Perspective?
 

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 3:44:09 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:12:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/7/2016 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 11:42:32 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

But Hillary is being pilloried by the GOP for using a private server?

No Hillary's qualifications are being questioned because she was
"sloppy", "negligent" and "Very careless" with top secret materials
that "any reasonable person would know were secret at the time".
Some were even marked that way according to Comey.
There is also the question about her lying under oath about it.
It is also interesting that Comey said he will not release the details
of these recovered E-mails until after the election so we do not know
what else may have been discussed.
Bear in mind, the details of Watergate were not released until after
the election too. I remember how that worked out.
I think she is the most likely president to be impeached since her
husband.



It also appears that she has lied (again) to the public and in
congressional hearings while under oath.

I feel for Harry. It must be tough to mindlessly support his party's
choice in their candidate when it is obvious to the most oblivious
observer that her reputation for lying and deceitfulness is so well
deserved (and confirmed).

This isn't about Trump. It's about Hillary.

It is really about both of them. Maybe we should have a do over on the
candidate selections. The GOP knows Trump is a losing proposition and
Hillary is not much better.
It really means the parties will need to get out the vote for their
down ticket because there is not much reason to get excited by the
presidential candidates from either party. This could really be a
"stay at home" election.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing earlier. Most voters this election will probably be going to the polls to vote *against* a candidate, not for one.

Perspective?
 

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:44:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/7/16 2:42 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:44:20 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

"The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly
every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in
almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal
defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.�

You forgot this part:
"Warnings about the problem have been mounting. In 2002, the FBI reported that its own DNA testing found that examiners reported false hair matches more than 11 percent of the time. In the District, the only jurisdiction where defenders and prosecutors have re-investigated all FBI hair convictions, three of seven defendants
whose
trials included flawed FBI testimony have been exonerated through DNA testing since 2009, and courts have exonerated two more men. All five served 20 to 30 years in prison for rape or murder.

I find it amusing that this is the same government that Harry wants to
have total control over every aspect of our lives.


You are projecting again. I've never said or intimated that I wanted
"government...to have total control over every aspect of our lives."

It is pretty hard to find something, other than abortion and sexual
conduct that you don't want them to control and when you imply that
the preeminent agency for enforcing all of those laws is either
incompetent or corrupt, it calls the whole process into question.

Perspective?
 

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:45:49 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


I don't have any problems voting for Hillary.
Of course not, You would vote for Al Sharpton if he was the democrat
candidate.

There isn't a Republican
on that list of 17 I would have voted for, under any circumstances, for
many reasons.

Me either. The closest might have been Kasich but he is still an empty
suit

Perspective?
 

On 7/7/16 4:00 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:44:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/7/16 2:42 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:44:20 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

"The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly
every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in
almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal
defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.�

You forgot this part:
"Warnings about the problem have been mounting. In 2002, the FBI reported that its own DNA testing found that examiners reported false hair matches more than 11 percent of the time. In the District, the only jurisdiction where defenders and prosecutors have re-investigated all FBI hair convictions, three of seven defendants
whose
trials included flawed FBI testimony have been exonerated through DNA testing since 2009, and courts have exonerated two more men. All five served 20 to 30 years in prison for rape or murder.

I find it amusing that this is the same government that Harry wants to
have total control over every aspect of our lives.


You are projecting again. I've never said or intimated that I wanted
"government...to have total control over every aspect of our lives."

It is pretty hard to find something, other than abortion and sexual
conduct that you don't want them to control and when you imply that
the preeminent agency for enforcing all of those laws is either
incompetent or corrupt, it calls the whole process into question.



As I suspect, you have nothing on which to base your projection that I
want "government...to have total control over every aspect of our lives."

Thank you for playing.

Perspective?
 

On 7/7/16 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:45:49 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


I don't have any problems voting for Hillary.
Of course not, You would vote for Al Sharpton if he was the democrat
candidate.

There isn't a Republican
on that list of 17 I would have voted for, under any circumstances, for
many reasons.

Me either. The closest might have been Kasich but he is still an empty
suit



I certainly would vote for The Rev. for POTUS before I would vote for
any of the Gang of 17.

BTW, did you catch this exchange:

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I
have the manual here, marking national classified security information.
And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three
documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented?
Were they properly marked according to the manual?

JAMES COMEY: No. [...]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify
something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?

JAMES COMEY: Correct.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've
discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the
text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about
what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the
manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those
three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

Perspective?
 

On 7/7/16 4:07 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/7/16 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:45:49 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


I don't have any problems voting for Hillary.
Of course not, You would vote for Al Sharpton if he was the democrat
candidate.

There isn't a Republican
on that list of 17 I would have voted for, under any circumstances, for
many reasons.

Me either. The closest might have been Kasich but he is still an empty
suit



I certainly would vote for The Rev. for POTUS before I would vote for
any of the Gang of 17.

BTW, did you catch this exchange:

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I
have the manual here, marking national classified security information.
And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three
documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented?
Were they properly marked according to the manual?

JAMES COMEY: No. [...]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify
something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?

JAMES COMEY: Correct.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've
discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the
text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about
what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the
manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those
three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.


Forgot the URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn-p-Cpskiw

Perspective?
 

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:57:01 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

It is really about both of them. Maybe we should have a do over on the
candidate selections. The GOP knows Trump is a losing proposition and
Hillary is not much better.
It really means the parties will need to get out the vote for their
down ticket because there is not much reason to get excited by the
presidential candidates from either party. This could really be a
"stay at home" election.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing earlier. Most voters this election will probably be going to the polls to vote *against* a candidate, not for one.

That is the perfect storm of low voter turn out, particularly when
both candidates have more than half the country not trusting them.

Presidential elections always come down to the same 8 states and those
are the ones we need to watch. I know there are Hillary ads showing up
here every 10 minutes right now, trying to rehabilitate her image but
they are largely bull****. From the ad, you would think she did
volunteer work "for the children" all of her life. They don't mention
her time as a corporate lawyer or her time on the board of walmart,
only the few months she spent after college, while looking for a real
job.

Perspective?
 

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:04:15 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/7/16 4:00 PM, wrote:

I find it amusing that this is the same government that Harry wants to
have total control over every aspect of our lives.


You are projecting again. I've never said or intimated that I wanted
"government...to have total control over every aspect of our lives."

It is pretty hard to find something, other than abortion and sexual
conduct that you don't want them to control and when you imply that
the preeminent agency for enforcing all of those laws is either
incompetent or corrupt, it calls the whole process into question.



As I suspect, you have nothing on which to base your projection that I
want "government...to have total control over every aspect of our lives."

Thank you for playing.

OK Rick Perry time.
Which government regulatory agencies would you eliminate?

Perspective?
 

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:07:43 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/7/16 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:45:49 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


I don't have any problems voting for Hillary.
Of course not, You would vote for Al Sharpton if he was the democrat
candidate.

There isn't a Republican
on that list of 17 I would have voted for, under any circumstances, for
many reasons.

Me either. The closest might have been Kasich but he is still an empty
suit



I certainly would vote for The Rev. for POTUS before I would vote for
any of the Gang of 17.

BTW, did you catch this exchange:

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I
have the manual here, marking national classified security information.
And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three
documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented?
Were they properly marked according to the manual?

A lot of the things the SoS does will not even get a security
classification until after she does it. She is supposed to know the
difference. That is why diplomatic cyphers are supposed to be the most
secure of any in the government. There is no indication that she was
ever using any encryption at all in spite of being in places with very
sophisticated state actors trying to spy on America. Wannabe ISIS guys
in California are smarter than her.

I don't believe she was malicious or even criminal, just "extremely
careless", "negligent" and "sloppy".
Unfortunately she also lied about it under oath, assuming she is not
just too stupid to know what should be a state secret.

That certainly calls into question, her ability to be the president.

Perspective?
 

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:08:49 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/7/16 4:07 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/7/16 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:45:49 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


I don't have any problems voting for Hillary.
Of course not, You would vote for Al Sharpton if he was the democrat
candidate.

There isn't a Republican
on that list of 17 I would have voted for, under any circumstances, for
many reasons.

Me either. The closest might have been Kasich but he is still an empty
suit



I certainly would vote for The Rev. for POTUS before I would vote for
any of the Gang of 17.

BTW, did you catch this exchange:

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I
have the manual here, marking national classified security information.
And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three
documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented?
Were they properly marked according to the manual?

JAMES COMEY: No. [...]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify
something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?

JAMES COMEY: Correct.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've
discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the
text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about
what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the
manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those
three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.


Forgot the URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn-p-Cpskiw

The whole thing was on Cspan and they will probably run it again
tonight.