FedEx to give employees bonuses...and now for something completely different

[bbsam]

And that means? Give me more than two words, make your claim. I want to hear or read what you say Trump has done. If you have balls, put it on the record.

I'll wait for Mueller and so will you.

 

[floridays]

I was drinking

Me too beer. Responded enjoy your liquid. Sorry if I was short with you. I apologize.

 

[MAKAVELI]

I don't think you know what Mueller cares about. Nice dodge.

And you do? Nice Fake News.

 

[floridays]

I'll wait for Mueller and so will you.

Then don't make the claims, I'm sure you're the same as me, you make yourself look foolish without even trying. Why do it on purpose. That was a non-responsive answer that proved you don't have anything to back up your assertion. Not a good thing to do if you want people to take you seriously. It's ok for you to do it here, don't do it in your business. That was not advice, was just trying to let you know you don't know S about any of this.

 

[floridays]

And you do? Nice Fake News.

I think I do better than you. And I can actually give you reasons why I think what I do. And absolutely none of it could possibly classified as fake. You're over your head in this buddy, just as @bbsam is.

 

[bbsam]

Then don't make the claims, I'm sure you're the same as me, you make yourself look foolish without even trying. Why do it on purpose. That was a non-responsive answer that proved you don't have anything to back up your assertion. Not a good thing to do if you want people to take you seriously. It's ok for you to do it here, don't do it in your business. That was not advice, was just trying to let you know you don't know S about any of this.

It's a prediction. You claim vindication, I claim the opposite.

I'm not supposed to have anything to back it up. That's what the investigation is for. But if you look at everything that's come out so far and still think there's "no there there", then you are either an idiot or just willfully ignorant.

I'm thinking the latter...for now.

 

[bbsam]

I think I do better than you. And I can actually give you reasons why I think what I do. And absolutely none of it could possibly classified as fake. You're over your head in this buddy, just as @bbsam is.

You're drunk.

 

[floridays]

It's a prediction. You claim vindication, I claim the opposite.

I'm not supposed to have anything to back it up. That's what the investigation is for. But if you look at everything that's come out so far and still think there's "no there there", then you are either an idiot or just willfully ignorant.

I'm thinking the latter...for now.

Different I word, Intelligent.

 

[floridays]

You're drunk.

Not true, It's one of the typical responses you clowns use when you can't respond with truth. You Sir are blinded by your hate for Donald J Trump, your president and mine. Still waiting for the answer, During the Benghazi attack, Where was THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?

You never responded to that previously, just thought I'd revisit it. May have just glossed over it.

 

[bbsam]

Not true, It's one of the typical responses you clowns use when you can't respond with truth. You Sir are blinded by your hate for Donald J Trump, your president and mine. Still waiting for the answer, During the Benghazi attack, Where was THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?

You never responded to that previously, just thought I'd revisit it. May have just glossed over it.

I can only take so much of you per day. Good night.

 

[floridays]

I can only take so much of you per day. Good night.

Understood, that's what my ex-wife said, sleep well Sam.

 

[Oldfart]

You mentioned it first clown, look it up, it was in response to what you wrote. I'd embarrass you but everyone has blocked you.

Sorry bubba. You are wrong. Bummer

 

[floridays]

Sorry bubba. You are wrong. Bummer

I'll admit when I know i'm wrong, I did use the term direct first, which had to have led to every other usage. I should have said put the money in or some other like term. You are correct, I used the word first, I apologize for demeaning or talking down to you. Everything else I said stands, do you care to respond to the substance of the last post?

 

[floridays]

It's a prediction. You claim vindication, I claim the opposite.

I'm not supposed to have anything to back it up. That's what the investigation is for. But if you look at everything that's come out so far and still think there's "no there there", then you are either an idiot or just willfully ignorant.

I'm thinking the latter...for now.

I reread this ...

You wrote:
I'm not supposed to have anything to back it up.
This is America buddy, You're supposed to have EVERYTHING to convict, beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal prosecution.
There has to be an underlying crime that is investigated. It's empty, it's not there. A crime was not even named in the order.
It is and was nothing but a fishing expedition and they have caught process crime chum thus far.

What is the crime that was committed that they are investigating to obtain sufficient evidence to gain a conviction?

You can't possibly answer the question because there is none.
That is why they began this fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico and are currently rounding the horn of Africa with 1 Flynn 1 Manafort 1 Gates and 1 Papajackoff, all process crimes.

ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and
management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the
Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as
follows:
(a)

Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States

Department of Justice.
(b)

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI

Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i)

any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(c)

(ii)

any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii)

any other matters within the scope of 28 C.friend.R. § 600.4(a).

If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is

authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d)

Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are

applicable to the Special Counsel.

Date '
1

 

[floridays]

@bbsam ? you're still here, I thought you were going to bed, not that you couldn't answer.?

 

[bbsam]

I reread this, you're the idiot.

You wrote:
I'm not supposed to have anything to back it up.
This is America buddy, You're supposed to have EVERYTHING to convict, beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal prosecution.
There has to be an underlying crime that is investigated. It's empty, it's not there. A crime was not even named in the order.
It is and was nothing but a fishing expedition and they have caught process crime chum thus far.

What is the crime that was committed that they are investigating to obtain sufficient evidence to gain a conviction?

You can't possibly answer the question because there is none.
That is why they began this fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico and are currently rounding the horn of Africa with 1 Flynn 1 Manafort 1 Gates and 1 Papajackoff, all process crimes.

ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and
management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the
Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as
follows:
(a)

Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States

Department of Justice.
(b)

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI

Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i)

any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(c)

(ii)

any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii)

any other matters within the scope of 28 C.friend.R. § 600.4(a).

If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is

authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d)

Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are

applicable to the Special Counsel.

Date '
1

If under (ii) they find evidence of money laundering, then would that not be the underlying crime to the obstruction?

 

[floridays]

If under (ii) they find evidence of money laundering, then would that not be the underlying crime to the obstruction?

Sam, you walk me through your thinking, I'm tired of disagreeing or telling people their wrong, what do money laundering and obstruction have in common. Neither has been forwarded by an unbiased person that I'm aware of, but if money laundering is true how is it related to obstruction? Walk me through how you think, I'm not getting it. And I will say definitively neither is true, not a shred of evidence, has been has been offered. Walk me through how you would get to what you asked. That is where you want to go, take me there.

 

[vantexan]

And why would you indict someone without first interviewing him?

In Trumps case, Mueller has a lot of information to decide whether or not the president is telling him the truth.

Or in Hillary's case why would you write a letter of exoneration before even interviewing her and other witnesses? Why wasn't she questioned under oath?

 

[bbsam]

Sam, you walk me through your thinking, I'm tired of disagreeing or telling people their wrong, what do money laundering and obstruction have in common. Neither has been forwarded by an unbiased person that I'm aware of, but if money laundering is true how is it related to obstruction? Walk me through how you think, I'm not getting it. And I will say definitively neither is true, not a shred of evidence, has been has been offered. Walk me through how you would get to what you asked. That is where you want to go, take me there.

If the special counsel is allowed to look into any crime that is uncovered in the Russian investigation as put forth in (ii) and it uncovers money laundering, then that is the underlying crime to the obstruction crime.

I think we've seen plenty of what appears to be a pattern of obstruction. And the president hasn't acted like someone with nothing to hide. That we haven't seen all that Mueller has doesn't mean he has nothing.

 

[vantexan]

Sam, you walk me through your thinking, I'm tired of disagreeing or telling people their wrong, what do money laundering and obstruction have in common. Neither has been forwarded by an unbiased person that I'm aware of, but if money laundering is true how is it related to obstruction? Walk me through how you think, I'm not getting it. And I will say definitively neither is true, not a shred of evidence, has been has been offered. Walk me through how you would get to what you asked. That is where you want to go, take me there.

They don't need evidence. It's enough to taint the administration going into the midterm election. Get the base all fired up. We know for a fact since they brought up Benghazi that the Obama administration lied about the cause of the attack because his election was right around the corner. We know for a fact numerous things about that administration that deserved investigation. What do we know about the Trump administration that's a fact? He won an election he wasn't supposed to win. He's rescinded numerous Obama executive orders. He has policies the Dems don't like. And he goes after them and even Republicans openly for not getting their together. There are no "facts" that add up to wrongdoing, they just don't like him and want to destroy him. And get their base wound up for the midterm elections.