we probably would not know. READ HIS STATEMENT

 

[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

You really have not a clue.

I do this for a living, you were given a pity job by your family. Obviously you know better

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

READ HIS STATEMENT. He clearly did say she exposed our secrets. What he said he could not prove is whether they got them or not.

And who gives a shit regarding her if they did or not? Exposing them was the crime and it was the betrayal of her country. To argue she exposed them but they didn't get them is irrelevant to her actions.

And again, Comey clearly said they probably did and if they did we probably would not know. READ HIS STATEMENT

That is your belief, and you are wrong. Scamper along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

You really have not a clue.

I do this for a living, you were given a pity job by your family. Obviously you know better

No, you did not. You have not a clue, kid. I created the business, and my family joined me. It must be sad to be a dependent like you.

 

[Mac1958]

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.......

Very possible.

What I would PREFER to see, however, is for one "side" or the other to get it RIGHT, so that the pendulum can stop swinging back and forth.

I don't give a crap which party does it, so I'll hope for the best even though I didn't vote for him.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

If Trump is found to have done something, taken action, that violates a local, state, or federal law then by definition it's considered a criminal case.

As long as it involves a corporation or private citizen seeking monetary damages, or a collection of money owed (which Trump university, for example, involves) it will always be referred to as a civil matter.

Look it up Jake if you don't believe me, and familiarize yourself with the terminology in how legal cases are classified. At least then, you may appear as though you know what you're talking about.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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!

Hey way to show your patriotism there, guy.

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.

For his electioneering as a third world dictator he has determined the tone of his opposition among the citizenry. Looks like he will be the most corrupt, unscrupulous, undisciplined man to ever hold the office.

in other words a true blue politician....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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!

Can anyone justify responding to Rderp, other than telling him gfy?

dean doesnt like to answer questions about what he posts.....if you do have the gall and audacity to question him you will get one of 2 things....a dance around the question(he is good at that) or you will be called a stalker.....but then as Sheldon would say....."he is just an Engineer,what do you expect".....

 

[KissMy]

Trump has BAD Judgement! Trump want's to hand Petraeus classified intel. Petraeus deliberately gave classified confidential information to others who had no security clearance, obstructed justice and then lied to FBI investigators about it. The FBI found 8 classified "black books" Petraeus deliberately shared with unclassified people to publish it, hidden under insulation in his attic!

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

READ HIS STATEMENT. He clearly did say she exposed our secrets. What he said he could not prove is whether they got them or not.

And who gives a shit regarding her if they did or not? Exposing them was the crime and it was the betrayal of her country. To argue she exposed them but they didn't get them is irrelevant to her actions.

And again, Comey clearly said they probably did and if they did we probably would not know. READ HIS STATEMENT

Nor did he call her actions with regards to her private server a crime.

I've posted the link to his statement many times. You are still making up stuff he didn't say. But in this post fact era of the Groper Elect, par for the course. The one thing he did conclude was that someone close to her did have a commercial email account hacked. I think we all know who that was. How many of our secrets did they get from that?

 

[BlindBoo]

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!

Hey way to show your patriotism there, guy.

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.

For his electioneering as a third world dictator he has determined the tone of his opposition among the citizenry. Looks like he will be the most corrupt, unscrupulous, undisciplined man to ever hold the office.

in other words a true blue politician....

No. This is. Trump is not. He would have played on these peoples fears.

 

[Bush92]

The controversy is being caused by liberal media and left wing nut Democrats whining over getting a complete ass whipping in the election.

 

[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.

If Trump is found to have done something, taken action, that violates a local, state, or federal law then by definition it's considered a criminal case.

As long as it involves a corporation or private citizen seeking monetary damages, or a collection of money owed (which Trump university, for example, involves) it will always be referred to as a civil matter.

Look it up Jake if you don't believe me, and familiarize yourself with the terminology in how legal cases are classified. At least then, you may appear as though you know what you're talking about.

Until evidence comes forth of a criminal nature. Just the way it is, simpleton.

 

[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.

If Trump is found to have done something, taken action, that violates a local, state, or federal law then by definition it's considered a criminal case.

As long as it involves a corporation or private citizen seeking monetary damages, or a collection of money owed (which Trump university, for example, involves) it will always be referred to as a civil matter.

Look it up Jake if you don't believe me, and familiarize yourself with the terminology in how legal cases are classified. At least then, you may appear as though you know what you're talking about.

I feel sad for you that you don't understand, shakled. That's your problem not mine.

If the investigations reveal criminal matter, then it will go to the proper DAs.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

That's the 5th time you avoided to answer which means you know you're lying. I accept your apology.

 

[kaz]

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.

READ HIS STATEMENT. He clearly did say she exposed our secrets. What he said he could not prove is whether they got them or not.

And who gives a shit regarding her if they did or not? Exposing them was the crime and it was the betrayal of her country. To argue she exposed them but they didn't get them is irrelevant to her actions.

And again, Comey clearly said they probably did and if they did we probably would not know. READ HIS STATEMENT

That is your belief, and you are wrong. Scamper along.

Actually if you read Comey's statement, you know I'm right. You're stupid as shit Jake, no wonder your living was handed to you

 

[kaz]

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

You really have not a clue.

I do this for a living, you were given a pity job by your family. Obviously you know better

No, you did not. You have not a clue, kid. I created the business, and my family joined me. It must be sad to be a dependent like you.

Playground! And seriously Jake, what a terrible lie. I've never known anyone who knows less about business than you do