Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 19, 2017

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday that it's impossible for President Donald Trump to obstruct justice because of the fact that he's president. However, Gingrich himself has in the past voted to impeach a president over such charges. While speaker of the House, Gingrich voted in 1998 to impeach President Bill Clinton on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

FTA: "Gingrich raised eyebrows earlier this week when he appeared to blame liberal rhetoric for the shooting at a GOP congressional baseball practice Wednesday that left five, including Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana, wounded and the gunman dead."

#1 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-06-17 02:59 PM | Reply

So it's not illegal if the President does it?

Where have we heard that before?

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2017-06-17 04:29 PM | Reply

Yeah,like any sane person is gonna let Newt define sanity.

#3 | Posted by TedBaxter at 2017-06-17 04:38 PM | Reply

Gingrich:
It's impossible to do what I did to Bill Clinton in 1998.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-17 04:40 PM | Reply

Gingrich reminds me of the haughty, self-righteous, two-faced busybodies that used to peer through folds of fat and down their cauliflower noses at my dad at church because he worked for a living. People like Newt quickly size up their target on how much they can steal from you. If you don't have any money or status, you're less than worthless to him. [Bleep] him and the elephant he rode in on.

#5 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-06-17 05:20 PM | Reply

that s/b who

#6 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-06-17 05:29 PM | Reply


Kelly Ann Conway, 10/28/2016

I just think many Americans will say, "how many times have my neighbors been under FBI investigation?" If the answer is two, then your neighbor is Hillary Clinton. People know this isn't normal. unless there is a there there.

Newt Gingrich, April 27, 1998

There is something profoundly demeaning and destructive to have the White House systematically undermine an officer of the Department of Justice. And when I watch these paid hacks on television, to be quite honest, I am sickened by how unpatriotically they undermine the Constitution of the United States on behalf of their client.

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-06-17 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

but not to Abuse Office/Power.

shutup Newt.

#8 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-06-18 02:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If it's found that there was no collusion then how can their be obstruction?

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-18 01:01 PM | Reply

If it's found that there was no collusion then how can their be obstruction?

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-18 01:01 PM | Reply

By Firing Comey in the hopes of quashing a criminal investigation that he is a party to.

#10 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-18 01:06 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#9

Separate issues entirely if he covered up any activities attempted to obstruct the investigation whether he was guilty of collusion or not.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2017-06-18 01:07 PM | Reply

Separate issues entirely if he covered up any activities attempted to obstruct the investigation whether he was guilty of collusion or not.

Exactly. Personally, I don't think the campaign was "colluding" with the Russians to get donald elected.

I think the Russians were doing it on their own. Firing Comey was both stupid and unnecessary.

#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-06-18 01:11 PM | Reply

"If it's found that there was no collusion then how can their be obstruction?"

If the attempt to find the answer is willfully obstructed, that's obstruction. Even if the attempt is to find him innocent.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-18 02:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#13

That's why it's so damn silly! If 'there's no there there' then why the ---- did you try covering it up?

#14 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-06-18 05:13 PM | Reply

If 'there's no there there' then why the ---- did you try covering it up?

Reflex.

#15 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-06-18 05:31 PM | Reply

Perhaps Newt should consider engaging in intimate relations with himself. As a precaution.

#16 | Posted by cbob at 2017-06-18 09:03 PM | Reply

hypocrite has become another word for a democrat. They have no real core values they change depending on who is in office. They dont believe laws apply to democrats. As far as comparing Trump to the disbarred Clinton it doesn't compare.

#17 | Posted by tmaster at 2017-06-19 09:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Whether or not there's collusion, it's all about the money. Drumpf knows this inquiry will unearth some very dirty financial dealings. Trying to quash that is highly illegal.

#18 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2017-06-19 10:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

As far as comparing Trump to the disbarred Clinton it doesn't compare.

#17 | Posted by tmaster at 2017-06-19 09:03 AM |

Donald's going to prison.

#19 | Posted by Zed at 2017-06-19 10:27 AM | Reply

If it's found that there was no collusion then how can their be obstruction?
#9 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Are you really that dense or are you just trolling?

#20 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2017-06-19 12:11 PM | Reply

Newtie is trying to find something that will keep him in DC while Callista is off at the Vatican, lest he follow her there and be struck by lightening on a sunny day...

#21 | Posted by catdog at 2017-06-19 12:12 PM | Reply

Are you really that dense or are you just trolling?

#20 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE

I guess I'm that dense because I wasn't trolling.

If nobody on Team Trump committed a crime, what is there to obstruct? Especially given that he is well within his powers to fire the FBI director and is well within his powers as POTUS to end an investigation (he didn't end anything).

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 12:59 PM | Reply

"If nobody on Team Trump committed a crime, what is there to obstruct? "

A legitimate investigation.

Again, it doesn't matter if they're investigating to indite him or clear him---obstruction is obstruction.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-19 01:04 PM | Reply

Wow!

So, in calling Newt a hypocrite, CNN is unwittingly exposing the Democrats and MSM as just getting revenge for the Bill Clinton impeachment. They just keep falling over each other.

The Truth always comes out.

#24 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-19 01:57 PM | Reply

A legitimate investigation.
#23 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I agree that there should be at least an inquiry.

#25 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-19 01:59 PM | Reply

The Truth always comes out.

#24 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017

Well, we're working on it. Maybe you'll get on board one day.

#26 | Posted by Zed at 2017-06-19 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The Truth always comes out.
#24 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017
Well, we're working on it. Maybe you'll get on board one day.
#26 | POSTED BY ZED

BS!

The truth is that this is payback for the Clinton impeachment and the Republican obstruction over the last eight years.

Does that make better sense now?

#27 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-19 02:07 PM | Reply

"The truth is that this is payback for the Clinton impeachment and the Republican obstruction over the last eight years."

Idle speculation.

#28 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-19 02:16 PM | Reply

"If nobody on Team Trump committed a crime, what is there to obstruct?" - #22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 12:59 PM

Crime or no crime, interfering with an investigation into whether there's been a crime or not is obstruction.

Apparently you are that dense.

#29 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-19 02:34 PM | Reply

Jeffie and WorstAmerican have gotten into the TraitorAde early on a Monday.

#30 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-06-19 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If it's found that there was no collusion then how can their be obstruction?

#9 | Posted by JeffJ

Along the same logic, the white house is furious about leaks and then says they're not true.

If they're not true, then they're not leaks, they're just lies, and lying isn't illegal and can't be prosecuted. So which is it?

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-19 02:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The truth is that this is payback for the Clinton impeachment and the Republican obstruction over the last eight years.

Does that make better sense now?

#27 | Posted by LastAmerican

Yeah it's payback the way jail time is PAYBACK for driving drunk.
It's called investigating and prosecuting a crime.

It's payback for colluding with our enemies.

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-19 02:45 PM | Reply

So what Crime did Bill Clinton Commit? He was convicted of obstruction of justice in the investigation of a legal consentual extramarital affair

#33 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-06-19 03:23 PM | Reply

So what Crime did Bill Clinton Commit? He was convicted of obstruction of justice in the investigation of a legal consentual extramarital affair

#33 | Posted by hatter5183

Haven't you heard?

A democrat lying about a ------- is worse than republican collusion with russia.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-19 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"He (Bill Clinton) was convicted of obstruction of justice.." - #33 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-06-19 03:23 PM

Actually, no he wasn't.

#35 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-19 03:55 PM | Reply

"The truth is that this is payback for the Clinton impeachment and the Republican obstruction over the last eight years."
Idle speculation.
#28 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

But, there's got to be a reason for Hilary losing.

#36 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-19 04:00 PM | Reply

But, there's got to be a reason for Hilary losing.

#36 | Posted by LastAmerican

There are many reasons. But the biggest one is the electoral college.

America. Beacon of democracy. Where the person with fewer votes wins, and citizens' votes count more or less depending on where they live.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-19 04:03 PM | Reply

It's payback for colluding with our enemies.
#32 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Yeah right.

Reasons why Democrats won't give up on the Russia thing.

1) They are convinced that Trump colluded with the enemy even though there is no motive to do that and would be a highly risky thing to do.
2) Payback for Bill Clinton impeachment
3) Republicans obstruction during Obama Administration
4) There's just got to be an explanation of why Hilary lost!

#38 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-19 04:06 PM | Reply

There are many reasons. But the biggest one is the electoral college.
#37 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

If we get rid of the electoral college, something that I tend to agree with, then Republicans will spend 5 times more money than they did and in large Metro areas, something I don't agree with.

#39 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-19 04:09 PM | Reply

Have you got a list of reason why seemingly everyone around Trump has lied about connections to the Russians?

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-19 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If nobody on Team Trump committed a crime, what is there to obstruct?
#22 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-06-19 12:59 PM

Read up on Scooter Libby

#41 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2017-06-19 04:12 PM | Reply

We're never going to get rid of the Electoral College.

Why? To do that, it would require roughly nine states to voluntarily cede parliamentary power they currently hold.

Not gonna happen.

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-19 04:16 PM | Reply

Reasons why Democrats won't give up on the Russia thing.

1) They are convinced that Trump colluded with the enemy even though there is no motive to do that and would be a highly risky thing to do.
2) Payback for Bill Clinton impeachment
3) Republicans obstruction during Obama Administration
4) There's just got to be an explanation of why Hilary lost!

#38 | Posted by LastAmerican

You forgot"

5) Trump's team keeps getting caught lying, "not remembering", or refusing to answer without providing legal justification for their refusals.

But that's what innocent people do right?

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-19 04:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

But, there's got to be a reason for Hilary losing.

#36 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN AT 2017-06-19 04:00 PM | FLAG:

Russian interference in the election stopped being controversial months ago. Everyone but the President agreed it happened. Now we are just arguing about the extent and whether his campaign collided with the Russians (something I suspect will never be proven or disproven either way).

#44 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-19 04:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

5) Trump's team keeps getting caught lying, "not remembering", or refusing to answer without providing legal justification for their refusals.
But that's what innocent people do right?
#43 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

False Narrative Flag

#45 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-19 06:20 PM | Reply

False Narrative Flag

#45 | Posted by LastAmerican

Which part of that was false? I can provide links to every single part of it.

Unlike trump's claims of obama's foreign birth, millions of fraudulent votes, biggest inauguration ever...

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-19 07:01 PM | Reply

Which part of that was false?
#46 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

If it's not true, then it's false. Duh!

The False narrative is that can't be proven true or false because not all of the facts are in, but is passed off as the truth.

Therefore, if not true and not false, then undefined or null and therefore false.

#47 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-19 07:29 PM | Reply

The False narrative is that can't be proven true or false because not all of the facts are in, but is passed off as the truth.

Therefore, if not true and not false, then undefined or null and therefore false.

#47 | Posted by LastAmerican

What part of this narrative is false:

Trump and his team have refused to answer questions.

Trump's team can not name the legal basis for refusing to answer questions.

Trump's team did not disclose several meetings with russians they were required to disclose.

Trump fired the person in charge of investigating the russian connections.

That is a list of objective facts. Wishing they weren't true doesn't make them false.

#48 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-19 07:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Trump and his team have refused to answer questions."
Watching the Sessions questioning, Once Sessions was asked a question before he could answer, he was asked another question, and before he could answer that one, he was asked another question. Another time Session was asked a questions he refused on the basis of procedure. There was a difference of opinion, but there you have it. He answered a bunch of other questions.

"Trump's team can not name the legal basis for refusing to answer questions."
Just answered this one. It's very much a difference of opinion. The Democrats do not have the right to pass off their opinions or legal interpretation as precedent. That's foolish.

"Trump's team did not disclose several meetings with russians they were required to disclose."
Many many officials Democrat and Republican have failed to report meetings over the years.

"Trump fired the person in charge of investigating the russian connections."
Are you talking about Comey? LOL. obstinance will only get you laughed at.

"That is a list of objective facts. Wishing they weren't true doesn't make them false."

None are true! They are conjecture. Can not be proven true and can not be proven false. Therefore false until true.

That, my friend, is the False Narrative.

#49 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-19 07:59 PM | Reply

#49 | Posted by LastAmerican

1. I'm not talking about when he was interrupted. Sessions said he wouldnt tell the congress what he and trump talked about. They asked if he was claiming executive privileged and he said no. He was just refusing.
Do you wonder why?

2. Coats and Mike Rogers had similar NON-reasons to refuse to answer questions:
www.independent.co.uk
Do you wonder why?

3. aka "well dems did it tooooo!" Really? In an investigation into foreign espionage in our election? Link please?

4. Trump SAID he fired comey to stop the investigation. Your only response is "LOL" because even you can't think of a better one. But yes, acting like that didn't happen is a great way to make people laugh at you.

#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-19 08:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"None are true! They are conjecture."

What a riot. SpeakSoftly demolished all four of your lies.

You got your --- handed to you, and all you can do is plug up your ears and pretend.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-19 08:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I wonder why the "Hillary needs to sit down and shut up" crowd give ole newty boy a pass.

I bet it has a lot to do with genitalia.

#52 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-06-19 09:13 PM | Reply

An interesting point. But let's get the context straight.

Trump is accused of obstruction during the course of carrying out his duties as president, which is to say the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

Bill Clinton was accused of obstruction for lying under oath during a trial in which he was accused by Paula Jones of sexual harassment.

This story is fake news. In fact,...

Article I section 6 of the constitution also exempts Representatives and Senators from arrest... Here,

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The President has not such protection ,but the President is the chief law enforcement officer in the land. So, how do you prove obstruction when he is staying within the parameters of his job? How do you prove obstruction when, exercising his authority as chief law enforcement officer, the president elects to fire a special prosecutor, appointed by the Deputy Attorney General of The Department of Justice who works for Trump, if he simply "deems" said prosecutor to be exceeding the bounds of his or her investigation, (which is what Bush SHOULD have done in the Plame investigation considering that the special prosecutor in that case had solved the case in the first three weeks of the investigation.)

You could impeach Trump for it. Impeachment works that way. If you could get the votes in the House, then you have get the votes in the Senate to remove Trump. Then you get Pence. . . .

So, now the ugly part. Say you do get rid of Trump AND Pence, AND Ryan, and get some Democrat in the Oval Office. Well... Gawd I hate going here, but first blood has already been drawn. In Alexandria VA. Now you have several million conservative gun owners to deal with. And, not many of them are liberals. That is the path of civil war. Do we really want to go there? Really? Seriously? Just because you don't like the Presidents HAIR?!?!?!?

#53 | Posted by AWinter at 2017-06-20 09:43 AM | Reply

"Now you have several million conservative gun owners to deal with. And, not many of them are liberals." - #53 | Posted by AWinter at 2017-06-20 09:43 AM

Not many conservative gun owners are liberals?

Did it take you long to figure that out?

"That is the path of civil war."

Yeah... that works so well:

Man admits church shooting, says liberals should die
"Just because you don't like the Presidents HAIR?!?!?!?"

Keep chewing on that cud.

#54 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 09:56 AM | Reply

What a riot. SpeakSoftly demolished all four of your lies.
#51 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

If you were following the conversation, we are talking about what the "False Narrative" is. Now, do you understand? Sheeesh!

You abuse makes you a fool.

#55 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 10:21 AM | Reply

#50 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Dude, really. We are talking about the false narrative and I successfully demonstrated that you are not able to prove it and everything you posted is not based on Truth and you even ask me if I "believe" it or not, "What do you think?" Remember?

Gotcha!

It is the False Narrative until they are proven true.

You and Danforth are being a$$es over this. Comeon!

#56 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 10:26 AM | Reply

I bet it has a lot to do with genitalia.
#52 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

LOL. Troublemaker. Oh, you are serious? (looks away and makes that *Yikes* face)

#57 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 10:29 AM | Reply

#51 | POSTED BY DANFORTH
You abuse makes you a fool.
#55 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN

I just don't understand why you do that. You don't follow the conversation, you cherry pick, butt in and yell like a fool abuses while moving the goal posts. I thought by now you would learn. (as he talks to him as if he were a child)

#58 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 10:34 AM | Reply

Sit back down Eddie, you are drooling.

#59 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-06-20 11:22 AM | Reply

So, now the ugly part. Say you do get rid of Trump AND Pence, AND Ryan, and get some Democrat in the Oval Office. Well... Gawd I hate going here, but first blood has already been drawn. In Alexandria VA. Now you have several million conservative gun owners to deal with. And, not many of them are liberals. That is the path of civil war. Do we really want to go there? Really? Seriously? Just because you don't like the Presidents HAIR?!?!?!?

#53 | Posted by AWinter

And you think letting the person who gets LESS votes in a democracy win the presidency WONT lead to civil war?

#60 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-20 11:23 AM | Reply

Dude, really. We are talking about the false narrative and I successfully demonstrated that you are not able to prove it and everything you posted is not based on Truth and you even ask me if I "believe" it or not, "What do you think?" Remember?

Gotcha!

It is the False Narrative until they are proven true.

You and Danforth are being a$$es over this. Comeon!

#56 | Posted by LastAmerican

Dude. I post objective facts that you WISH weren't true so you call them false, yet you haven't refuted a single one.

#61 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-20 11:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It is the False Narrative until they are proven true.

#56 | Posted by LastAmerican

It's clear you have no idea what a False Narrative is. A False Narrative doesn't become True because it is proven true. It's either always true or always false.

#62 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-06-20 11:34 AM | Reply

Dude. I post objective facts that you WISH weren't true so you call them false, yet you haven't refuted a single one.
#61 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Opinion is not fact. Even if you got one fact in there, there is enough conjecture to make it a False Narrative.

#63 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 11:47 AM | Reply

It's clear you have no idea what a False Narrative is. A False Narrative doesn't become True because it is proven true. It's either always true or always false.
#62 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Geez, and I was giving the disingenuous Left the benefit of the doubt. But, I guess you are right. The False Narrative has always been false.

#64 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 11:50 AM | Reply

"...watching lostamerican getting his ass handed to him post after post is priceless." - #65 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-06-20 12:15 PM

His reactions are just like this.

It is like he wears one of these everytime he sits down to post.

#66 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 12:23 PM | Reply

#66 | POSTED BY HANS

Says the guy who gets his news from Comedy Central.

#67 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 12:29 PM | Reply

#66 | POSTED BY HANS

I always know when I've won an argument. This fool shows up and lights the candles for me. LOL!!!

#68 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 12:36 PM | Reply

Says the guy who gets his news from Comedy Central.

#67 | Posted by LastAmerican

Comedy central is more factually accurate than fox news.

People who watch fox are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

www.businessinsider.com

#69 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-20 01:21 PM | Reply

Opinion is not fact. Even if you got one fact in there, there is enough conjecture to make it a False Narrative.

#63 | Posted by LastAmerican

I listed facts, not a narrative. The facts are all true. We'll find out if the narrative they suggest is true, if the republicans stop working to keep you from finding it out.

Here are the 3 possibilities:
1. Trump is hiding something about the russians- This would make the actions of him and his team make total sense.
2. Trump is innocent, but insane - He has nothing to hide with the russians, but he's so pathologically obsessed with fighting anyone who opposes him that he can't stop himself from lashing out, lying, attacking, covering up, and breaking the law as if he DOES have something to hide.
3. Trump is innocent, but incompetent - He has no illegal connections to the russians, but he stupidly hired a bunch of people who did.

Which of these options would you prefer? All of them illustrate that he should not be president.

#70 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-20 01:27 PM | Reply

lol!

#71 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 02:07 PM | Reply

It's clear you have no idea what a False Narrative is. A False Narrative doesn't become True because it is proven true. It's either always true or always false.
#62 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
Geez, and I was giving the disingenuous Left the benefit of the doubt. But, I guess you are right. The False Narrative has always been false.
#64 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN

And that made no sense. First, it's false until proven otherwise. Now it's impossible to prove right. Make up your mind. And please get back on your meds.

#72 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-06-20 02:57 PM | Reply

lol!

#71 | Posted by LastAmerican

When you got nothing...

#73 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-20 03:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If you were following the conversation, we are talking about what the "False Narrative" is. Now, do you understand? Sheeesh! "

And if you were following, you know, the English language, you'd know I was referring to your error about "sampling".

Sheesh, indeed.

#74 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-20 05:54 PM | Reply

"I always know when I've won an argument."

I'm sure you do, Mr. Dunning-Kruger study subject.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-20 05:57 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort