11:03 AMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
D'uh. That's not a preference poll.
.....

To you, if it said Trump on it then it would be.

Face it Harry, she ain't doing to great at the moment..

Tim Wrote in message:

11:03 AMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
D'uh. That's not a preference poll.
....

To you, if it said Trump on it then it would be.

Face it Harry, she ain't doing to great at the moment..


Too great Tim. No she ain't. And that gives us hope.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
On 7/8/16 7:55 AM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 2:28:12 AM UTC-5, Boating All Out wrote:
Couldn't lay a glove on him.
"No evidence warranting prosecution."
And he wouldn't even go so far as to say Hilary couldn't join the FBI due
to previous "careless" handling of classified material.
Not that makes any difference, seeing that Hilary doesn't want that job.
Pretty much trashed the Republican calls for prosecution, and gave the
house a schooling on the law.
Of course the Hilary witch-hunt will continue, because that's what
Republicans do.
Now, the question is to vote for Hilary, or Trump.
It's a no-brainer, but that's assuming a brain is present.
Well, I'm throwing down my cards.
Hilary 2016!

She might need your help. Look at "latest polls"

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...vorable-rating


D'uh. That's not a preference poll.


For Gods sake Krause. Can't you read. He didn't say it was. You
have a point? Didn't think so.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 02:27:59 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Couldn't lay a glove on him.
"No evidence warranting prosecution."
And he wouldn't even go so far as to say Hilary couldn't join the FBI due
to previous "careless" handling of classified material.
Not that makes any difference, seeing that Hilary doesn't want that job.
Pretty much trashed the Republican calls for prosecution, and gave the
house a schooling on the law.
Of course the Hilary witch-hunt will continue, because that's what
Republicans do.
Now, the question is to vote for Hilary, or Trump.
It's a no-brainer, but that's assuming a brain is present.
Well, I'm throwing down my cards.
Hilary 2016!

Did you ever think your cards would come down any other way?

I do believe you were not listening to Comey's testimony and only saw
what MSNBC cherry picked out of the hearings.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 02:27:59 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Couldn't lay a glove on him.
"No evidence warranting prosecution."
And he wouldn't even go so far as to say Hilary couldn't join the FBI due
to previous "careless" handling of classified material.
Not that makes any difference, seeing that Hilary doesn't want that job.
Pretty much trashed the Republican calls for prosecution, and gave the
house a schooling on the law.
Of course the Hilary witch-hunt will continue, because that's what
Republicans do.
Now, the question is to vote for Hilary, or Trump.
It's a no-brainer, but that's assuming a brain is present.
Well, I'm throwing down my cards.
Hilary 2016!

Did you ever think your cards would come down any other way?


Sure. It might have been Bernie. Certainly not Trump.
Now I know the alternative to Trump. Hilary Rodham Clinton.

I do believe you were not listening to Comey's testimony and only saw
what MSNBC cherry picked out of the hearings.

I watched the entire hearing. CSPAN. But MSNBC had the entire hearing,
as did CNN.
Comey refused to engage the Republicans in whether HRC would be hired by
the FBI - as if that could happen.
He also refused to to talk about Condi Rice and Colin Powell since he
wasn't charged with investigating them. Lucky for them.
Powell used his AOL account for SoS business, and said so.
Condi Rice - we'll never know. It's probably all been deleted.
BTW, it's now 2016. Congress's is still using private accounts to
conduct gov business.
As I said above, Comey's decision was not to prosecute.
In case you weren't paying attention, he explained it thoroughly.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:12:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

As I said above, Comey's decision was not to prosecute.
In case you weren't paying attention, he explained it thoroughly.

I listened and I also noticed that he consistently said she was
careless and negligent in the way she handled data. He pointed out the
normal administrative sanctions would involve limiting or eliminating
any future access to confidential information. Last time I looked
Powell and Rice were not running for president. I doubt either of them
will ever see any confidential data again either.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:12:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

As I said above, Comey's decision was not to prosecute.
In case you weren't paying attention, he explained it thoroughly.

I listened and I also noticed that he consistently said she was
careless and negligent in the way she handled data. He pointed out the
normal administrative sanctions would involve limiting or eliminating
any future access to confidential information. Last time I looked
Powell and Rice were not running for president. I doubt either of them
will ever see any confidential data again either.

Yes, scandal hounds them.
HRC (and Powell and Rice) isn't subject to any administrative sanction.
Comey did not say what you said he did. He was careful to always say
the offender would undergo a "suitability" review. The sanction can be a
mere reprimand.
It'll be fun if the Republicans refer Hillary's Benghazi testimony to the
FBI, ridiculously claiming she lied.
The FBI will have to set them straight once again.
But it won't stop these crackpots from spending millions of taxpayer
money.

On 7/9/16 8:41 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:12:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

As I said above, Comey's decision was not to prosecute.
In case you weren't paying attention, he explained it thoroughly.

I listened and I also noticed that he consistently said she was
careless and negligent in the way she handled data. He pointed out the
normal administrative sanctions would involve limiting or eliminating
any future access to confidential information. Last time I looked
Powell and Rice were not running for president. I doubt either of them
will ever see any confidential data again either.

Yes, scandal hounds them.
HRC (and Powell and Rice) isn't subject to any administrative sanction.
Comey did not say what you said he did. He was careful to always say
the offender would undergo a "suitability" review. The sanction can be a
mere reprimand.
It'll be fun if the Republicans refer Hillary's Benghazi testimony to the
FBI, ridiculously claiming she lied.
The FBI will have to set them straight once again.
But it won't stop these crackpots from spending millions of taxpayer
money.



The Repugnants have been hounding Hillary nearly 30 years with one
bull**** investigation after another, and all of them have had only one
purpose, to try to destroy her as a POTUS candidate.

I think the public is beginning to see through what the GOPers have been
doing. The Repugnants are really worried this time, because the
candidate they likely are to present this time is without question the
worst possible one in anyone's memory. There's a quote floating around
in which Trump allegedly said that if he were elected, he might decline
to serve.

Trey Gowdy is a snarly little asshole. Even his own party members lost
respect for him because of the way he handled the Benghazi hearings.

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 07:41:31 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:12:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

As I said above, Comey's decision was not to prosecute.
In case you weren't paying attention, he explained it thoroughly.

I listened and I also noticed that he consistently said she was
careless and negligent in the way she handled data. He pointed out the
normal administrative sanctions would involve limiting or eliminating
any future access to confidential information. Last time I looked
Powell and Rice were not running for president. I doubt either of them
will ever see any confidential data again either.

Yes, scandal hounds them.
HRC (and Powell and Rice) isn't subject to any administrative sanction.
Comey did not say what you said he did. He was careful to always say
the offender would undergo a "suitability" review. The sanction can be a
mere reprimand.
It'll be fun if the Republicans refer Hillary's Benghazi testimony to the
FBI, ridiculously claiming she lied.
The FBI will have to set them straight once again.
But it won't stop these crackpots from spending millions of taxpayer
money.

Comey was also referencing a wide range of violations. This is pretty
much unprecedented but when people merely put classified material on
their personal computer the sanctions are severe. (loss of clearance
and the job transfer that requires). As I said in another note, I knew
a few government guys at HEW who lost their DoD jobs over losing
security clearances for very minor things. It was Civil Service so
being fired is hard to do but they can move you.

Boating All Out wrote:
Couldn't lay a glove on him.
"No evidence warranting prosecution."
And he wouldn't even go so far as to say Hilary couldn't join the FBI due
to previous "careless" handling of classified material.
Not that makes any difference, seeing that Hilary doesn't want that job.
Pretty much trashed the Republican calls for prosecution, and gave the
house a schooling on the law.
Of course the Hilary witch-hunt will continue, because that's what
Republicans do.
Now, the question is to vote for Hilary, or Trump.
It's a no-brainer, but that's assuming a brain is present.
Well, I'm throwing down my cards.
Hilary 2016!


Relax, Kevin.