Posted on 08/02/2019 1:20:35 PM PDT by bitt
The decision not to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey over his deliberate leaks to the media isn’t a sign of weakness or lack of will, but of the professionalism and well-reasoned restraint of President Trump’s Department of Justice.
Attorney General Bill Barr’s number one goal since taking the helm at the DOJ has been to restore the impartial and professional ethos that has characterized that agency for more than 200 years.
He is working diligently to cleanse it of the stain of politically driven vindictiveness that Obama-era officials created by grossly mishandling the Clinton email investigation, and then, even more egregiously, orchestrating the series of events that led to the Russiagate witch hunt.
ROBERT MUELLER'S RUSSIA INVESTIGATION BY THE NUMBERS
Before this “investigation of the investigators” is over, there will undoubtedly be many cases of misconduct that warrant criminal prosecution. Comey’s, however, was not one of them.
What Comey did -- release private memos made in the course of his employment as FBI director to politically damage the president of the United States, who had just fired him for unrelated misconduct -- was absolutely outrageous, and totally unbecoming of the leader of this country’s premier criminal investigatory agency. It speaks volumes about Comey’s corrupt character and further illustrates why both President Trump and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that Comey was no longer fit to serve in that role.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
8
———— = 1
2(2 + 2)
Same equation rewritten
Can there be two correct answers
Gee...Jim Robinson is from the left coast too. I guess by your own standard you shouldn’t even be on this forum.
I’m sure you get asked for legal advice ALL the time. Hmmm...should I consider Bill Barr’s opinion or some anonymous wahoo behind a keyboard.
Tough call.
This would have been and iffy prosecution and there are far more egregious indictments on the horizon.....Perpetrating a fraud on the FISA court topping the list.
Agree. Let Jimmy the Giraffe , he walk like one, think he escaped and throw the big net on him later
The leaked memo to self is NOT the crime you want to pursue, there were MUCH bigger things that occurred.
Ambiguously expressed, but I say 16.
8 divided by the quantity 2(2+2) can be written 8/2(2+2)
So, if the answer is 16, then 8/2(2+2) =16 is an equation which is true.
Substituting for the number in parenthesis, using X for the 2, looks like this :
8/2(x+x) = 16
8= 16 times 2(2x)
8= 16 times 4 x
8= 64 X
x = .125, which it does not. However, if 8 /2(2+2) = 1
8/ 2(x+x)=1
8 = 1 times 2(2x)
8 = 4x 8/4 =x
2 = x
it comes down to how the expression 2(2+2) is handled, not how one enters it into a calculator, because by definition, entering it into a calculator when it is expressed in long form must be entered as it is written. However, the expression 2(2+2) has to be treated as one number, same as if it were x(y+y) would be entered as how it reads, but in reality it is considered the number x2y.
dusting off an excellent piece from Epoch Times June 14, 2019 update of a March 15, 2019 article in US News about Comey & Sen. no name involvement with no name lacky David Kramer in the Collusion with British Intelligence & FBI.
take a read here:
I'm with you on that.
As far as I am concerned expecting people in the swamp to face justice is pure fantasy. The Clintons have openly flaunted the law for decades and the friends who have helped them and participated with them could ill a Trump rally arena.
Comey, Mueller, Clapper, Brennan and all the rest didn't just become dirty cops the day Trump was elected and their little black books are far from empty. There are many dirty judges and prosecutors who have been scratching each other's backs for their entire careers.
The majority of mathematicians. The equation is ambiguously written and the answer depends on how were taught to prioritize operations.
I’m not missing anything. Barr’s made a smart here. He’s opted not to open with a prosecution that would sour the public on further prosecutions that actually matter.
I remember when people were impatient with Grassley during the Kavanaugh hearings. Oh he’s was blowing it, not aggressive enough. And then Kavanaugh got appointed. Same thing with McConnell — oh he’s a weakling, even as he’s carefully installing our judges into the courts.
You have to be patient this stuff. Timing matters. Strategy matters. Political reality matters.
If the hotheads had their way we’d have nothing.
*smart move
Well, I’ve been here for decades and this is the first time I’ve said this about anyone. Joe diGenova knows the situation better than I do - and he’s not a lefty or a troll... and he and I want the same outcome. So if it’s OK with him, it’s OK with me.
Well, I’ve been here for decades and this is the first time I’ve said this about anyone. Joe diGenova knows the situation better than I do - and he’s not a lefty or a troll... and he and I want the same outcome. So if it’s OK with him, it’s OK with me.
Ambiguous? Not to me. Crystal clear.
I graduated with a degree in Math and 8 divided by 8 = 1.
What other way is there to read this simple statement?
I think 1 is the answer too. There are many articles out there discussing the topic, as it went viral. I’m not a mathematician so can’t give definitive advice. But here’s my understanding of 16.
8÷2(2+2)
8/2 = 4
becomes 4(2+2)
4x4 = 16.
Please don’t ask me to defend it. :*)
So, if the answer is 16, then 8/2(2+2) =16 is an equation which is true.
Incorrect conclusion. 1 does not = 16. That is NOT a true equation.
All of the bullshit about interpretation is just that.
You use entry into a calculator as some kind of justification. Nonsense.
This is basic 6th or 7th grade algebra, not some great mystery.
8÷2(2+2) well it could be
8/2 * 4
4 * 4 = 16
You do the 2+2 first since it is in ()
which leaves 8/2 * 4 no operator has precedence so you go left to right and get 16
Pinging USS Alaska
JPSB said ...
8÷2(2+2) well it could be
8/2 * 4
4 * 4 = 16
You do the 2+2 first since it is in ()
which leaves 8/2 * 4 no operator has precedence so you go left to right and get 16
The question sucks. It’s not a well written equation. As written and based on order of prescient the answer is 16 or 1. All based on interpretation of the very badly written question. I have a mathe and engineering degree. That doesn’t give me the authority to tell people they are bullshit. I think that would require either a biology or genetic .background.
I would fail anyone who left an ambiguous question. I haven’t read all the useless posts on the matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.