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

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.

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

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.

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.

On 7/7/2016 4:29 PM, wrote:
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.


Agreed. Meanwhile, I caught some of Trump's "rally" last night. He
was talking about his recent trip to Scotland for the grand opening of
the golf resort that his son Erik had managed the renovations of.
Knowing that this was the day that Great Britain voted to exit the EU,
Trump said he purposely did *not* even pick up a golf club while he was
there, knowing that the press would be all over him for playing golf in
the middle of such an important, international event. Well, the press
didn't jump on him but the Hillary Clinton campaign did. They
immediately released an attack ad supposedly showing Trump golfing
during his visit. Problem is, the video was of him teeing off on a
different golf course at least two years ago. The way Trump presented
the story made me chuckle.

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:45:08 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Well, the press
didn't jump on him but the Hillary Clinton campaign did. They
immediately released an attack ad supposedly showing Trump golfing
during his visit. Problem is, the video was of him teeing off on a
different golf course at least two years ago. The way Trump presented
the story made me chuckle.

Richard, does that constitute more Clintonian deceit?

On 7/7/2016 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.


You forgot the part where Comey said Hillary probably didn't know what
the (C) meant, even if it was included in error.

Comey said that the FBI investigation revealed that classified data was
found in emails on her server, sent and received by her. He also
reported that Hillary acknowledged to the FBI that she sent and received
classified information on her unsecure, personal server. Up to now she
had claimed publicly and under oath to a Congressional hearing that she
had not. So, what are we to believe?