Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have always thought the 60 vote requirement was stupid and unAmerican. Let the party who gets the majority, rule.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 ....Arlan Spector, who changed to democrat in 2009. Then Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman independents, not one republican voted for the bill.Senator Knoe Wun that's who.
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
You really have not a clue.Clinton and Obama created more jobs than Bush. So you know little about economics, OK.Yup - Clinton, who was The Best Job Creating President in History!!!You mean Slick?
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
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
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!
.....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.
You really have not a clue.Clinton and Obama created more jobs than Bush. So you know little about economics, OK.Yup - Clinton, who was The Best Job Creating President in History!!!You mean Slick?
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
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
That is your belief, and you are wrong. Scamper along.
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
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.You really have not a clue.Clinton and Obama created more jobs than Bush. So you know little about economics, OK.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
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
I do this for a living, you were given a pity job by your family. Obviously you know better
Very possible.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 ....Arlan Spector, who changed to democrat in 2009. Then Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman independents, not one republican voted for the bill.who was the one republican then that voted for it?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?
Senator Knoe Wun that's who.
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.......
You are obviously unaquainted with law.Kaz, go back and read. You are confused. That's usual for you, of course.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.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
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?
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?
Trump and his companies are subject to 75 investigations.
If discovery produces criminal grounds, then the investigations will also move to criminal status.
in other words a true blue politician....People need to put away their bigotry and racism and unite for the good of the country. Donald Trump is the president. Period.Hey way to show your patriotism there, guy.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!
Show me where he is wrong???
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.
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".....Can anyone justify responding to Rderp, other than telling him gfy?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!
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
in other words a true blue politician....People need to put away their bigotry and racism and unite for the good of the country. Donald Trump is the president. Period.Hey way to show your patriotism there, guy.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!
Show me where he is wrong???
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.
Until evidence comes forth of a criminal nature. Just the way it is, simpleton.You are obviously unaquainted with law.Kaz, go back and read. You are confused. That's usual for you, of course.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?
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?
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.You are obviously unaquainted with law.Kaz, go back and read. You are confused. That's usual for you, of course.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?
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?
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.
No matter what the quote says its wrongWith 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!
or not
That is your belief, and you are wrong. Scamper along.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
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.You really have not a clue.Clinton and Obama created more jobs than Bush. So you know little about economics, OK.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
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
I do this for a living, you were given a pity job by your family. Obviously you know better
