Not unprecedented
 

A lot is being made of the Comey announcement and the left says it is
unprecedented but that is just not true. In 1992, when Bill was
running against HW, they dropped a bomb about Iran Contra (an
additional indictment on Weinberger) right before the election and
Bill pounced on it.
The ironic thing is shortly after the election, the indictment was
tossed because the statute of limitations had run out.
This may have just been a democrat 102d congress (both houses) running
amok.

Not unprecedented
 

On 10/30/16 12:55 PM, wrote:
A lot is being made of the Comey announcement and the left says it is
unprecedented but that is just not true. In 1992, when Bill was
running against HW, they dropped a bomb about Iran Contra (an
additional indictment on Weinberger) right before the election and
Bill pounced on it.
The ironic thing is shortly after the election, the indictment was
tossed because the statute of limitations had run out.
This may have just been a democrat 102d congress (both houses) running
amok.



An indictment is a bit more than announcing you might have some emails
you might not have seen before, and you don't know who sent them and who
got them.

Not unprecedented
 

On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:08 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/30/16 12:55 PM, wrote:
A lot is being made of the Comey announcement and the left says it is
unprecedented but that is just not true. In 1992, when Bill was
running against HW, they dropped a bomb about Iran Contra (an
additional indictment on Weinberger) right before the election and
Bill pounced on it.
The ironic thing is shortly after the election, the indictment was
tossed because the statute of limitations had run out.
This may have just been a democrat 102d congress (both houses) running
amok.



An indictment is a bit more than announcing you might have some emails
you might not have seen before, and you don't know who sent them and who
got them.

It is still dumping on an election within 4 days of the vote
(certainly a precedent) and the indictment was bogus on it's face.

Not unprecedented
 

Not unprecedented
 

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:27:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:08 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/30/16 12:55 PM, wrote:
A lot is being made of the Comey announcement and the left says it is
unprecedented but that is just not true. In 1992, when Bill was
running against HW, they dropped a bomb about Iran Contra (an
additional indictment on Weinberger) right before the election and
Bill pounced on it.
The ironic thing is shortly after the election, the indictment was
tossed because the statute of limitations had run out.
This may have just been a democrat 102d congress (both houses) running
amok.



An indictment is a bit more than announcing you might have some emails
you might not have seen before, and you don't know who sent them and who
got them.


Still can't excuse receiving a congressional summons to surrender *all*
emails and destroying them instead. Obstruction of justice is a crime.

Still can't excuse giving false testimony to congress. Perjury is a crime.

Still can't believe the number of people willing to give her a pass.


Being krauselike isn't a crime.

Not unprecedented
 

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:27:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Still can't excuse receiving a congressional summons to surrender *all*
emails and destroying them instead. Obstruction of justice is a crime.

Still can't excuse giving false testimony to congress. Perjury is a crime.

Still can't believe the number of people willing to give her a pass.

===

Some of those people are bought and paid for. Others couldn't think
of any electable alternatives. If the Republicans could get their
collective heads out of their butts Hillary wouldn't even be in the
running.

Not unprecedented
 

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:27:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:08 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/30/16 12:55 PM, wrote:
A lot is being made of the Comey announcement and the left says it is
unprecedented but that is just not true. In 1992, when Bill was
running against HW, they dropped a bomb about Iran Contra (an
additional indictment on Weinberger) right before the election and
Bill pounced on it.
The ironic thing is shortly after the election, the indictment was
tossed because the statute of limitations had run out.
This may have just been a democrat 102d congress (both houses) running
amok.



An indictment is a bit more than announcing you might have some emails
you might not have seen before, and you don't know who sent them and who
got them.


Still can't excuse receiving a congressional summons to surrender *all*
emails and destroying them instead. Obstruction of justice is a crime.

Still can't excuse giving false testimony to congress. Perjury is a crime.

Still can't believe the number of people willing to give her a pass.


There will be a perjury trap like the one the congress set for her
husband and she will be faced with the option of admitting she lied
before or that she is lying now.
Once the media smells blood in the water they will be scrambling to
get a presidential scalp on their belt. It is not because they are not
democrats, they will just want to be Wood/Stein. It is what they do.

Not unprecedented
 

4:15
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:27:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


- show quoted text -
There will be a perjury trap like the one the congress set for her
husband and she will be faced with the option of admitting she lied
before or that she is lying now.
Once the media smells blood in the water they will be scrambling to
get a presidential scalp on their belt. It is not because they are not
democrats, they will just want to be Wood/Stein. It is what they do.
....

Et tu Brute' ?

Not unprecedented
 

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:49:21 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

4:15
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:27:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


- show quoted text -
There will be a perjury trap like the one the congress set for her
husband and she will be faced with the option of admitting she lied
before or that she is lying now.
Once the media smells blood in the water they will be scrambling to
get a presidential scalp on their belt. It is not because they are not
democrats, they will just want to be Wood/Stein. It is what they do.
...

Et tu Brute' ?

People and senators, be not affrighted;
Fly not; stand stiff: ambition's debt is paid.

Not unprecedented
 

On 10/31/16 5:15 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:27:47 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 14:25:08 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/30/16 12:55 PM, wrote:
A lot is being made of the Comey announcement and the left says it is
unprecedented but that is just not true. In 1992, when Bill was
running against HW, they dropped a bomb about Iran Contra (an
additional indictment on Weinberger) right before the election and
Bill pounced on it.
The ironic thing is shortly after the election, the indictment was
tossed because the statute of limitations had run out.
This may have just been a democrat 102d congress (both houses) running
amok.



An indictment is a bit more than announcing you might have some emails
you might not have seen before, and you don't know who sent them and who
got them.


Still can't excuse receiving a congressional summons to surrender *all*
emails and destroying them instead. Obstruction of justice is a crime.

Still can't excuse giving false testimony to congress. Perjury is a crime.

Still can't believe the number of people willing to give her a pass.


There will be a perjury trap like the one the congress set for her
husband and she will be faced with the option of admitting she lied
before or that she is lying now.
Once the media smells blood in the water they will be scrambling to
get a presidential scalp on their belt. It is not because they are not
democrats, they will just want to be Wood/Stein. It is what they do.


Speculating again, eh?