Nothing Burger

zsomething wrote:

How any of that in any way relates to the subject of interpretation of the word "hope" from the President escapes me.  The things you mention - many of which are bullshit to begin with -- have no relation to the topic.

It's like we're discussing what kind of pie we like best and you jump in yelling, "Yeah, but FAX machines suck!"   WTF?

del.capslock wrote:

zsomething wrote:

How any of that in any way relates to the subject of interpretation of the word "hope" from the President escapes me.  The things you mention - many of which are bullshit to begin with -- have no relation to the topic.

It's like we're discussing what kind of pie we like best and you jump in yelling, "Yeah, but FAX machines suck!"   WTF?

Of course they don't have any relation to the subject. That's what he does with every post and you just fell right into his trap, you dimwit!

zsomething wrote:damage-case shitbag!  

PkrBum wrote:But trump "hoping" something while taking NO action

Sal wrote:

PkrBum wrote:But trump "hoping" something while taking NO action

He fired Comey, ya dumb shit.

zsomething wrote:

del.capslock wrote:

zsomething wrote:

How any of that in any way relates to the subject of interpretation of the word "hope" from the President escapes me.  The things you mention - many of which are bullshit to begin with -- have no relation to the topic.

It's like we're discussing what kind of pie we like best and you jump in yelling, "Yeah, but FAX machines suck!"   WTF?

Of course they don't have any relation to the subject. That's what he does with every post and you just fell right into his trap, you dimwit!

Couldn't have fallen into the trap if I had fun replying to it, you moronic damage-case shitbag!  

del.capslock wrote:

zsomething wrote:damage-case shitbag!  

Well...   still struggling to master the art of clever riposte, I see.

Not to worry, a few years practice and you'll get the hang of it, kid.

zsomething wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

zsomething wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Even if your leap is that trump exerted pressure... that's not obstruction. He "hoped"... that's not an order.

Total and complete B.S.     As Comey stated -- and I challenge you to assert you wouldn't have felt the same in his position -- when the president of the United States sends everyone else out of the room and then tells you he hopes you'll do something, you will damned well take it seriously -- i.e., it may as well have been an order.  

If you deny that, Pkr, I've forever lost it for you -  you're obviously living in a state of complete and utter denial.

Exactly.  If your boss calls you into his office to discuss a way you've been dealing with invoices, and says, "I hope you won't handle invoices that way anymore," would anyone sane interpret that as "well, the boss was just expressing a wish but leaving it up to me"?   The "or else" is implied.

And the fact that Trump fired the guy when the thing he hoped for was apparently not to be only confirms that it was an order.

Sometimes words and their interpretations can be parsed over, but it's desperately silly to do it in this situation.

Would that include Obama going on national television and saying there was no wrong doing while investigations are active? Like he did with fast and furious gunrunning... benghazi... irs targeting... Hillary emails... etc? Or Loretta lynch demanding a pc term for the Hillary investigation?


No... i didn't think so... lol.

How any of that in any way relates to the subject of interpretation of the word "hope" from the President escapes me.  The things you mention - many of which are bullshit to begin with -- have no relation to the topic.

It's like we're discussing what kind of pie we like best and you jump in yelling, "Yeah, but FAX machines suck!"   WTF?

del.capslock wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:
This cannot be ignored.  And while it's true that a sitting president can't be indicted, he sure as hell can be impeached, and then removed from office.  Stay tuned; this could take a while.

Did you flunk Civics in High School or is the subject just to difficult for you to grasp?

The House has to vote Articles of Impeachment by a simple majority which is unlikely considering that the Republicans have solid control, 238 seats vs.193 for the Dems.

Even in the highly unlikely event that they DO vote in favor, the Senate has to convict by a two-thirds majority and the Republicans have 52 of the 100 seats in that house as well.

Do the math, girly.

The fact is, keeping Trump in office as long as possible is the BEST thing that could happen to the Democrats. He's laughably incompetent and will almost guarantee Democratic control of both houses and the Presidency in 2020.

Floridatexan wrote:

del.capslock wrote:

zsomething wrote:damage-case shitbag!  

Well...   still struggling to master the art of clever riposte, I see.

Not to worry, a few years practice and you'll get the hang of it, kid.

Are you capable of engaging without denigrating everyone?  Even when I agree with you, your misogyny and condescension make it...let's say...difficult.  You're starting to remind me of Markle.

PkrBum wrote:Try to read... and really absorb what these statements mean. The narrative that you believe is false.

Period.

"The challenge - and I'm not picking on reporters - about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it," Comey said. "We don't call the press and say, 'Hey, you got that thing wrong.' "

"There have been many, many stories based on - well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are dead wrong," Comey said.

COTTON: On February 14th, the New York Times published a story, the headline of which was, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence.”

You were asked earlier if that was an inaccurate story, and you said, in the main. Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?

COMEY: Yes.

Sal wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Try to read... and really absorb what these statements mean. The narrative that you believe is false.

Period.

"The challenge - and I'm not picking on reporters - about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it," Comey said. "We don't call the press and say, 'Hey, you got that thing wrong.' "

"There have been many, many stories based on - well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are dead wrong," Comey said.

COTTON: On February 14th, the New York Times published a story, the headline of which was, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence.”

You were asked earlier if that was an inaccurate story, and you said, in the main. Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?

COMEY: Yes.

You are completely and uniquely incapable of absorbing what those statements mean.

Comey, as always, is excruciatingly precise and narrow with his statements.

You, as always, are mind-numbingly obtuse and wildly speculative with your conclusions.

These conflicting postures render your comments meaningless and of no merit.