Boered

It only plays into the type of charge, not if a charge will be laid or not. This is in regard to a clear criminal act. Yes running over a person with a mechanical failure being the root cause could be a case where intent was paramount in a decision if charges be laid, but if you strangle a person and they die, intent is only used to decide the degree of the charge, not if a charge be laid. When we look at Hillary, and her use of a private server, intent is not a factor that needs to be considered when deciding if charges are warranted, but could be a factor in sentencing. The sheer fact the FBI, and Comey himself, arbitrarily decided not to apply the law, shows he was biased, and incompetent. Had this been any low level worker with access to the same information, they would be behind bars, deemed to be a traitor and a sever risk to national security. They would have been prosecuted with extreme prejudice. This is the massive disconnect between the elite and the general public. Those that make the law should be held to the highest standard in maintain a life in which they never break that law. I see many laws as stupid, I regularly flaunt these laws and break them, but can do so with a clear conscience being I had no part in implementing and promoting this legislation to become law. there is nothing worse in this world than those that impose laws upon us and think that law is only for us and not themselves. They are the true scum of this earth. Hillary is a shining example of this scum.

Sprite on ice.

Officer, I had no intention of driving after 20 beers but was too drunk to realize I was driving. No problem sir, I will follow you to make sure you get home safely, after all, you did not have any intent on doing this.

Intent, so if I kill you and simply say, my intent was not to kill you, I have a solid defense and should be free to go?

He proved to be unfit when he failed to prosecute Hillary . End of story.

Is your man bun too tight?

....and you sound like a toothless meth head.

Doug Stanhope would be a great mayor.

You want to know what is really over? The United states of America's 2016 election. You want to know which candidate lost because they were shown to be corrupt and not trustworthy? Hillary Clinton.

Pee wee herman

Who will become mayor of Quahog, Rhode Island?

Exactly. Oh and religion does not have any place in politics, even though it is inserted all the time for the votes it gets. I think Christians are every bit as stupid for believing what they do as are muslims, but Christians are not trying force everyone to buy in are be killed, and are not looking to run free nations with laws based on Leviticus.

I choose C, both are giant steaming piles of shit, but one has a better smell, kinda like the difference between horse shit and pig shit, Hillary smells like pig shit.

Just imagine his outrage if a conservative senator had said the exact same words he did, except it was a muslim he was talking to...Bernie would have had a fit, as would the entire left. Liberals attack Christianity all the time, and protect muslims, they are mentally retarded and should be treated for their disease.

Autism has been over diagnosed since they decided to change the way in which they diagnose these kids. Most kids diagnosed are pretty much normal and have no disability.

Momo is having the usual, shit covered penis...raw.

He should look in his laundry room, may find some half used bottles of bleach and a few old bounce sheets he can sell.

That is how all governments have decided these matters, you first must do them favours, then you may get considered. That is why we see such utter incompetence in many of these positions.

The travel ban did in fact mention religion. Unfortunately the constitution clearly states that a person shall not be discriminated against due to religion. They did fuck it up starting with the campaign. His rhetoric of continually pointing out that muslims were going to be banned has not made it very difficult to suggest he is not doing just that in his travel ban. He should have consulted a constitutional lawyer in the first place, and worded his speeches to stay within the boundries of the law, then implemented the plan in the same manner, using only the word terrorists. What is confusing is the lefts resistance to stop migrants from entering., we see the results in Europe, they are not good. Why would you fight so hard to bring that chaos to your country? The same for the southern border, why is the left so adamant to allow people to simply walk into the country and remain? Secure borders is what define a country more than any other single thing. I do not want to live in a world that has open borders until the rest of the world can show they are ready, and by that I mean, no religion, no fanatical behaviour, and human rights for all. that is not going to be a reality any time soon, if ever.

If revenge is a dish best served cold, former FBI director James Comey's testimony was a true Beltway feast. Comey delivered the most dispassionate and devastating delivery possible in portraying President Trump as the new Richard Nixon - just a lot less likeable. Despite the effort of GOP members to undermine Comey's credibility, he retained his signature Eagle Scout image in expressing his unease with a series of alleged and grossly inappropriate comments from the president. The testimony unleashed a torrent of Watergate analogies, and even Watergate-era figures like Carl Bernstein and John Dean were called forth to complete the analogy. Yet, if anything, the testimony showed how fanciful these analogies have become. First and foremost, I am perfectly willing to accept Comey's account in this hearing. However, even accepting those representations as true, they did not describe a crime or an impeachable offense. Comey confirmed that Trump actually agreed that it would be a good idea for the Russian investigation to go forward and not be terminated artificially. Comey also confirmed that Trump only expressed a "hope" that the Flynn investigation would end - a statement that Trump made repeatedly publicly. He also confirmed that Trump was primarily asking him to make public what he had already told Congress - that he was not under personal investigation. Obviously, Trump does not come over well in this account (an account that he had denied). Comey testified that he immediately began the practice of writing down notes from meetings with Trump after the election because of "the nature of the person. I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting." Again, however, having a duplicitous or dishonest nature is not an impeachable offense. Indeed, if that standard were applied in Washington generally, it would be a ghost town. The saturation of Watergate analogies in the media, however, seems wildly detached from either the actual testimony or history. If Watergate was a cancer growing on the presidency, this is still little more than a canker sore - not great to look at but hardly life threatening. It could get worse but what Comey described in his testimony was boorish and even brutish but not necessarily an indictable or impeachable offense. Article I is not a book of etiquette for presidents. If Trump said these things to Comey, they are incredibly improper and ill-advised. Yet, the Nixon comparison works in favor of the position of Trump more than it does Comey. Comey recounted his discomfort over allegedly being told that Trump wanted assurances of his loyalty and repeatedly asked him to scuttle the investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. However, Comey confirmed that he did in fact assure Trump that the president was not under investigation not once but three times. That is significant on two levels. First, if it was grossly inappropriate for Trump to ask the question (and it was), it was equally inappropriate for Comey to answer it (three times). Second, whatever Trump asked of Comey was done in the knowledge that he himself was not viewed as a target for investigation. Comey also confirmed that Trump asked for him to end the investigation of Flynn, not the Russian investigation as a whole. Flynn had just been fired the day before and Trump could argue that he was expressing sympathy for an aide who had been put through a great deal and was still only accused of relatively minor criminal conduct like violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. I tend to view these things through the lens of a criminal defense counsel and there are a myriad of possible interpretations other than obstruction. The same can be said of the loyalty discussion. Trump's young administration was being ripped apart by leaks from national security and law enforcement sources. Comey was widely viewed with suspicion by many in the administration. The comment could be viewed in that context rather than some grand Watergate-esque conspiracy. That brings us back to Watergate. On CNN, Jeffrey Toobin pointed to John Dean sitting next to him to reaffirm that this was now a strong case of obstruction. Toobin stated that Dean (who agreed that the evidence supports a charge of obstruction) knew what he was talking about because he went to jail for obstruction during Watergate. However, the Dean comparison only highlights the overhyped analogy. Dean pled guilty to giving hush money to the Watergate burglars to keep them quiet. That is obstruction. Telling an FBI director that a recently resigned aide is a good guy (something Comey agreed with) and he hoped that he could be now left alone is hardly analogous. A comparison to the first article of impeachment for Nixon is equally illustrative. The much-touted article accused Nixon of not expressing his desire for the termination of one (but not all investigations) or the suggestion that he might not retain a director for a lack of loyalty. It details extensive criminal conduct on the part of Nixon "to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities." What followed that statement was a list of nine specific allegations including false and misleading statement to investigators, withholding evidence, procuring false testimony of others, interfering with federal and congressional proceedings, the payment of hush money to witnesses and targets, misuse of the CIA to obstruct the investigation, passing along investigative information to criminal suspects to assist their efforts to evade prosecution, making false information to the public to conceal criminal conduct, and rewarding possible witnesses for their silence of false testimony. Virtually all of those listed items are crimes in their own right. Of course, one of the most striking differences is that James Comey is no John Dean. Dean went to Nixon to confront him on the cancer growing on the presidency. Comey said nothing to Trump about his misgivings in meeting alone or his comments. He wrote a memo to file. While he did (to his credit) raise the issue with his staff, Comey admits that he did not raise the impropriety of Trump's questions or conduct with the president. Comey's testimony is more illustrative of his view of the nature of Donald Trump than the nature of any alleged crime. A criminal defense counsel would have a field day on these facts if a charge was ever brought. Every factual assertion can be either menacing or mundane, depending on your assumptions about Trump and his motivations. In comparison to the first article of impeachment of Nixon, it is the difference between high crimes and high anxiety. http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/sorry-dems-comeys-words-too-weak-to-impeach-trump/ar-BBCkzhZ?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartandhp

Happened here as well, the only thing it does is improve the lives for millions of working poor. the worst argument is get an education and get a better job. Some people are not able to do that, but they are adults and have families, just because they are not smart, does not mean we should take advantage and have them slave away for forty hours every week only to be unable to have any kind of life.

You guys could save a lot of time when replying to stupid steve by simply using this. He does not understand anything you post, so why bother...

The media are a bunch of pathetic hacks. I have to wonder how it got so distorted, when did they sell out, and what is in it for them? Seriously, the mainstream media, or at least 75% of it is a non stop attack ad against the right.