Slashdot Mirror


Sprint 'Betting Big On Trump,' Could Merge With T-Mobile Or Comcast (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Speculation that Sprint will merge with T-Mobile USA or another competitor has ramped up since the inauguration of President Donald Trump. That continued Friday when a report from The New York Times suggested that Sprint could be combined with either T-Mobile or Comcast, the nation's largest cable company. Masayoshi Son, founder and CEO of Sprint owner SoftBank, "and his financial advisers are weighing several major possible deals for Sprint," the Times wrote. "Be it a tie-up with T-Mobile U.S., Sprint's closest competitor, or a more ambitious marriage with the cable colossus Comcast, a transaction would allow Mr. Son to fulfill a long-held ambition to invest aggressively in wireless networks in the United States and enable next-generation mobile technology." Titled "The World's Top Tech Investor Is Betting Big on Trump," the Times report says that "the Trump administration's push for lighter regulation and lower taxes has been a powerful lure for cash-rich investors the world over." SoftBank, which is based in Japan, had several of its executives "spen[d] a day in Washington talking to senior members of Mr. Trump's economic team" last month, according to bankers who were briefed on the meetings, the Times report said. U.S. regulators opposed wireless consolidation during the Obama administration, preventing potential mergers between AT&T and T-Mobile and later between Sprint and T-Mobile. With four major nationwide carriers, U.S. wireless competition recently led to an expansion of unlimited data plans.

54 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Soon, we will have fewer choices again.

    1. Re:Monopoly by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      yeah, especially after Verizon and Charter merge.

    2. Re:Monopoly by youngone · · Score: 1
      The ultimate goal of all businesses is to have 100% of the market they operate in.

      The US broke up Bell exactly because they were a monopoly, and service suffered as a result.

      The broken up bits of Bell have spent the last few years trying to re-form, and it looks like they will succeed.

    3. Re:Monopoly by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      Sprint 'Betting Big On Trump,' Could Merge With T-Mobile Or Comcast...sweet, maybe they will finally honor the "unlimited data" deals so we can download "all" the apps we use on a daily basis and not pay more than we already are...cough, cough.

    4. Re:Monopoly by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      And Bell was a monopoly to begin with because...?

    5. Re:Monopoly by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      ...because utilities are natural monopolies?

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    6. Re:Monopoly by youngone · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure to be honest. Wikipedia says they bought up all their competition in the early 20th Century, and had various anti-trust finding against them, but until Bell was broken up in 1984 the terms all seem pretty generous.

      With what I know of US politics, I'm going to go right ahead and assume they used a tiny portion of their profits to buy off politicians, because that's exactly what the current telecoms monopolies do.

  2. I hope they merge with Comcast. by sims+2 · · Score: 2

    Then at least nothing of value would be lost.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:I hope they merge with Comcast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. Sprint + Comcast merger may produce a shit hole singularity and end the universe.

  3. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Meanwhile, a thousand Trump supporters run around proclaiming "Obama bugged Trump! We know so because Trump said so!"

    I'm going to risk the inevitable downmod from the rabid hard right and alt-right types by finally thinking that we have maybe another six to nine months before even a majority of Republicans in Congress begin planning to remove this imbecile from office. I think there are at least decent odds that by this time next year we'll be bitching and moaning about President Pence.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Sure, why not by quonset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What this country needs when it comes to cable and broadband providers is less competition and higher prices. Let's fall even further behind the rest of the industrialized world.

    1. Re:Sure, why not by zamboni1138 · · Score: 2

      Exactly.

      2017: Sprint + Comcast = Comcast
      2018: Verizon + Comcast = Comcast
      2019: AT&T + Comcast = AT&T

      The logo will be the original AT&T Death Star, multi-colored like the NBC peacock, with a big red check mark on top. The Death Star will be firing at the Earth.

    2. Re:Sure, why not by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Yes! You can almost smell the stone age living coming to this country already! ..'Unregulated Capitalism is self-devouring.'

  5. Re:Everyone merge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Anyone can buy OCP stock and own a piece of our city. What could be more democratic than that?"

  6. Why Sprint with T-Mobile? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By my understanding of mobile phone technology and protocols those are the two least compatible networks in the USA at the present time. All the customers of one would eventually be stuck buying phones running the protocol of the other. Wouldn't a Sprint / Verizon merger make a lot more sense from a technology standpoint?

    Merging with Comcast might make some sense, but I don't recall hearing Comcast ever express a previous interest in going into the mobile market.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Why Sprint with T-Mobile? by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      That matters less and less. With VoLTE those existing networks could be made compatible with all new handsets. As 5G rolls out in the next few years, that's going to happen regardless. GSM and CDMA will not be used for the Voice traffic.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Why Sprint with T-Mobile? by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      All the customers of one would eventually be stuck buying phones running the protocol of the other.

      You make the mistake of assuming this would be done for the benefit of the consumer.

    3. Re:Why Sprint with T-Mobile? by Ingenium13 · · Score: 2

      They're not that "out of sync". T-Mobile has a decent amount of Band 2 (PCS) spectrum thanks to their MetroPCS acquisiion, and in many markets they have either 10x10, 15x15, or 20x20 band 2 LTE deployed. Sprint's primary / base LTE band is also PCS, and is band 25, where they have at minimum 5x5 deployed (some markets have a 10x10, some have 2 5x5s, and others have both a 5x5 and 10x10. Band 25 is a superset of band 2.

      So for current Sprint customers, nothing would be needed to start using T-Mobile's band 2 LTE. I think a decent number of Sprint devices also support band 4.

      Going the other way, it might be more difficult for T-mobile customers to use Sprint's infrastructure without new handsets. Some will be able to use band 25. At the very least, they could likely move the CDMA carriers within their combined PCS spectrum and expand B2 bandwidth.

      Devices like Nexus / Pixels and iPhones (excluding the T-mobile variant of the iPhone 7, Sprint's version is fine) will work with either carrier. Google has been working on a "hybrid" network called Fi for a while.

      The problem devices will likely be Samsung devices, since they remove support for a lot of bands and have very carrier specific versions.

    4. Re:Why Sprint with T-Mobile? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      T-Mobile bought MetroPCS, which similarly was a cdmaOne/cdma2000 network, and has converted it to GSM, so there's a precedent.

      Indeed, Sprint PCS itself bought out a GSM network in the DC area fairly early on in its history, and forced customers to switch to its very-inferior cdmaOne based system (which at the time didn't support two way text messaging or data in any form, let alone SIM cards/personal mobility)

      Later on, Sprint PCS bought NEXTEL which used some kind of custom mobile phone standard built by Motorola, they also eventually forced NEXTEL customers to switch. Many had chosen NEXTEL to begin with because the technology it used provided an extremely intuitive push-to-talk system, something Sprint and Qualcomm were never able to fully replicate.

      So the irony would be thick if Sprint PCS was bought by someone else and all of its customers were forced to migrate. At least they'd be getting something more powerful this time, I guess.

      Like MetroPCS though, remember that Sprint is migrating to LTE, which at least means more modern handsets will work on some of both Sprint and T-Mobile's networks.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Why Sprint with T-Mobile? by jpbelang · · Score: 1

      5g won't be rolling out anytime soon, most probably. My understanding is that the costs are pretty high, and the increase in market penetration isn't there. So providers aren't that keen.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bus...

      --
      JP http://www.wearerite.com
  7. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Informative

    You can of course point to where that piece of an article says "Obama wiretapped Trump's phone."

    There's a specific claim being made and it isn't the one you seem to think it is.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. Re: Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    They seem awfully proficient at getting mod points, mind you.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    In other words you can provide no actual evidence to support his claims. As it is the whole thing appears to be a right wing shock jock's conspiracy theory.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  10. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Informative

    Writing unevidenced claims in bold capitals doesn't make them true.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do you use the same standard of evidence for your news sources (ex. CNN and NYT) or is thin air typically enough?

  12. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by Torodung · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes. There were transcripts of Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador, so there were wiretaps done on foreign communications. Nobody is questioning whether or not some monitoring of Trump campaign officials was happening.

    Nowhere does that say Obama ordered it. Nowhere does it say it was Trump himself that was monitored. It was part of an investigation and done based on evidence with court approval, not some fiat declaration from the dictator-in-chief, which is apparently what Trump supporters think the president is.

    The presidency is not a monarchical position. The POTUS does not have king-like powers. One of the things he cannot do, since the Nixon administration, is order a wiretap. Only a court can approve that (including the FISA secret court) and only after an active investigation provides enough evidence to get a warrant.

    Get that? Do you have a tape of Obama ordering the tap? No? Then you have nothing. Nor does Trump, by the looks of it.

    That's why Comey is out there asking for the Justice Department to repudiate Trump's claim, because it's a bigger lie about the way our formerly stable republic works than it is about Obama. Trump isn't undermining Obama, he's undermining his own government. He is acting like a fifth-columnist, hopefully not wittingly.

  13. Re: Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Trump regime is leaking like a sieve, probably due to a combination of poor management skills, inexperience and a genuine loathing of the man by existing staff members. It's no surprise he's gone full tinfoil hat and started blaming the Obama boogieman for everything that's gone wrong in such a short time, he's had an unhealthy obsession with Obama for many years now.

  14. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    In general, I don't accept someone simply saying "I was wiretapped" and the primary defense of that being his own staff saying "Oh fur shure, he's got like evidence you don't know..."

    As it stands, it's pretty clear a whole lot of people in Congress are as mystified by this as everyone else. But it served its purpose. It got everyone to stop talking about yet another senior member of the Administration being outed lying about contact with the Russians.

    As to the standards put forward by CNN, whenever it amounts to "inside sources", I don't usually give the story THAT much credibility. But as we saw with Flynn, it wasn't very long before "that's a total bullshit story that's all lies!" turned into Flynn quitting/being fired.

    What I'm seeing here is the Trump Administration rather awkwardly trying to pivot some fairly well known information about the FBI looking into Russian interference into "Obama wiretapped Trump!" as a form of misdirection about the fact that his AG has been outed lying to the Senate confirmation hearing. And that for me is a puzzler. Why did Flynn lie to Pence and why did Sessions lie to Franken? After all, neither man, on the fact of it did anything wrong. But at any rate, the reasons may never be known, but that doesn't mean that they didn't get caught lying, nor is it justification for Trump loudly proclaiming, without providing any evidence, that the previous POTUS ordered his phone to be tapped (which would appear to be a pretty huge distortion of what happened largely based on some right wing conspiracy theory shock jock's bizarre claims).

    To me that's the most trouble part of most of Trump's activities. He seems to react to things he sees on the fucking television. He has probably the most effective espionage apparatus the world has ever known at his fingertips, and CNN, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbarts and some right wing conspiracy poo flinger named Mark Levin. You can tell by the awkward interviews with Trump's own PR people that not even they know what the fuck he's talking about.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  15. Re: Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The problem is that if he's in total meltdown now, just 45 days into his Presidency, what is Trump going to be like in 180 days or 365 days? No wonder Republicans are trying to get an Obamacare replacement out ASAP. How much longer can they keep up the facade of good will before they finally have to accept they're dealing with a fantasist?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  16. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    So well researched that not even he can actually provide any evidence that President Obama ordered Trump Tower wiretapped. There's nothing well-researched about this. It's just out and out conspiracy theory, and Trump has jumped on it because he is, in his awkward way trying to take control of the 24 hour news cycle from the ill attention Sessions was getting. That's certainly been successful, to an extent, except of course the claim of wiretapping is going to end up in the same hands as the claims of Russian and Trump campaign team communications. It's a bit of hyperbole that maybe, just maybe, buys him some time, but if all he has is Levin and Breitbart's fantastical tales of the evil Obama Administration, sooner or later, Sessions' problems are going to resurface.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  17. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by cfalcon · · Score: 1, Funny

    > I'm going to risk the inevitable downmod from the rabid hard right and alt-right types by finally thinking that we have maybe another six to nine months before even a majority of Republicans in Congress begin planning to remove this imbecile from office.

    Ah, pause your actions, all! Heed and record the March prediction from MightyMartian!

    We'll add this to the February prediction of "I honestly think Bannon's days are numbered", the January prediction of "Congress is going to start moving to claw back the Presidency's legislatively enabled executive powers", the December prediction of " a man of Trump's age is unlikely to be seeking a second term" (he registered for 2020 on the evening of inauguration day, so he is, unprecedentedly, the only declared 2020 candidate), and of course the November prediction that "I am so going to enjoy rubbing it into Trump supporter's faces on Wednesday.".

  18. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by helsinki92 · · Score: 1

    I don't know if Trump has any evidence of this wiretapping he's tweeting about or not, but I can see no reason for him to be making stuff up like this. What's the upside if he's knowingly making this up?

    Why not, his record on telling the truth is not stellar. His lying is so prolific even his staff feel free to lie without consequence.

  19. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Well at least my stalker has an actual account.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  20. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Wow, Obama directly acted a FISA court to bug Trump.

    And you have evidence for this, right?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  21. Re:All of this is conjecture by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Can we save our outrage for when someone proposes something concrete?

    Nor is there any Trump connection there. It's just NYT and slashdot blowing smoke for clicks.

  22. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    The problem boils down to the fact that Trump's proxies spent a good deal of last year cozying up to the Russians. They can spread conspiracy theories about President Obama ordering Trump be bugged (which is factually wrong, the President doesn't have that power, but whatever), but the real problem is that Trump's close advisers and appointees have created a veritable nest of Russian connection problems, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Did the likes of Flynn and Sessions imagine that they weren't going to get caught.

    That's the real bizarre part, that people like Flynn and Sessions clearly weren't being very covert at all, that they were lying about their contacts with Russia that have been trivially easy to find. Even if nothing they did ultimately was illegal, the fact that they lied about it makes what may very well be non-events, or at least fairly unremarkable contacts, into scandals. As with Sessions, as with Flynn, the probably may not be that they chatted with Putin's representatives, it's that they seemed to have such a guilty conscience about it that they felt the need to lie; Flynn to Pence, and Sessions, far worse, to US Senators in his confirmation hearing. If Flynn had to go, how much longer has Sessions got?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  23. Comcast can have them... by slasher999 · · Score: 1

    Sprint is rubbish in my opinion, which makes them a perfect fit for Comcast. I'll do business with neither, although I welcome either changing my mind by proving they can deliver a good quality, competitive service.

  24. Re: Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My hunch is that the leaks in the White House aren't meant to be attacks on Trump himself, but rather various factions in what appears to be a very competitive White House environment trying to take the piss out of each other.

    In the past, when "White House sources" leaked something, that was shorthand for "the President wants the public to know this, but doesn't want anyone going on record", in other words, it was a targeted form information/mis-information dissemination.

    But the Trump White House doesn't function like that. It appears that Trump, perhaps quite intentionally, has created a White House built out of various competing factions, all trying to curry his favor and show their the best and most loyal. That's why they all seem to have their knives out for Priebus, because, as Chief of Staff, he's nominally supposed to be in charge of access to the President and general administration of the White House staff itself. But in this kind of environment, the CoS's primary job as gatekeeper would inevitably mean he's viewed as an obstruction, and what's more, with a dizzying array of "chief advisers" with Jared Kushner and Ivanka on one side and Steve Bannon on the other, Priebus seems to be viewed in equal parts with contempt and jealousy, and likely has no real control at all. The long and the short of it is that Trump's White House is a badly malfunctioning one with no clear lines of authority and where people seem to be using the press as a means of plunging knives into each others' backs, and in the process they're damaging the credibility of the Administration.

    And that's all before Trump picks up his cell phone and begins tweeting...

    Meanwhile, I'm reading these articles about what a steadying hand Mike Pence is (which makes us wonder how chaotic the White House would be if he wasn't there), how he's formed his own effective team and seems to generally be maintaining an air of calm orderly competence. Which makes me wonder if Pence is positioning himself in such a way as to a Trump loyalist, while sending coding signals to Congress that amount to "I'll back the President all the way, but if you do decide that he's too fucking batshit insane to be President anymore, well, I'm ready to go..."

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  25. Re:The Liar In Chief by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    And that's where the two issues collide. Let's assume for the moment that Levin, Breitbart and Fox opinion crew who are spreading this conspiracy theory are right, that somehow Obama personally managed to get Trump Towers wiretapped. Let's assume that President Barack Obama is an evil man of Nixonesque subterfuge and willful vileness who overrode decades-old restrictions that basically shut the POTUS out from ordering wiretaps on domestic phone lines. How does that make the problems that Trump has with his proxies being so tight with the Russians during the campaign? It's not like some great revelation that Obama is a wiretapper (which I don't think anyone actually believes, not even Fox News) somehow makes the allegations against Sessions just disappear.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  26. Re: Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    So now the Senate is going to be charged with investigating "somehow, sometime, somewhere the Obama Administration did something to Donald Trump"?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  27. Re:Revised pledge of allegiance ending by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

    Uh oh looks like the Trump downmod brigade is coming through! Let's make sure this is a trigger-free zone, people!

  28. Comcast by crow · · Score: 2

    The talk of Comcast makes a lot of sense to me. The writing is on the wall for wired home services--it's just a matter of time before the cell companies decide to push hard into that market. For most consumers, they could swap out their cable boxes and cable modem for versions that use LTE instead of coax. It would just be a matter of the cell companies having sufficient bandwidth.

    Certainly Comcast sees this coming. Buying Sprint would be their best move to stay relevant as the market shifts. Instead of sitting around while the cell companies eat into their market, they can use Sprint to eat into the markets of their competitors.

    Now I would much rather see Alphabet (Google) buy Sprint. That could enhance the competitive marketplace for home Internet and video instead of constrict it.

    1. Re:Comcast by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      We used to (and still do!) have wireless TV. It offers far fewer channels with all kinds of reception problems, and that's using it as one-to-many solution that broadcasts at whatever time it feels is appropriate. Cable actually grew up because of all the transmission problems. And honestly, I don't know why anyone would prefer a wireless connection over fiber? Ever. Maybe within your home on 2.4 or 5.4 spectra.

      Now I would much rather see Alphabet (Google) buy Sprint. That could enhance the competitive marketplace for home Internet and video instead of constrict it.

      Maybe for a year or two, but then it would be abandoned because broadband^W headsets^W themostats^W cellphones^W hardware is hard.

      Seriously, Alphabet doesn't do hardware well.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  29. The powerful and the stupid. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Someone quite awhile ago pointed out The Doctor's statement that the powerful and the stupid both make up their own facts. They also didn't put two and two together and realize that The Doctor is powerful. Kind of like how Christians most often don't put two and two together about Jesus's three days dead and his marvelling about the poor woman's two small coins and how he is actually like the rich people.

  30. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Informative

    It hasn't been caught doing any such thing, and even Trump's mouthpieces know it which is why they're diluting the claims.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  31. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by guises · · Score: 1

    we have maybe another six to nine months before even a majority of Republicans in Congress begin planning to remove this imbecile from office

    Not until after the midterms. The problem with the last election is that it was so surprising - if he had been expected to win, if poles had shown themselves to accurately represent what voters were thinking, then public opinion turning against him would be enough to sway legislators. As it is, Republican legislators don't know what they should think or what they say. They don't know how their constituents will react, so I'm expecting them to avoid rocking the boat until the midterms.

    If the midterms go to the Democrats, then the Republicans will turn against Trump.

  32. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by dave420 · · Score: 2

    Trump claiming Obama wiretapped his phone is not the same as a Russian phone line being wiretapped, and one of Trump's aides calling the phone line in question. Do you see the difference? The former is fantasy, the second standard operating procedure. That's why it's called fake - because it is demonstrably fake.

    It doesn't make you or your argument look particularly sound if you attack the "mental capacity" of others with a news article you didn't understand. Ouch.

  33. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Couple that with Trump admitting (in 2013) on national TV that he has a relationship with Putin, and this starts to get a bit worrying. Conflicts of interest aplenty.

  34. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by dave420 · · Score: 1

    I especially liked how you didn't bother to provide any evidence of how your chosen "bad guys" are lying. That definitely makes you look balanced. Definitely.

  35. Re: Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by thomn8r · · Score: 1
    I'm reading these articles about what a steadying hand Mike Pence

    I suspect this is the Republican game plan all along: use Trump's celebrity and free media pass to get the White House, then let him hoist himself on his own petard and Pence can take over.

  36. Re:So, Team of Rivals? Postively Lincolnian. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Except it's not much of a team.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  37. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Lie

  38. Re:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Isn't that the truth?
    Clinton was impeached for, and I quote the judge, giving SUBSTANTIALLY false statements which "reprehensible as they are do not rise to perjury"
    IOKIYAR.
    It's O.K., IF you are republican!

  39. Re: Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Well, that and Comey is finally aware that his October Surprise boomeranged on his precious agency.