I read somewhere that there is not enough room in a Gemini to wipe your own ass . Made for some very special “teamwork” in orbit. The article also said that for the long duration flight, when the divers opened the hatches after splashdown, the smell rolling out had them puking.

You do realize it is not the markings on the message, but the content that determines if it is sensitive and should not be transmitted on unsecured (NIPRNET) systems? I noticed as soon as she changed her tune to say “marked” instead of just “classified” it was obvious she was not sure and indeed may have had sensitive…

And didn’t ask. “The IG report said Clinton “had an obligation” to discuss her email system with the department, but it could find “no evidence” that Clinton sought approval for her unusual email arrangement. If she did, the report says her request would have been denied by the bureaus of Diplomatic Security and…

Umm, no she did not. “The IG report said Clinton “had an obligation” to discuss her email system with the department, but it could find “no evidence” that Clinton sought approval for her unusual email arrangement. If she did, the report says her request would have been denied by the bureaus of Diplomatic Security and…

At least now we have the Director of the FBI and all the video to confirm her dishonesty.

Like one of these?

So, looking at all the “...so she wasn’t charged with a crime, much less convicted....can we move on?” comments, I assume this is the new standard for who is qualified to run for POTUS?

“She was wrong to say “my predecessors did the same thing,” as we have pointed out before. The IG report confirms that among Clinton’s predecessors only Powell used personal email for government business. Madeleine Albright did not use email at all, and Condoleezza Rice did not use personal email to conduct government…

“seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion…

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

“For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support…

You said: “That would require them to show the claim was frivolous, groundless, or vexatious. Given what I know about the case, I think it’s highly unlikely that Cinemark will prevail on its request.”

injuries they caused or injuries they, (plaintiff) can get away with claiming to get a paycheck. Deep pockets, you know. Judge will decide who is at fault.

“In reverse order:

Damn, I better get a gun. How about this scenario, Someone comes to my house with a gun. I show my gun. Person leaves without a shot fired. In this situation my having a gun may well have prevented a shooting. This actually happens and as I said, is grossly underreported. I’d bet throwing this data into the model…

First study: ”The relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot injury, comparing subjects living in homes with and without guns, was 3.7 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.9–7.2).” So, I have a 4X greater chance of being shot living in a house with a gun compared to living in a house without a gun?? Only a 4 X…

We do?

You Jezbellions got some splainin’ to do to these Jezbellions http://jezebel.com/while-installi…