Let me channel my right-wing conspiritard, “Can’t you see its the kerning, the k ern i ng reveals the whole thing!!!1111!!!1111!!!”
CMC fnord!
We need to see the long-form memo.
Anyone following the story on the rebuttal memo? Apparentlyit’s too lengthy for Trump to read, so he’s going to be briefed on it. Mentioned later in the story as an aside: It’s 10 pages long.
Looks at 280 page proposed subregulatory guidance pdfs open on her screen
sighs
I bet yours has more pictures.
It’s got some charts in it!
Like:
Table II-10. MLR Credibility Adjustments for MA-PD Contracts Member months Credibility adjustment
Followed by the scintillating:
Table II-11. MLR Credibility Adjustments for Part D Stand-Alone Contracts Member months Credibility adjustment
omigod, I LOVE that one!
LOL living up to your handle, I see. 
Eh, it used to be good, but now it’s just so derivative. I’m looking for craft, small batch credibility adjustment tables.
Ah, yes, that sounds like some of the depositions I proofread for a living, when they’re not transcripts of utility regulatory hearings, or subject matter experts in patent infringement litigation, or but-for economist expert witnesses, or…
Well, at least the medical malpractice expert witnesses can be educational.
Sigh… Even the slip-and-fall plaintiffs usually testify at a higher linguistic level than Cadet Bone Spurs appears to function at.
Well, no, they didn’t keep quiet about it - Mother Jones leaked what was an open secret a week before the elections. What was kept quiet, or at least they tried to keep quiet, was that it was bought and paid for by the DNC and the Hillary campaign.
There seems now to be evidence that then-President Obama wanted to know all about the investigation, which raises even more questions, which Democrats would prefer not be asked. Perhaps they will take the same tack as they did when “HRC” approved the Travelgate firings.
Regards,
Shodan
Huh? What questions would Democrats “prefer not be asked”? I’m genuinely confused by this. Is someone troubled by the possibility that the President was interested in an ongoing investigation that might involve a foreign power meddling in US elections? I’d be troubled if he wasn’t interested!
Travelgate? Srsly?
It’s the last ditch move of the guilty.
Isn’t that what the job of the president is supposed to entail? I know its been a year already, but you do remember a time when the primary job description of the president wasn’t just watching cable news and tweeting about it, right?
Oh my God, the President wants to know what Russia was doing to interfere in our elections? You won’t see THAT happening today!
Shodan is going to be back here with:
“LOLZ on you, he wanted info on the Hillary case, not Russian.”
However, the Fox News report he linked to is a brazen lie, as much fake news as anything coming to us from St Petersburg.
- Hillary investigation closed July 2016
- Obama wants briefing on Sept 2nd
- Hillary case reopened in October
What Faux News is lying about is that Obama wanted to “know everything” about Hillary. But that’s not true, he wanted to “know everything” about Russian interference.
But even if he did, as noted above: So what? Is this not part and parcel of his duties?
Since this [edit: this = Fox News report] has turned out to be a lie, can we assume that you will be back to apologize for misleading us by spreading obvious lies?
And that, my fellow posters, is absolutely right on the line in terms of the ‘accusations of lying’ rule. Let’s not do it again.
Yes, technically, one could argue that one is accusing another poster of spreading lies and not lying. However, my tolerance for seeing how close to the line one can get is…limited.