So what you're saying is that you're suffering from a profound reading comprehension problem.
The Russians DID try to destabilize the US election season. Just like they ALWAYS have, and just like we've watched them do elsewhere since November. They, just like you and all of the media, assumed that Hillary Clinton was going to be president. They would be happier with her as such, and all the more so with her having to operate under the cloud of distrust that came from letting people see behind the curtain at the DNC and hear the sort of duplicity, contempt for their own voters, and just all around lying and cheating the Clinton camp and their lapdogs in the DNC happily embraced. Why? Because it helps with the chaos, which helps Russia.
You, on the other hand, are intellectually incapable (or too intellectually dishonest) of grasping that the lefty media delusional fantasy about the Trump campaign somehow colluding in the routine Russian election-rattling is just that: fantasy. Spin. A narrative about which everyone who's spent ten months looking into the notion has concluded is false. Obama's own people, and even leading Dem legislators have testified that there's no evidence of any collusion. But because you would LIKE there to be, you're going to stick with your juvenile fiction, and remain warm and fuzzy with it because slavishly cooperative Dem propagandists at CNN and MSNBC are willing to prop up your echo chamber for purely partisan reasons. Carry on! It's entertaining.
It's so fun to watch an anonymous coward say they don't trust ME because they don't like the video tape of Comey, on May 3, saying under oat that he has seen zero attempts to influence or halt the investigation in question. I know, you're trying to wish away reality, which is why you go for the lazy, childish ad hominem instead of attempting to prove that... what? The video of Comey testifying to the lack of any political interference is actually a clever Trump fabrication? Please! Keep it up with the unhinged reality-denying. It's exactly what cost the Dems hundreds and hundreds of legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, and the White House. More! Thanks.
No, he wasn't. In fact, just two weeks ago UNDER OATH, Comey told you exactly that he was NOT asked to drop it, that nobody asked anybody to drop it, that no action was taken or requested to do so. You're choosing to (like the liberal press) take reports of part of one of his memos OUT OF CONTEXT so that you can report that HE was recording some sort of obstruction. If he thought there was such, why did he shrug his shoulders at the time and have nothing to say to DoJ about it? Right, because that was not his judgement the. And it STILL wasn't his judgement two weeks ago when the man himself explicitly shot down your spin on things. As did the current acting FBI director, who has ALSO said there was exactly zero requests from anybody to end any investigations of any kind.
All of which has nothing to do with Trump expressing his hope that it will be wrapped up soon. You know, just like Obama expressed his assertion that despite the ongoing investigation by the FBI into the (actually criminal) conduct of people at the IRS (you know, the sort of thing for which Lois Lerner pleaded the fifth, but which the Obama administration deliberately and for political reasons squashed), that there was nothing left to investigate, because he (the president) concluded BEFORE the FBI did, that there wasn't even a "smidgen" of wrongdoing there. Did you consider Obama's statement of a conclusion about that affair in advance of the FBI's completion of their investigation, to be obstruction? No? Why not? That's a far more decisive signal to his underlings investigating an actual crime than is Trump's expression of a wish that a fruitless, 10-month investigation that has produced zero evidence of foreign collusion would be wrapped up soon.
You're still pretending that expressing his hope that the investigation will be wrapped up soon is a crime. That's absurd on the face of it - especially if you're going to be intellectually honest and take that in the context of COMEY HIMSELF telling you, just the other day, that the president never asked him to stop any investigation. You do understand that, right? You are able to listen to Comey's words under oath and process them in the English language as meaning the very clear statement that he made on the subject? The same thing that the current acting director has also said? Or are you calling Comey a liar? If you ARE calling Comey a liar, why are you concluding that someone else's interpretation of a memo of his is proof of obstruction? Did he only become a liar LATER? On what date did you stop trusting Comey?
Never mind, I do understand. You're hoping nobody else noticed that Comey himself told you he wasn't asked to do the thing you say he was asked to do. The question is, why do you think nobody else can listen to what Comey said and understand his words? Really, be specific on that.
You're mischaracterizing it by, you know, not telling the truth. In Comey's own words, Trump explained his hope that the investigation of the guy that had not done anything with the Russians related to the campaign or the election (something that multiple authorities from both parties agree the investigation has shown ZERO evidence of having happened) would wrap up soon. The acting director of the FBI has just explained to you that there was ZERO action taken, and NO requests of any kind made to in any way alter, slow down, or obstruct their ongoing investigation. Are you saying the acting director of the FBI is lying? If you're not, then you ARE mischaracterizing things, period.
Everything Trump does is now your mess, and you refuse to admit to any of it.
Yes, I admit the Supreme Court was saved from sliding into a swamp of activist liberal faux-legislating. I confess, he made that happen. You got me.
And I confess, you're right, it's totally his fault that illegal traffic across our porous southern border has dropped by over 70% in just three months. It's true. You've made me have to admit that.
And yes, you're right, people who didn't want Clinton in office are going to have to live with the fact that we're looking at policies that begin to push back against flagrant H1B visa abuse, the unthinkable friction on the economy from utterly pointless, redundant, poorly administered and capriciously enforced regulations brand new in the untold thousands every year. Yes, that horrible turn of events is something we'll have to cop to.
And you're definitely right, there's nothing for it but to admit that we're going to have to wear the fact that China is finally inching its way to actually taking some responsibility for North Korea's behavior, and being more receptive to dealing with their pet rabid dog.
And you've definitely busted me: I don't know how I can look at myself in the mirror with everyone's 401k plans and other personal investments regaining so much ground in the last three months. It's awful. I should be ashamed of not wanting Hillary Clinton back making her family rich selling access to third world dictators and having her aid forward classified information to her child-predator husband's home laptop to be printed out.
This is NOT about whether he's the right or even a tolerable guy for the job. It's about the staggering degree of lefty (media especially) hypocrisy about who THEY thought should have the job. In the meantime, we got an appropriate, rational person on the Supreme Court. That's one of the most important reasons for denying the Clintons the political power they so desperately wanted back. I don't care if Trump's a blowhard, if he's a jerk, if he's learning on the job about how to handle leaks from leftover Obama staffers or outright fabrications in the media. I do care that someone who promised to use the Supreme Court as a surrogate legislature didn't get a chance to do that. That will outlast all of this silliness, by many years.
Even better! The words are right there in front of you, and you're wishing them away! I do appreciate your continuing with your bit of silliness for entertainment value, but you DO understand that even right there, once again, you just lied in order to avoid addressing specific things. Why? Because you know that would involve getting SPECIFIC in your lying, and that makes you uncomfortable. So, you'll pretend you can't read, and continue with the cowardly ad hominem. Yup, right out of the liberal playbook! Thanks for being true to form.
It's so funny when you go immediately for the lazy ad hominem instead of responding to the actual substance of the matter. Why are you deflecting with a childish attempt at misdirection? Because you know I'm right. That's why intellectual cowards ALWAYS decide to lamely attack the character of messenger instead of address the issue - because they are too craven to get into substance, knowing they were banking on nobody actually noticing their incorrect assertions in the first place. Thanks for being predictable!
he's admitted in absolutely no uncertain terms that he interfered with Comey's investigation
Other than you're deliberately mis-characterizing what happened and what was said, making your description of it just simple trolling.
Hillary committed actual crimes, but got away with it through political leverage (everyone in the prosecution food chain presumed she was going to be president). Telling the FBI director that you hope a long-running investigation that has produced zero evidence of collusion will wrap up soon is NOT obstruction of justice. You can tell because... absolutely nothing changed then, or since, in that ongoing investigation. And the acting director of the FBI agreed that was the case. You're just spinning because you'd like impeachment to be what happens when you simply don't like somebody.
You know (don't you?) that impeachment is an actual legal term with actual meaning that flows from the presentation of actual deeds that can be prosecuted in that venue. You seem to be thinking that impeachment is just something you do when you don't like somebody. That's not how it works. You can't impeach somebody because while they were a private citizen someone associated with their campaign had a gig making money from a foreign country didn't report it (never mind that that had exactly nothing to do with the election itself or the fantasy of "collusion"). You can't impeach somebody because he says that he hopes an investigation will wrap up soon, and takes exactly zero steps to in any way interfere with it. You can't impeach somebody for being the commander in chief and choosing to talk in broad terms about sensitive matters in a meeting with another country's foreign minister... because being at the top of the food chain on that subject matter makes that that person's call, period. Impeachment isn't the equivalent of other countries' parliamentary votes of no confidence in, for example, a prime minister. So, predict away - it's meaningless without evidence of something that rises to that level, of which there is zero indication.
Right! "Working with the Russians." Which isn't even vaguely related to "colluding with Russians to manipulate the election." I know, the truth isn't nearly as fun because it forces you to think about why the Democrats ACTUALLY lost so many legislative seats and governorships along with both houses of congress and the White House. But your instinct to deliberately mis-represent the very thing you're citing as some sort of evidence tells us all we need to know about what your real agenda is: deflection and distraction. OK, at least it's consistent with the way the Ds ran their entire election season into the ground and shows you still haven't grappled with the fact that continuing with that narrative isn't actually effective (except in turning even MORE Democrat voters away from the party).
Not only that, what's now being investigated are evidences of collusion with the Trump campaignâ - ostensibly, to hurt HRC.
Other than the part where every investigating entity has said there actually IS NO EVIDENCE of collusion. I know, you know that, but it's more fun to continue the lie because that suits your politics better. But you're right, the willingness of people like you, and many people in the media, to repeat the lie you're telling is indeed a sign of problems in the country. Because the only reason you're doing it is to deflect from the reality of why the Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Takes all the fun out being a Democrat, I know. But at least, as a purveyor of lying spin, you're keeping up with their new platform.
The existing FBI investigation will continue (just as it was going to anyway), and we'll have yet ANOTHER person echoing the multiple agency heads and senior legislators (from both parties) who have after months of investigations repeated that there is no evidence of any collusion.
Mueller is tasked with looking into "Russian attempts to influence the election," a given - something they've always done, and continue to do in elections all around the world. That's not the same as the thing that political partisans on the left are attempting to conflate with it, which is their narrative that somehow the campaign was involved in that - again, something for which there appears to be zero evidence, as has been authoritatively said multiple times by people in the know from multiple angles. The question is whether or not Mueller will be re-hashing the ten months of investigations already conducted by multiple entities. Note that this is NOT a special prosecutor. This is a special counsel, and setting up somebody in that role doesn't indicate any awareness that there is something to prosecute (the statement from the DoJ AD explicitly says this is not a finding that there is even anything prosecutable). More like a chance to finally settle the dust on this after ten months of FBI investigation and shut down the unhinged narratives being bandied about by people who don't even seem to understand the constitution.
Yeah, that explains why they never patched this. Oh, I mean, other than when they did, a couple months ago. And why they still recommend that people use old stuff, like XP. I mean, other than telling them not to for years now.
But it's not all that hard for the manufacturer of that radiology equipment to port their app over to something like Win 7. Come on, just think about it. Who says you have to scrap an expensive piece of equipment just because you'll have to sort out some DLL issues?
The same field, with the same rainfall, with the same cow scat exists either way. In a strong rain, the pond CATCHES what would normally flow over a saturated surface. You have it exactly backwards. There's a reason they call them "storm water management ponds" in suburban settings. Which you know, but you're willing to pretend you don't so you can stretch a little more trying to embrace the regulatory morass that is the EPA and expanding its reach ever more, into things like what sort of bird feeder you might hang up in your back yard. Please stop wishing for a Nanny State.
Her use of the private server per se isn't what caused her the damage. It was looking people (including lots of Democrats) in the eye for months after it came out, and lying to them about why she did it, what happened afterwards, why she deleted all sorts of records FROM it (even while under subpoena), and then all of the other slop (also lied about repeatedly) that became obvious as it was all getting looked into. Essentially, it was just another occasion for the usual Clintonian dismissal-of-the-little-people-and-their-pesky-rules condescension and smarmy, patronizing attitude that did her more harm than simply having been caught being way too casual with - among other things - classified material while trying to obscure her access-selling money machine.
That is, when the EPA isn't actually causing natural disasters by dumping mine sludge into rivers, or bankrupting farmers who do Eeeeeevil things like dig in a small stock pond to hold water in one of their cattle pens.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that you're suffering from a profound reading comprehension problem.
The Russians DID try to destabilize the US election season. Just like they ALWAYS have, and just like we've watched them do elsewhere since November. They, just like you and all of the media, assumed that Hillary Clinton was going to be president. They would be happier with her as such, and all the more so with her having to operate under the cloud of distrust that came from letting people see behind the curtain at the DNC and hear the sort of duplicity, contempt for their own voters, and just all around lying and cheating the Clinton camp and their lapdogs in the DNC happily embraced. Why? Because it helps with the chaos, which helps Russia.
You, on the other hand, are intellectually incapable (or too intellectually dishonest) of grasping that the lefty media delusional fantasy about the Trump campaign somehow colluding in the routine Russian election-rattling is just that: fantasy. Spin. A narrative about which everyone who's spent ten months looking into the notion has concluded is false. Obama's own people, and even leading Dem legislators have testified that there's no evidence of any collusion. But because you would LIKE there to be, you're going to stick with your juvenile fiction, and remain warm and fuzzy with it because slavishly cooperative Dem propagandists at CNN and MSNBC are willing to prop up your echo chamber for purely partisan reasons. Carry on! It's entertaining.
It's so fun to watch an anonymous coward say they don't trust ME because they don't like the video tape of Comey, on May 3, saying under oat that he has seen zero attempts to influence or halt the investigation in question. I know, you're trying to wish away reality, which is why you go for the lazy, childish ad hominem instead of attempting to prove that ... what? The video of Comey testifying to the lack of any political interference is actually a clever Trump fabrication? Please! Keep it up with the unhinged reality-denying. It's exactly what cost the Dems hundreds and hundreds of legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, and the White House. More! Thanks.
Yeah, I thought so.
No, he wasn't. In fact, just two weeks ago UNDER OATH, Comey told you exactly that he was NOT asked to drop it, that nobody asked anybody to drop it, that no action was taken or requested to do so. You're choosing to (like the liberal press) take reports of part of one of his memos OUT OF CONTEXT so that you can report that HE was recording some sort of obstruction. If he thought there was such, why did he shrug his shoulders at the time and have nothing to say to DoJ about it? Right, because that was not his judgement the. And it STILL wasn't his judgement two weeks ago when the man himself explicitly shot down your spin on things. As did the current acting FBI director, who has ALSO said there was exactly zero requests from anybody to end any investigations of any kind.
All of which has nothing to do with Trump expressing his hope that it will be wrapped up soon. You know, just like Obama expressed his assertion that despite the ongoing investigation by the FBI into the (actually criminal) conduct of people at the IRS (you know, the sort of thing for which Lois Lerner pleaded the fifth, but which the Obama administration deliberately and for political reasons squashed), that there was nothing left to investigate, because he (the president) concluded BEFORE the FBI did, that there wasn't even a "smidgen" of wrongdoing there. Did you consider Obama's statement of a conclusion about that affair in advance of the FBI's completion of their investigation, to be obstruction? No? Why not? That's a far more decisive signal to his underlings investigating an actual crime than is Trump's expression of a wish that a fruitless, 10-month investigation that has produced zero evidence of foreign collusion would be wrapped up soon.
You're still pretending that expressing his hope that the investigation will be wrapped up soon is a crime. That's absurd on the face of it - especially if you're going to be intellectually honest and take that in the context of COMEY HIMSELF telling you, just the other day, that the president never asked him to stop any investigation. You do understand that, right? You are able to listen to Comey's words under oath and process them in the English language as meaning the very clear statement that he made on the subject? The same thing that the current acting director has also said? Or are you calling Comey a liar? If you ARE calling Comey a liar, why are you concluding that someone else's interpretation of a memo of his is proof of obstruction? Did he only become a liar LATER? On what date did you stop trusting Comey?
Never mind, I do understand. You're hoping nobody else noticed that Comey himself told you he wasn't asked to do the thing you say he was asked to do. The question is, why do you think nobody else can listen to what Comey said and understand his words? Really, be specific on that.
You're mischaracterizing it by, you know, not telling the truth. In Comey's own words, Trump explained his hope that the investigation of the guy that had not done anything with the Russians related to the campaign or the election (something that multiple authorities from both parties agree the investigation has shown ZERO evidence of having happened) would wrap up soon. The acting director of the FBI has just explained to you that there was ZERO action taken, and NO requests of any kind made to in any way alter, slow down, or obstruct their ongoing investigation. Are you saying the acting director of the FBI is lying? If you're not, then you ARE mischaracterizing things, period.
Everything Trump does is now your mess, and you refuse to admit to any of it.
Yes, I admit the Supreme Court was saved from sliding into a swamp of activist liberal faux-legislating. I confess, he made that happen. You got me.
And I confess, you're right, it's totally his fault that illegal traffic across our porous southern border has dropped by over 70% in just three months. It's true. You've made me have to admit that.
And yes, you're right, people who didn't want Clinton in office are going to have to live with the fact that we're looking at policies that begin to push back against flagrant H1B visa abuse, the unthinkable friction on the economy from utterly pointless, redundant, poorly administered and capriciously enforced regulations brand new in the untold thousands every year. Yes, that horrible turn of events is something we'll have to cop to.
And you're definitely right, there's nothing for it but to admit that we're going to have to wear the fact that China is finally inching its way to actually taking some responsibility for North Korea's behavior, and being more receptive to dealing with their pet rabid dog.
And you've definitely busted me: I don't know how I can look at myself in the mirror with everyone's 401k plans and other personal investments regaining so much ground in the last three months. It's awful. I should be ashamed of not wanting Hillary Clinton back making her family rich selling access to third world dictators and having her aid forward classified information to her child-predator husband's home laptop to be printed out.
This is NOT about whether he's the right or even a tolerable guy for the job. It's about the staggering degree of lefty (media especially) hypocrisy about who THEY thought should have the job. In the meantime, we got an appropriate, rational person on the Supreme Court. That's one of the most important reasons for denying the Clintons the political power they so desperately wanted back. I don't care if Trump's a blowhard, if he's a jerk, if he's learning on the job about how to handle leaks from leftover Obama staffers or outright fabrications in the media. I do care that someone who promised to use the Supreme Court as a surrogate legislature didn't get a chance to do that. That will outlast all of this silliness, by many years.
Even better! The words are right there in front of you, and you're wishing them away! I do appreciate your continuing with your bit of silliness for entertainment value, but you DO understand that even right there, once again, you just lied in order to avoid addressing specific things. Why? Because you know that would involve getting SPECIFIC in your lying, and that makes you uncomfortable. So, you'll pretend you can't read, and continue with the cowardly ad hominem. Yup, right out of the liberal playbook! Thanks for being true to form.
It's so funny when you go immediately for the lazy ad hominem instead of responding to the actual substance of the matter. Why are you deflecting with a childish attempt at misdirection? Because you know I'm right. That's why intellectual cowards ALWAYS decide to lamely attack the character of messenger instead of address the issue - because they are too craven to get into substance, knowing they were banking on nobody actually noticing their incorrect assertions in the first place. Thanks for being predictable!
he's admitted in absolutely no uncertain terms that he interfered with Comey's investigation
Other than you're deliberately mis-characterizing what happened and what was said, making your description of it just simple trolling.
... absolutely nothing changed then, or since, in that ongoing investigation. And the acting director of the FBI agreed that was the case. You're just spinning because you'd like impeachment to be what happens when you simply don't like somebody.
Hillary committed actual crimes, but got away with it through political leverage (everyone in the prosecution food chain presumed she was going to be president). Telling the FBI director that you hope a long-running investigation that has produced zero evidence of collusion will wrap up soon is NOT obstruction of justice. You can tell because
You know (don't you?) that impeachment is an actual legal term with actual meaning that flows from the presentation of actual deeds that can be prosecuted in that venue. You seem to be thinking that impeachment is just something you do when you don't like somebody. That's not how it works. You can't impeach somebody because while they were a private citizen someone associated with their campaign had a gig making money from a foreign country didn't report it (never mind that that had exactly nothing to do with the election itself or the fantasy of "collusion"). You can't impeach somebody because he says that he hopes an investigation will wrap up soon, and takes exactly zero steps to in any way interfere with it. You can't impeach somebody for being the commander in chief and choosing to talk in broad terms about sensitive matters in a meeting with another country's foreign minister ... because being at the top of the food chain on that subject matter makes that that person's call, period. Impeachment isn't the equivalent of other countries' parliamentary votes of no confidence in, for example, a prime minister. So, predict away - it's meaningless without evidence of something that rises to that level, of which there is zero indication.
Wow. Your powers of Getting Things Exactly Backwards are pretty impressive! Does it physically hurt?
Right! "Working with the Russians." Which isn't even vaguely related to "colluding with Russians to manipulate the election." I know, the truth isn't nearly as fun because it forces you to think about why the Democrats ACTUALLY lost so many legislative seats and governorships along with both houses of congress and the White House. But your instinct to deliberately mis-represent the very thing you're citing as some sort of evidence tells us all we need to know about what your real agenda is: deflection and distraction. OK, at least it's consistent with the way the Ds ran their entire election season into the ground and shows you still haven't grappled with the fact that continuing with that narrative isn't actually effective (except in turning even MORE Democrat voters away from the party).
Not only that, what's now being investigated are evidences of collusion with the Trump campaignâ - ostensibly, to hurt HRC.
Other than the part where every investigating entity has said there actually IS NO EVIDENCE of collusion. I know, you know that, but it's more fun to continue the lie because that suits your politics better. But you're right, the willingness of people like you, and many people in the media, to repeat the lie you're telling is indeed a sign of problems in the country. Because the only reason you're doing it is to deflect from the reality of why the Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Takes all the fun out being a Democrat, I know. But at least, as a purveyor of lying spin, you're keeping up with their new platform.
The existing FBI investigation will continue (just as it was going to anyway), and we'll have yet ANOTHER person echoing the multiple agency heads and senior legislators (from both parties) who have after months of investigations repeated that there is no evidence of any collusion.
Mueller is tasked with looking into "Russian attempts to influence the election," a given - something they've always done, and continue to do in elections all around the world. That's not the same as the thing that political partisans on the left are attempting to conflate with it, which is their narrative that somehow the campaign was involved in that - again, something for which there appears to be zero evidence, as has been authoritatively said multiple times by people in the know from multiple angles. The question is whether or not Mueller will be re-hashing the ten months of investigations already conducted by multiple entities. Note that this is NOT a special prosecutor. This is a special counsel, and setting up somebody in that role doesn't indicate any awareness that there is something to prosecute (the statement from the DoJ AD explicitly says this is not a finding that there is even anything prosecutable). More like a chance to finally settle the dust on this after ten months of FBI investigation and shut down the unhinged narratives being bandied about by people who don't even seem to understand the constitution.
Yeah, that explains why they never patched this. Oh, I mean, other than when they did, a couple months ago. And why they still recommend that people use old stuff, like XP. I mean, other than telling them not to for years now.
Because radiology workflow is now entirely network-centric.
But it's not all that hard for the manufacturer of that radiology equipment to port their app over to something like Win 7. Come on, just think about it. Who says you have to scrap an expensive piece of equipment just because you'll have to sort out some DLL issues?
They're patching XP for chrissakes.
No, they're patching a very old product that they told people - for years straight - to stop using, and they explained why. You do get this, right?
No kidding! Just imagine how much worse it would be under Clinton! Really dodged a bullet, there.
The same field, with the same rainfall, with the same cow scat exists either way. In a strong rain, the pond CATCHES what would normally flow over a saturated surface. You have it exactly backwards. There's a reason they call them "storm water management ponds" in suburban settings. Which you know, but you're willing to pretend you don't so you can stretch a little more trying to embrace the regulatory morass that is the EPA and expanding its reach ever more, into things like what sort of bird feeder you might hang up in your back yard. Please stop wishing for a Nanny State.
Her use of the private server per se isn't what caused her the damage. It was looking people (including lots of Democrats) in the eye for months after it came out, and lying to them about why she did it, what happened afterwards, why she deleted all sorts of records FROM it (even while under subpoena), and then all of the other slop (also lied about repeatedly) that became obvious as it was all getting looked into. Essentially, it was just another occasion for the usual Clintonian dismissal-of-the-little-people-and-their-pesky-rules condescension and smarmy, patronizing attitude that did her more harm than simply having been caught being way too casual with - among other things - classified material while trying to obscure her access-selling money machine.
No, like literally digging a 40-foot-wide hole in your field to collect rainwater.
That is, when the EPA isn't actually causing natural disasters by dumping mine sludge into rivers, or bankrupting farmers who do Eeeeeevil things like dig in a small stock pond to hold water in one of their cattle pens.
But the EPA for the last 8 years under Obama was what was keeping this tunnel from collapsing? Gotcha.