Support NeoGAF

[Godslay]

Under that doctrine any communication sent from a foreign official to a state.gov employee in confidence would lead to an indictment, because the everyday email system of State employees is not classified, which is why State disputes and why the markings system exists.

Lucky for us, they covered that:

A series of presidential executive orders has governed how officials should handle the ceaseless incoming stream of raw, usually unmarked information they acquire in their work. Since at least 2003, they have emphasized that information shared by a foreign government with an expectation or agreement of confidentiality is the only kind that is "presumed" classified.

 

[RustyNails]

What the hell happened to ivy?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/member.php?u=9792

How Stella got her groove back

Got dammit beaten like a goose attack victim

 

[dramatis]

Investigations don't proceed if there wasn't something suspect in the first place.

Investigations don't only proceed to find guilt, but also to prove innocence. You believing that investigations only proceed if there is something suspect means you don't even believe in the basic idea of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

ABC News ‏@ABC 3h3 hours ago
RNC Chair Reince Priebus says Donald Trump ‘gets’ how to be presidential. http://abcn.ws/1T8hYg4

CherVerified account
‏@cher: @ABC 😂YES BUT HE TREATS YOU LIKE HIS BITCH IN PUBLIC...AND...REINCE YOUR TESTICLES ARE REALLY WORRIED😱THEY'VE PUT OUT AN AMBER ALERT ON YOU

lol cher

 

[B-Dubs]

lol cher

Holy shit, that one made me lose it. That fire is way too hot.

 

[User 463088]

lol cher

OMG YASSSSSSS

Cher for Veep. Yaaaaaaasssssss

 

[Macho Madness]

Ryan went into the Trump meeting with charts about entitlement reform and the national debt

 

[royalan]

lol cher

Hahaha

Between Cher and Elizabeth Warren the GOP will know no rest this election season.

 

[zero_suit]

lol cher

Ether

 

[B-Dubs]

Ryan went into the Trump meeting with charts about entitlement reform and the national debt

And you know Trump totally bullshitted him on all that crap.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Ryan went into the Trump meeting with charts about entitlement reform and the national debt

I'm glad that Paul Ryan thinks the biggest issue with the fascist is that he doesn't want to cut Social Security too much.

 

[Emarv]

Ryan went into the Trump meeting with charts about entitlement reform and the national debt

"What a nerd. Who finishes their report this early before it's due?" - Trump to Corey right after.

 

[ampere]

Cher is crazy. Reince really is spineless though

 

[Metaphoreus]

Ultimately this goes back to, like, one of the fundamental dumbnesses of American government. It's not in dispute that HHS is required by law to make these risk pool payments. The argument is over whether they are allowed to make the payments they're required to make. Hopefully the fundamental absurdity of that argument should make clear why this position is problematic -- there's just no logical sense behind Congress mandating an action it refuses to appropriate the funds for. But that's what's being argued here.

It may be dumb, but it's the typical way Congress appropriates money: authorization first, appropriation second. From the opinion (PDF):

Authorizing legislation establishes or continues the operation of a federal program or agency, either indefinitely or for a specific period. GAO Glossary at 15.2. Such an authorization may be part of an agency or program’s organic legislation, or it may be entirely separate. Id. No money can be appropriated until an agency or program is authorized, although authorization may sometimes be inferred from an appropriation itself. Id.

Appropriation legislation “provides legal authority for federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes.” Id. at 13. Appropriations legislation has “the limited and specific purpose of providing funds for authorized programs.” Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 361 (1979) (quoting TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 190 (1978)). An appropriation must be expressly stated; it cannot be inferred or implied. 31 U.S.C. § 1301(d) (“A law may be construed to make an appropriation out of the Treasury . . . only if the law specifically states that an appropriation is made.&#8221. It is well established that “a direction to pay without a designation of the source of funds is not an appropriation.” U.S. Government Accounting Office, GAO-04-261SP, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (Vol. I) 2-17 (3d ed. 2004) (GAO Principles). The inverse is also true: the designation of a source, without a specific direction to pay, is not an appropriation. Id. Both are required. See Nevada, 400 F.3d at 13-14. An appropriation act, “like any other statute, [must be] passed by both Houses of Congress and either signed by the President or enacted over a presidential veto.” GAO Principles at 2-45 (citing Friends of the Earth v. Armstrong, 485 F.2d 1, 9 (10th Cir. 1973); Envirocare of Utah, Inc. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 474, 482 (1999)).

Also relevant here is the distinction between permanent appropriations and current appropriations:

Appropriations come in many forms. A “permanent” or “continuing” appropriation, once enacted, makes funds available indefinitely for their specified purpose; no further action by Congress is needed. Nevada, 400 F.3d at 13; GAO Principles at 2-14.3. A “current appropriation,” by contrast, allows an agency to obligate funds only in the year or years for which they are appropriated. GAO Principles at 2-14. Current appropriations often give a particular agency, program, or function its spending cap and thus constrain what that agency, program, or function may do in the relevant year(s). Most current appropriations are adopted on an annual basis and must be re-authorized for each fiscal year. Such appropriations are an integral part of our constitutional checks and balances, insofar as they tie the Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch via purse strings.

Funding for the premium tax credits authorized in 1401 (codified as section 36B of the IRC, with which we are all closely acquainted) is appropriated in 31 USC 1324, which states that

(a) Necessary amounts are appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury for refunding internal revenue collections as provided by law[.]

. . .

(b) Disbursements may be made from the appropriation made by this section only for—

(1) refunds to the limit of liability of an individual tax account; and

(2) refunds due from credit provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) enacted before January 1, 1978, or enacted by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, or from section 25A, 35, 36, 36A, 36B, 168(k)(4)(F), 53(e), 54B(h), or 6431 of such Code, or due under section 3081(b)(2) of the Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008.​

Both sides in this case agreed that 31 USC 1324 "constitutes a permanent appropriation for Section 1401 premium tax credits."

The court then turns to 1402:

Section 1402 . . . requires insurers offering qualified health plans through ACA Exchanges to reduce deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and similar charges for eligible insured individuals enrolled in their plans. These reductions are referred to in the ACA as “cost-sharing reductions.” See, e.g., ACA §§ 1331(d)(3)(A)(i), 1402(c)(3)(B), 1412(c)(3).

The insurers are supposed to get their money back. See ACA § 1402(c)(3)(A) (“An issuer of a qualified health plan making reductions under this subsection shall notify the Secretary [of HHS] of such reductions and the Secretary shall make periodic and timely payments to the issuer equal to the value of the reductions.&#8221. Nothing in Section 1402 prescribes a “periodic and timely payment[]” process, however. Nor does Section 1402 condition the insurers’ obligations to reduce cost sharing on the receipt of offsetting payments.

Significantly,

Section 1402 is codified not in the Internal Revenue Code, but in Title 42, which includes federal laws concerning “Public Health and Welfare.” Title 42 includes such programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and most of the ACA.

You should immediately recognize the problem. The cost-sharing reduction is not a "refund[] due from credit provisions of the Internal Revenue Code," which is what the permanent appropriation in 31 USC 1324 applies to:

To provide a refund or credit under the Internal Revenue Code means to reduce the tax liability of a taxpayer. That is precisely what Section 1401 does. See ACA § 1401(a) (“In General.—In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year . . . .&#8221 (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 36B(a)). As such, the credits authorized by Section 1401 are quite naturally appropriated through 31 U.S.C. § 1324. The cost-sharing reductions mandated by Section 1402, by contrast, do not reduce anyone’s tax liability. Nor do the reimbursements made to the insurers. Neither is intended to do so. Rather, Section 1402 reimbursements are made to compensate insurers for the costs that they bear instead of share. These reimbursements simply are not “refunds” as that term is used in 31 U.S.C. § 1324(b).

The court next considers and rejects the administration's increasingly desperate arguments, including this gem:

The Secretaries also rely on the absence of certain text. As it often does, Congress said in certain parts of the ACA that there “are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary.”18 But that language is not in Section 1402. The Secretaries do not argue—nor could they—that these words are necessary to appropriate monies in the future. Instead, they deduce that the absence of this language means that Congress felt it unneeded, ostensibly because Section 1402 was already funded permanently.

This is NYCmetsfan's argument gussied up for a legal forum:

This is whys its clearly a typo and a result of poor law writing. The intent is clear, congress meant to appropriate money they forgot to write a few numbers and letters. Its absurd to then say they didn't appropriate it.

The short answer to this argument is 31 USC 1301(d), cited earlier by the court:

A law may be construed to make an appropriation out of the Treasury . . . only if the law specifically states that an appropriation is made[.]

A longer answer is provided by the court:

To the extent that this missing language evidences congressional intent, it cannot surmount the plain text. According to that text, Congress authorized Section 1402 but did not appropriate for it. That is perfectly consonant with principles of appropriations law. So long as programs are authorized, Congress may appropriate funds for them, or not, as it chooses. See GAO Principles at 2-41 (“An authorization act is basically a directive to Congress itself, which Congress is free to follow or alter (up or down) in the subsequent appropriation act.&#8221. The absence of the “authorized to be appropriated” language does not give the Court—or the Secretaries—license to rewrite the plain text of 31 U.S.C. § 1324(b).

But this is all deep in the weeds. Nobody here is going to be convinced by a lengthy explication of complex statutory arguments. Perhaps the most persuasive point against the administration's argument is covered earlier in the opinion:

On April 10, 2013, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) submitted the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget of the U.S. Government. Budget [Dkt. 30-1].9 The Appendix to the FY 2014 Budget Request contained “more detailed financial information on individual programs and appropriation accounts than any of the other budget documents.” App. to Budget [Dkt. 30-2] at 3. The Appendix included, among other things, “explanations of the work to be performed and the funds needed.” Id. In the FY 2014 Budget Appendix, the Administration requested the following:

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, sections 1402 [Reduced Cost-Sharing] and 1412 [Advanced Payments] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), such sums as necessary. For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, such sections in the first quarter of fiscal year 2015 (including upward adjustments to prior year payments), $1,420,000,000.​

Id. at 448.

On the same day, HHS separately submitted to the relevant appropriations committees in the House and Senate a Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees. Justification [Dkt. 30-3]. In that document, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) explained:

The FY 2014 request for Reduced Cost Sharing for Individuals Enrolled in Qualified Health Plans is $4.0 billion in the first year of operations for Health Insurance Marketplaces, also known as Exchanges. CMS also requests a $1.4 billion advance appropriation for the first quarter of FY 2015 in this budget to permit CMS to reimburse issuers who provided reduced cost-sharing [under Section 1402] in excess of the monthly advanced payments received in FY 2014 through the cost-sharing reduction reconciliation process.​

Id. at 7. In its conclusion, HHS referred to “Cost-Sharing Reductions” as one of “five annually-appropriated accounts.” Id. In a later graphic entitled “Reduced Cost Sharing,” HHS listed “--” under “Budget Authority” for “FY 2013 Current Law,” id. at 184. The chart reflects a view by HHS and OMB that no prior appropriation funded Section 1402 reduced cost sharing.10 HHS compared the Section 1402 program to “other appropriated entitlements such as Medicaid.” Id.

. . .

On May 20, 2013, OMB issued its Sequestration Preview Report for FY 2014, which listed “Reduced Cost Sharing” as subject to sequestration in the amount of $286 million, or 7.2% of the requested appropriation. Report [Dkt. 30-18] at 23. Because permanently-appropriated programs (such as Section 1401) are exempt from sequestration, OMB’s including Section 1402 on a list of sequestration-bound programs appears to acknowledge that no permanent appropriation was available for Section 1402 reimbursements.

On July 13, 2013, the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted S. 1284, a bill appropriating monies to HHS and other agencies for FY 2014. An accompanying report stated that “[t]he Committee recommendation does not include a mandatory appropriation, requested by the administration, for reduced cost sharing assistance . . . as provided for in sections 1402 and 1412 of the ACA.” S. Rep. No. 113-71, 113th Cong., at 123 (2013). No subsequent consideration of funding for Section 1402 appears in the record, for FY 2014 or since.

On October 17, 2013, the President signed into law the first of two continuing resolutions to keep the government running pending a consolidated appropriations act. See Continuing Appropriations Act for 2014, Pub. L. 113-46, 127 Stat. 558 (2013); Joint Resolution, Pub. L. 113-73, 128 Stat. 3 (Jan. 15, 2014). Neither resolution included an appropriation for Section 1402 reimbursements. The October 2013 legislation did, however, require HHS to certify that a program was in place to verify that applicants were eligible for “premium tax credits . . . and reductions in cost-sharing” before “making such credits and reductions available,” Pub. L. 113-46, Div. B, § 1001(a), 127 Stat. 566.

On January 17, 2014, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2014, Pub. L. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5 (2014). That law similarly did not appropriate monies for Section 1402 reimbursements to insurers. Indeed, the Secretaries have conceded that “[t]here was no 2014 statute appropriating new money” for reimbursements under Section 1402. 5/28/15 Hr’g Tr. at 27:9-10. Since January 2014, Treasury has been making advance payments of premium tax credits and cost-sharing reimbursements to issuers of qualified health plans to eligible individuals. Sec’y Mot. at 10 & Ex. 3, CMS Payment Policy and Financial Management Group, Marketplace Payment Processing (Dec. 6, 2013) [Dkt. 55-5] at 6-7 (discussing plans “to make estimated payments to issuers beginning in January 2014 based on data provided by the December deadline&#8221. These payments have been based on the Secretaries’ determination that “ the permanent appropriation in 31 U.S.C. § 1324, as amended by the Affordable Care Act, is available to fund all components of the Act’s integrated system of subsidies for the purchase of health insurance, including both the premium tax credit and cost-sharing portions of the advance payments required by the Act.” Sec’y Mot. at 10.

In summary, until Congress failed to appropriate funds for 1402, the administration's view was that Congress had not yet appropriated funds for that purpose, and that 1402 would require annual appropriations. It was only that failure that prompted the administration to change its tune, deciding all of a sudden that Congress had appropriated those funds all along, and 1402 was subject to a permanent appropriation. As the court opines, the administration's post-January-2014 view

is a most curious and convoluted argument whose mother was undoubtedly necessity.

(If all that persuaded you and made you depressed, fear not! Even King v. Burwell architect Jonathan Adler doubts that the House has standing.)

 

[rambis]

So answer my question please:

She could possibly have an accreditation for her house or wherever and it be sanctioned to use. Seen it dozens of times with people far below her rank.

But she would have to produce paperwork supporting that. Honestly it probably is a open and shut case, its not hard to inspect someone and make a determination. The problem is the politics.

 

[User 463088]

Cher is crazy. Reince really is spineless though

Cher is a goddess and a national treasure. She's as crazy as a gypsy, tramp and thief. I do believe she's as crazy as a dark lady and a half breed. She doesn't have a heart of stone. But you do know this is a woman's world.

 

[Macho Madness]

A group of Bernie Sanders supporters who have worked or volunteered for his campaign have come up with a draft proposal calling for the Vermont senator to suspend his presidential bid after the June 7 California primary, eventually concede to Hillary Clinton and build an independent organization aimed at defeating Donald J. Trump.

The three-page document addresses a question now facing Mr. Sanders’s most ardent supporters: how to harness the energy of a movement now that his presidential bid appears to be bowing to the reality that Mrs. Clinton will capture the Democratic nomination. The document suggests building “an organization, completely independent of the Clinton campaign,” to defeat Mr. Trump before focusing on other goals after the November election.

About a dozen current and former Sanders staff members and volunteers have been collaborating on the draft proposal, which was obtained by The New York Times and first reported by Politico.

While the authors believe Mr. Sanders will win the California primary, they write that “barring a miracle,” he will not become the party’s nominee. Two of the authors, who are former campaign staff members, confirmed the authenticity of the document. The authors all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were working without the campaign’s authorization.

The draft lays out a scenario for Mr. Sanders’s leaving the race. “Senator Sanders may graciously concede and enthusiastically endorse Hillary Clinton’s bid to defeat the threatened right-wing takeover of our country by Donald Trump at this time, or may withhold that final step in anticipation of discussions with the Clinton camp before the convention,” the draft says.

Doesn't sound bad to me.

Michael Briggs, a spokesman for the Sanders campaign called the draft plan “totally irrelevant

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/1...trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=

 

[Joey Fox]

An issue with the Hillary email server is that if you blame Hillary for this you have to hold Obama responsible too. He was sending emails to Hillary and probably should have noticed that her email was not a state.gov email and was private. As should have every single person in his administration who communicated with her. So either you need to hold the President's feet to the fire for his lack of oversight or this is a non-issue.

Also I heard that Hillary and John Kerry exchanged classified information, both over non-government email.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yl4RQg4Qfg0

If you watch that video above and don't think there's anything wrong with what Clinton did, I will think you're a shill. There is no argument to support what she did as being valid or non-dangerous. Admit it and make your case why she should still be President. I wonder how many of you would have supported Biden and buried Clinton over this if he'd ran.

Gross negligence is no excuse.

And for those of you shilling, you may convince people who don't dig or use logic, but I hope that cognitive dissonance eats you alive. Being dishonest for selfish reasons is no virtue, regardless of how you rationalize it to yourself.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Hey, Meta's back!

Nice to see you bro.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

They're still delusional if they think he wins California. But I like the positive planning aspect.

 

[Officerrob]

It sucks, but I'm about to add my first person ever to my ignore list thanks to this thread.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Also I heard that Hillary and John Kerry exchanged classified information, both over non-government email.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yl4RQg4Qfg0

If you watch that video above and don't think there's anything wrong with what Clinton did, I will think you're a shill. There is no argument to support what she did as being valid or non-dangerous. Admit it and make your case why she should still be President. I wonder how many of you would have supported Biden and buried Clinton over this if he'd ran.

Gross negligence is no excuse.

And for those of you shilling, you may convince people who don't dig or use logic, but I hope that cognitive dissonance eats you alive. Being dishonest for selfish reasons is no virtue, regardless of how you rationalize it to yourself.

I'm not watching an hour of partisan propaganda. You did-- summarized what she did, cite it, and argue it.

I'm guessing that the citing will be the hard part.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Under that doctrine any communication sent from a foreign official to a state.gov employee in confidence would lead to an indictment, because the everyday email system of State employees is not classified, which is why State disputes and why the markings system exists.

It's not like she could have legally received confidential info over a .gov account either. I don't understand why people don't get that: .gov email accounts are not secure. You cannot send classified info over them.

Even assuming Double Secret Classified foreign communications were a thing, I don't understand how Hillary is then expected to communicate with these people permissibly outside of the secure closed system used by the DOD which I can't imagine foreign governments are in on.

It's inferences piled on inferences to fit a conclusion that was already reached before the argument started.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Nevermind he's gone

 

[gutter_trash]

Also I heard that Hillary and John Kerry exchanged classified information, both over non-government email.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yl4RQg4Qfg0

If you watch that video above and don't think there's anything wrong with what Clinton did, I will think you're a shill. There is no argument to support what she did as being valid or non-dangerous. Admit it and make your case why she should still be President. I wonder how many of you would have supported Biden and buried Clinton over this if he'd ran.

Gross negligence is no excuse.

And for those of you shilling, you may convince people who don't dig or use logic, but I hope that cognitive dissonance eats you alive. Being dishonest for selfish reasons is no virtue, regardless of how you rationalize it to yourself.

what is up with that Scandinavian guy blinking weirdly? who does that with his eyes when talking to a web cab and squint like that?

 

[Beer Monkey]

If you watch that video above and don't think there's anything wrong with what Clinton did, I will think you're a shill.

Do you have any fucking idea what the word "shill" means?

Edit: There's some fucking irony in using an alt account to call somebody a shill.

 

[Macho Madness]

Sopan Deb @SopanDeb
Full list of Senators that met w/ Trump:
McConnell
Cornyn
Thune
Barrasso
Blunt
Wicker
Hatch
Portman
Fischer
Capito
Sessions

And they all took a photo with him

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Also I heard that Hillary and John Kerry exchanged classified information, both over non-government email.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yl4RQg4Qfg0

If you watch that video above and don't think there's anything wrong with what Clinton did, I will think you're a shill. There is no argument to support what she did as being valid or non-dangerous. Admit it and make your case why she should still be President. I wonder how many of you would have supported Biden and buried Clinton over this if he'd ran.

Gross negligence is no excuse.

And for those of you shilling, you may convince people who don't dig or use logic, but I hope that cognitive dissonance eats you alive. Being dishonest for selfish reasons is no virtue, regardless of how you rationalize it to yourself.

Let's see... Libertarian, Benghazi, Clintons' War on Women... and a whole slew of videos that apparently give us The Truth About everything in one convenient location. Thanks.

 

[royalan]

LOL

Day 2 of this?

--------

So...I'm starting to believe Hillary can take Oregon. I'm setting myself up for disappointment, I know.

 

[NeoXChaos]

LOL

Day 2 of this?

--------

So...I'm starting to believe Hillary can take Oregon. I'm setting myself up for disappointment, I know.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...n-oregon-on-tuesday-1463068933-htmlstory.html

Oregon's primary is on Tuesday. In an interview in his light-filled loft office in Portland's trendy Pearl District, Horvick offered some potential caveats, but also reasons to think the poll is correct.

First, the reasons for skepticism. Young voters heavily favor Sanders, and they could sway the results if they turn out in droves.

“It’s like a seesaw,” said Horvick. “If we get those proportions wrong, it has a big effect.”

In addition, roughly 65,000 voters have switched their registration from unaffiliated to Democrat since the beginning of the year, according to the Oregon secretary of state's office. They are more likely to lean liberal, and they’re more likely to be Sanders supporters.

Because there can be a lag in data transfer, Horvick is unsure if the poll adequately sampled these voters.

Now, some reasons to believe Clinton could pull off a victory here.

Oregon has a closed primary, meaning only registered Democrats can vote, and Sanders hasn't won a closed primary yet in this campaign. Older voters are much more likely than their younger counterparts to be registered with a party, and they’re more likely to favor Clinton, giving her an edge.

In addition, Horvick’s team calculated a second set of numbers based on a potential turnout where young voters and new voters cast ballots in higher numbers than normal .

Even then, Clinton had a lead that exceeded the margin of error, 45% to 38%.
l t f

Believe.

 

[User1608]

My first Presidential General Election with you all is going to be fun. Will Aaron, B-dubs and pigeon diablos atleast once? Find out next time on PoliGAF Z.

Bit late but same here. won't diablos either!

 

[Holmes]

LOL

Day 2 of this?

--------

So...I'm starting to believe Hillary can take Oregon. I'm setting myself up for disappointment, I know.

Nah because it's prime Sanders territory, but it won't be the 30%+ blowout people believe it will be. Obama won it by 18% in 2008 and Clinton has overperformed her 2008 numbers in every closed primary to date (Kentucky will buck the trend, but for reasons that won't be in play in Oregon), and it's a state that's older than average, so I can see it being a 10% win for Sanders.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Metamorpheus! Thank you for doing all of that work. My suspicion was that appropriations really are different, and what you cited certainly shows why.

For my friends in California:

 

[Angry Grimace]

LOL

Day 2 of this?

--------

So...I'm starting to believe Hillary can take Oregon. I'm setting myself up for disappointment, I know.

It's Fishing Season.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Metamorpheus! Thank you for doing all of that work. My suspicion was that appropriations really are different, and what you cited certainly shows why.

For my friends in California:

Queen and especially Adam thanks you.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Metamorpheus! Thank you for doing all of that work. My suspicion was that appropriations really are different, and what you cited certainly shows why.

For my friends in California:

All i see here is fraud

 

[Macho Madness]

I always love when Maddow has Dan Rather on.

 

[ctothej]

Also I heard that Hillary and John Kerry exchanged classified information, both over non-government email.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yl4RQg4Qfg0

If you watch that video above and don't think there's anything wrong with what Clinton did, I will think you're a shill. There is no argument to support what she did as being valid or non-dangerous. Admit it and make your case why she should still be President. I wonder how many of you would have supported Biden and buried Clinton over this if he'd ran.

Gross negligence is no excuse.

And for those of you shilling, you may convince people who don't dig or use logic, but I hope that cognitive dissonance eats you alive. Being dishonest for selfish reasons is no virtue, regardless of how you rationalize it to yourself.

The guy in the video is a Trump supporter, and I'm gonna guess a men's rights activist since he has a video called "The Death of Masculinity: Why Europe May Collapse." I would love to hear his infallible, well reasoned argument for just how Clinton broke the law.

 

[Holmes]

Metamorpheus! Thank you for doing all of that work. My suspicion was that appropriations really are different, and what you cited certainly shows why.

For my friends in California:

Awesome. Hillary's name was last on my husband's ballot, and also yours looks like it has more names on it?

 

[Paskil]

Willie Wilson will stun the crowd in Cali.

 

[hawk2025]

"Aspie" is a super shitty insult.

Also, I hate losers on Econjobrumors that claim that the reason that they can't get dates is because they have a mental disorder instead of that they're full abled but just hate women so much that no women like them.

Friend, take it from me. I went through the whole process, from applications to the job market.

EconJobRumors will do nothing for you. So many strong people I know couldn't help but look, and got lost in the vortex of sexism and nihilism of EJMR, and were genuinely upset about what they were saying about him/her even as a star of the market, particularly women. It's not worth it.

Even the supposedly useful information like job offers and salary ranges were off. I had job offers when people said none would be made, I had heard back on salary structures that EJMR folks said were completely different.

It will add nothing to your whole PhD experience or your job market experience other than unnecessary gossip.

I'd be happy to take this to PMs if you want and answer any questions you might have if it helps you avoid that hellhole

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

My boy Roque is #StillStanding

 

[User 406]

Willie Wilson will stun the crowd in Cali.

Wee Willie Wilson runs through the town
Upstairs, downstairs, in his nightgown

 

[Cipherr]

Why is this being investigated if it's nothing?

To make sure its nothing, and to make sure if it turns out to be something, that action is taken?

I don't understand this sort of reasoning. Investigation don't necessarily mean there has been wrongdoing. Its meant to see if there has been. Why wouldn't they do their due diligence here? Especially with the GOP hoping on a prayer that they can stick anything to Hillary. Short changing this thing, or being anything other than hilariously, irrefutably thorough would cause a shitstorm from the Conservatives.

Investigations don't proceed if there wasn't something suspect in the first place.

What? Investigations by definition are inquisitive. They stop "proceeding" once they have acquired enough info to ensure no wrongdoing took place. Suspecting something has NOTHING to do with stopping an investigation. You don't stop until you have enough concrete info to lean one way or another.

And they will, very soon by the sound of it.

And the investigation will 'cease to proceed' at that time. If you are still around, I hope you visit the thread and graciously let us all know how okay you are with the outcome. Im sure that will happen. Absolutely positive.

 

[Trancos]

My boy Roque is #StillStanding

#DropOutRocky

Is he hoping for a contested convention too? I've heard that he is pressuring super delegates.

 

[Godslay]

To make sure its nothing, and to make sure if it turns out to be something, that action is taken?

I don't understand this sort of reasoning. Investigation don't necessarily mean there has been wrongdoing. Its meant to see if there has been. Why wouldn't they do their due diligence here? Especially with the GOP hoping on a prayer that they can stick anything to Hillary. Short changing this thing, or being anything other than hilariously, irrefutably thorough would cause a shitstorm from the Conservatives.

There is a lot of info readily available to point to the fact that something was not kosher. If Hillary conducted her business on approved government channels do you think there would be an investigation?

Who cares about the GOP or conservatives?

That has nothing to do with this. Like I said before, if it was Paul Ryan or <insert GOP person here>, it should be investigated as well.

Sure there are political ramifications, but that is secondary to protecting national security going forward. Indictment or not.

 

[eBay Huckster]

why the fuck does anything that's open-and-shut get investigated

what kind of unwarranted diablosing question is that

and if hillary conducted her business on a gold-goddamn-plated government server the GOP would still find a way to force a months-long investigation out of it irrespective of the FBI, this is the same party that has apparently decided a dozen benghazi investigations and counting were totally necessary

 

[Officerrob]

Oh fuck, it's never going to stop...

 

[Doc Holliday]

why the fuck does anything that's open-and-shut get investigated

what kind of unwarranted diablosing question is that

and if hillary conducted her business on a gold-goddamn-plated government server the GOP would still find a way to force a months-long investigation out of it irrespective of the FBI, this is the same party that has apparently decided a dozen benghazi investigations and counting were totally necessary

You know they are going to try to impeach her if she becomes president. Fuck it why not? Obama is either the worlds lamest dude or a fucking ninja because you know gop would have tried to impeach his ass too lol

 

[Mrs. Manky]

https://mobile.twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/730800126994698240

Duke looks like he wants to be KKK Santa Claus.

Or Jim Bakker: