Hmm, I see, I see... But, pray tell...

WHAT JUSTICE WAS HE OBSTRUCTING?!

The GOP logic seems to go like this.

1. Get accused of crime.
2. Illegally block investigation into the original crime.
3. Because of your obstruction, insufficient evidence of your original crime is found to force prosecution.
4. Now that you blocked the original charges, you can claim it was all bogus. You can't "obstruct justice" if there was no crime in the first place, right?!

So, obstruction of justice is legal now, so long as you succeed. Got it. Thanks.

Also, fuck off. I'm not reading another reply. You are unwilling to discuss this topic in good faith, or you lack the brain cells to do so.

If you think growing up in a conservative household guarantees a kid becomes conservative, you didn't grow up in a conservative household.

Insufficient evidence to prove a crime? Maybe. I disagree, but I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge.

But "collusion" itself isn't a crime, and the evidence clearly showed evidence of collusion between the GOP and Russia.

The number of connections between the GOP and Russia, financially and ideologically, and Russia's proven interference in 2016 and since (not to mention the GOP visit to Moscow on July 4th) are evidence enough to show there is "collusion".

The problem is our laws on campaign finance and foreign political influence are Swiss cheese.

And then they turn around and act like, "Well, he didn't get convicted of a crime, so clearly it was all a hoax."

No. It wasn't a hoax. There was evidence. Just not enough to do anythong about it, apparently. (And I still argue only because of the amount of interference run on the investigation.)

EDIT: And just in case you want to come back and obtusely repeat your argument, here's the report in full. After 181 pages of evidence, here's the conclusion.

IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Its in black and white: they had already determined that they would not make a "prosecutorial judgment" (recommendation to charge Trump with a crime), since Barr said that should be left to the Impeachment process. But despite that, the report makes clear, in no unclear terms...

"It also does not exonerate him."

Persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. [...]

But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion [...]

Aaaaand I stopped reading.

The Mueller Report absolutely found credible evidence of collusion, despite heavy-handled interference by Trump, Barr, and the rest of the GOP. It unfortunately failed to result in any prosecution (in no small part due to Barr), and failed to pressure Republicans to vote to remove Trump when he was impeached.

As disappointing as it is to see it end, 5 seasons is a decent run, and I'd rather it end before they "jump the shark" or just fizzle out.

And apparently since 2001, there have been fewer than 100 cases (I think somewhere in the area of 50-60 cases) where a non-citizen attempted to vote.

Less than 100 cases. In over 20 years.

It's an obvious, bald-faced smokescreen, covering their plans to rig the election or commit a coup should they lose.

I've seen "tankie" in leftist discussions on multiple sites for ages before I joined Lemmy.

Just because its a real word with a wiki page doesn't make it any less annoying [...]

And just because you first encountered a word in some place doesn't mean that word originated in that place.

I'm with the above commenter. I've worked at many companies of various sizes, from small local shops up to international corporations, including at least one contractor for the US military.

Every one of them had rules and policies and training on security, to varying degrees. But at every one of them, I'd find some vulnerability, or instance where someone was neglecting security. Each time, I'd bring it to the attention of someone in management. Each time (with one company as exception), those warnings would be "heard" and "passed up the chain", and then nothing would happen. Only one company in 20 years of work actually fixed a security issue I found. And no company I've ever worked for was leak proof.

In my experience, until it threatens to cost a company much more money in losses than it would cost to fix the problem, but said problem will not get fixed. That's profit motive. And often it seems they'd rather roll the dice until a loss occurs, and then (maybe) fix the issue.

I used to believe this, but recent incidents have exposed systemic issues in engineering and QA at at least one major US aerospace manufacturer.

Do you have any examples of problems currently lacking a (plausible) software solution?

Vulcans.

As a regularly stoic person (maybe on the autism spectrum), I often struggle to show appropriate emotion. Or, at least, it is exhausting.

Having a conversation with a Vulcan would be a breath of fresh air.

I have used warranties many times, but rarely bothered to register at time of purchase. In my experience, if you go to use a warranty, they'll just ask for proof of purchase (if they ask for anything at all). I think the point of warranty registration is in case you need to use the warranty later, but you lose your receipt.