I inferred from those posts that someone was reporting some others to the mods or admins. I take it that someone thinks I'm part of that. I'm not. Was that wrong?
I wasn't referring to you, Bubba. It's someone else.
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 inferred from those posts that someone was reporting some others to the mods or admins. I take it that someone thinks I'm part of that. I'm not. Was that wrong?
I'm going out on a limb here, but I assume you have never been to any kind of coal mine. A strip mining operation, such as used in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, would not employ a large number of employees. But consider the effect they would have on local business. For example, the suppliers of equipment and maintenance supplies for trucks, cranes, loading facilities etc. Plus the 600 employees would be well paid and would likely support local retailers rather well. Rail traffic to transport the coal would necessarily increase. Plus, since we don't burn much coal in this country, it's likely the coal would be transferred to a ship at a coastal port city. So you might now understand that a small number of new coal employees would have a fairly substantial economic footprint.Let's talk jobs. The right never believed the jobs data for the last 8 years. Now they suddenly do. What the actual hell?
Coal jobs. How many are we saving by cow-towing to getting away from coal? Probably 0. There are only 15,000 coal miners in the US. There were 400 coal jobs created in the last quarter. The whole coal industry employs less people than Arby's. And, kicker here, the EPA's clean power plans projected to add 270,000 jobs over a reasonable period. Thank the dark lord Scott Pruitt is on the case!
Carrier. 600 jobs going down now. But, hey, we gave them $7,000,000 to do a cool press conference to keep jobs here!
And the Mueller team's conflicts of interest keep coming...
“There’s some real concerns with what Mueller’s doing, he’s obviously got the long knife out for the president,” (Rick) Santorum told host Jake Tapper Sunday morning.
Robert Mueller, who is leading the investigation into possible collusion between Trump campaign associates and Russia, has brought on 13 attorneys to help with the probe. Mueller hired a series of top lawyers including Andrew Weissmann, who led the Enron investigation.
“You have a special prosecutor who just hired a team of lawyers that really concerns me,” Santorum said. “This Andrew Weissman is a real concern to me.”
Santorum went on to highlight Jared Kushner’s New York City newspaper Observer, which ran a series of critical articles on Weissmann’s handling of the Enron investigation. The paper accused Weissmann of running “roughshod” over defendant’s rights during the infamous Enron scandal.
“Jared Kushner’s paper went after this guy for some of the behavior, and now you bring this guy in for a non-partisan investigation,” Santorum said. “He already has a grub with Kushner, and the investigation is being expanded, maybe [to] deals with Kushner.”
I mean, if they're lies, they can't be leaks.
You can't have it both ways. Leaks are true or they wouldn't be leaks. Otherwise, they're simply lies.Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...
WHAT??????
You can't have it both ways. Leaks are true or they wouldn't be leaks. Otherwise, they're simply lies.
Good points. Maybe I'm thinking from more of a historical perspective. I guess statements from Trump can't be leaks since they're untrue? That said, the phone tapping thing is simply a nutty misinterpretation. Just because a phone line in Trump Tower belonging to a tenant is under surveillance doesn't mean that Trump is under surveillance unless he calls that number and gives it a bank routing number in the Cayman Islands.So as long as it's classified as a leak, it MUST be true. Is that what you're saying? So if it weren't true, they wouldn't call it a leak - "they" being the people who leaked it, the people who printed it, or the people who denied it? Who gets to decide? And are you really going to play a semantic game that says "So and so leaked a memo, and therefore it MUST be true, because it's being referred to as a leak?"
So should the Times now go back and retroactively reclassify all those leaks that ended up being untrue as not being "leaks" at all? Or are you arguing that because they were leaked, they HAD to have been true, and as a result any testimony refuting the "leaks" must be a lie. Does that include leaked memos that were read to someone over the phone? That's a leak, so I guess he must have been telling the truth?
If I wrote a memo and sent it off, and someone leaked it, that doesn't automatically confirm that the memo's contents are true. And if someone has an internal meeting where information is discussed which is wrong (and a meeting at which I am not present), and that information gets leaked, and I state that the information was leaked, are you really now going to argue that I've just "admitted" that the leaked information is true?
This is "tapped my phones" all over again. Because the phones weren't literally wiretapped, the actual meaning of the accusation - that I'm being monitored illegally - is completely ignored because the person wasn't precise enough in the wording. By the same token, you now get to claim that all those leaks were true by virtue of the fact that the person used the same universal tag for the information as everyone else is using. It's called a leak because someone leaked it. In many instances, that reference has insisted that the "leak" was inaccurate, untrue, or completely fabricated information. But hey: you called it a leak!! No backsies - it must be true!!
Don't hide behind Barry. That's ridiculous no matter where you're from.
In the interview, Trump said that when Comey found out there was a possibility of tapes, "I think his story may have changed."
Fox reporter Ainsley Earnhardt suggested that keeping the tapes was "a smart way to make sure he stayed honest in those hearings."
"Well, uh, it wasn't very stupid, I can tell you that," Trump replied.
"He did admit that what I said was right, and if you look further back, before he heard about that, i think maybe he wasn't admitting that. So I think maybe you'll need to do a little investigative reporting to determine that, but I don't think it will be that hard."
Trump said that his story on the conversations with Comey "never changed."
"My story was the straight story. My story never changed.”
Mueller has hired yet another Clinton donor
Elizabeth Prelogar clerked for both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, and donated to both Hillary and Obama
We may need a special counsel to investigate this special counsel
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/...nother-clinton-obama-donor-trump-russia-probe
I think Mueller's team is there not so much to get the dirt on DT as they are there to make sure the dirt on Obama, HRC, et al, stays buried.
Will be interesting to see if the she pleads the 5th
Or, maybe they have an agreement already in place?
That's OK though, he already set the standard with the Hillary situation and there was no intent to harm 'Merica in him releasing the information.Whoops -- they write about FBI rules violations here, but he may have committed felonies
"Comey’s private memos on Trump conversations contained classified material"
More than half of the memos former FBI chief James Comey wrote as personal recollections of his conversations with President Trump about the Russia investigation have been determined to contain classified information, according to interviews with officials familiar with the documents.
This revelation raises the possibility that Comey broke his own agency’s rules and ignored the same security protocol that he publicly criticized Hillary Clinton for in the waning days of the 2016 presidential election.
* * * *
Four of the memos had markings making clear they contained information classified at the “secret” or “confidential” level, according to officials directly familiar with the matter.
* * *
“Unauthorized disclosure, misuse, or negligent handling of information contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI or which I may acquire as an employee of the FBI could impair national security, place human life in jeopardy, result in the denial of due process, prevent the FBI from effectively discharging its responsibilities, or violate federal law,” states the agreement all FBI agents sign....."
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...ersations-contained-classified?rnd=1499645596
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC