Azalin

You're certainly one of the most mature people in your own mind. Outside, not so much.

I'm not shouting anything Bob, I was simply trying to get you to stay on course and explain, for once, how you can logically equate security clearance overrides with illegally storing federal government correspondence. The best you could do was cite a soundbite of Chairman Cummings. If that's all you've got, then fine. As for having a dialogue with an adult, try answering my direct questions in specifics. You accuse me of repetition, but I'm only doing so because you keep answering me with the same old bull$#@%. You won't address it, so the conversation would appear to be pointless. But you're the mature one in this exchange, right?

I'm genuinely curious - why hatred for the OPM and background investigations?

You're being more charitable than I am. I don't have the patience for willful ignorance. I tried to have a dialogue, but once the idiot movie line replies come out, then it's time for the thinkers to leave the conversation.

"But I meant it."

Oh, I don't doubt his knowledge one bit. It's just that what he's saying is a crock. Too many people accept too much of what is said by our public servants at face value. As long as it resonates, they'll run with it.

That's pretty pathetic, and it was way funnier when Python did it.

All that proves is that Chairman Cummings is as wrong as you are. Do you actually believe his nonsense or are you just pointing out that you're not the only one spreading it around?

Members of the house oversight committee commented yesterday that the security clearance overrides were comparable to Hillary's illegal use of a private server?

I'm pretty much the only one who has been continually replying to you, but since I continue to point out that you're attempting to equate criminal activity with non-criminal activity, you no longer feel I am attempting a legitimate discussion? And you say that we're the ones with a problem?

What, there aren't enough douches there already?

I don't know - how in your mind are there some similarities? What would those similarities be? Detail if possible. Wait So, if someone could draw an actual similarity between the two situations, with one being legal and the other a crime, what would that similarity be? Wait Okay, now show how they are similar. Please. I would truly appreciate seeing you make a legitimate connection between the two. Don't ask me to use my imagination and connect the dots for you. Spell it out, once and for all. Please. Go.

I'll be as direct as possible in order to make this obvious, even to you. What Trump did was not (even by your own admission) illegal. What Hillary did was very illegal. One is an example of possibly questionable judgement, the other is a criminal act. Do you now see that your comparison is an inaccurate one?

You can attempt to justify your position any way you like, but the way you're doing so makes no sense. Forget about what "folks in this group" are capable or incapable of - you're talking with me right now, not "the folks in this group". You've already stated that the president broke no laws. Can a case for concern be made over granting these people clearance? Maybe, but that isn't what you've been saying. And just because people disagree with you doen't mean we're all laughing. And lastly, this is not a case of hypocrisy. Familiarize yourself with the definition of the word. I'm not going to keep repeating it.

You do realize that among the people initially declined to security clearance are people like Kushner and Ivanka, along with National Security Advisor John Bolton? All active members within the administration. Your accusation of "unqualified" is laughable, at least as far as those three are concerned. And for about the 5th time, you are bringing legality into it by using Hillary's email server as an example. If that frustrates you, then stop %$#@ing using that as an example.

Perhaps we're simply talking past each other, so I'll try it a little differently. How can something be hypocrisy if the two actions can't be compared? Overriding a security clearance denial does not expose any sensitive material, it's not illegal, and simply gives clearance to someone that might deserve closer scrutiny. You said it yourself: "I think Trump can clear whoever he wishes so I don't think the law was broken." By contrast it is illegal to use private servers, PCs, etc, etc for government emails, even IF they're not of a sensitive, classified, or top secret nature, PERIOD. So tell me, how is your comparison a valid one?

Bob, I didn't say anything about ignoring the whistle blower, and I never defended the practice of ignoring advice from anybody. I simply do not believe you're making a sensible comparison. Why not wait and see how all this pans out before we jump to any conclusions? If the Trump administration has done anything illegal in overturning the security clearance denials, don't you believe that will come out?

Overriding a denial for a security clearance doesn't sound to me like it's a violation in & of itself, where using a private email server for sending & receiving sensitive or classified information is actually illegal. I see a big difference between the two.

You don't appear to be looking for answers as much as you desire confirmation of your accepted narrative.

I believe the term "dead" will be replaced with the more socially correct "existentially challenged", probably sooner rather than later.

His face - it's YUUUUUUUUUUUUGE!

Ph'nglui mglw'nfah Tom R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

It's not up on the FOX site either, but you may want to check later on - they may rotate their posted videos. Then again, Carlson's show will rerun later, so you can DVR it if you like.