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?

Not unprecedented
 

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:14:26 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

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?

It is based on past performance and these guys have not had an
original idea for 25 years.
The media scalp hunting has been going on for more like 45 years.
As much as CNN likes Hillary and hates Trump, they are all over this
story. I am not really watching but it was all mailgate all the time
the few minutes I saw today. I was outside most of the day tho. I
mowed, did a router trick for my neighbor and visited with Henk from
the Netherlands.
They think we are nuts over there. They don't think much of Hillary
and they hate Trump. The attitude seems to be "350 million people and
this is the best you can do"?
I brought up Brexit and Henk said the world is going mad ... although
there is a pretty strong "leave" sentiment in the Netherlands too.

Not unprecedented
 

In article ,
says...

On 10/31/2016 6:01 PM, wrote:


I understand the Senate is a high hurdle to clear but if there is a
real smoking gun. they will have to do it. The reality is Hillary will
just be wounded and end up being more of a republican than she is now
... just like her hubby was.
If there is enough coming out the senate could really go south on them
and she might actually be in trouble tho.



I think Hillary will be elected but within 2 years will be impeached and
will probably resign. Charges will be obstruction of justice, perjury
and improper handling of classified documents. Bill may join her in an
adjoining cell in Levenworth.

What a couple of GOP cheerleaders you two are. HRC won't be impeached or
charged with anything. Why? She has done nothing illegal.
After 25 of going after her, you GOP muckrakers haven't learned anything.
OTOH, she's got your number.
Bet you watch that "Finding Bigfoot" stuff on the Discovery Channel.
Or is it "Ancient Aliens?"

Not unprecedented
 

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:39:52 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

Oh, I don't give a **** about the emails or the server. Never did. Big
yawn.

I know you don't. You think a fine upstanding democrat should be able
to leverage her position as SoS into a few hundred million bucks in
bribes.
That is the shoe that hasn't dropped. Are there Emails implicating her
and Bill in pay to play? Comey has been silent on that because nobody
has asked him to look.
If Comey finds out she was sending classified info to Abedin (and
Wiener) through Yahoo, simply because she was to stupid to be able to
print from a blackberry, this may get interesting sooner.

Not unprecedented
 

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:25:23 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

HRC won't be impeached

I bet she will be. Whether it sticks in the senate will be the only
open question.

Not unprecedented
 

On 11/1/2016 10:25 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/31/2016 6:01 PM, wrote:


I understand the Senate is a high hurdle to clear but if there is a
real smoking gun. they will have to do it. The reality is Hillary will
just be wounded and end up being more of a republican than she is now
... just like her hubby was.
If there is enough coming out the senate could really go south on them
and she might actually be in trouble tho.



I think Hillary will be elected but within 2 years will be impeached and
will probably resign. Charges will be obstruction of justice, perjury
and improper handling of classified documents. Bill may join her in an
adjoining cell in Levenworth.

What a couple of GOP cheerleaders you two are. HRC won't be impeached or
charged with anything. Why? She has done nothing illegal.
After 25 of going after her, you GOP muckrakers haven't learned anything.
OTOH, she's got your number.
Bet you watch that "Finding Bigfoot" stuff on the Discovery Channel.
Or is it "Ancient Aliens?"



We shall see what the future holds. Many are too blind to see.

Not unprecedented
 

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 13:05:45 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2016 10:25 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/31/2016 6:01 PM, wrote:


I understand the Senate is a high hurdle to clear but if there is a
real smoking gun. they will have to do it. The reality is Hillary will
just be wounded and end up being more of a republican than she is now
... just like her hubby was.
If there is enough coming out the senate could really go south on them
and she might actually be in trouble tho.



I think Hillary will be elected but within 2 years will be impeached and
will probably resign. Charges will be obstruction of justice, perjury
and improper handling of classified documents. Bill may join her in an
adjoining cell in Levenworth.

What a couple of GOP cheerleaders you two are. HRC won't be impeached or
charged with anything. Why? She has done nothing illegal.
After 25 of going after her, you GOP muckrakers haven't learned anything.
OTOH, she's got your number.
Bet you watch that "Finding Bigfoot" stuff on the Discovery Channel.
Or is it "Ancient Aliens?"



We shall see what the future holds. Many are too blind to see.

Four years of investigations and gridlock are certain, no matter which
of them wins. When you have the two most unpopular candidates in the
history of the republic running (combined 81% unfavorable rating),
even most of the people who voted for the winner will not be a raving
fan.
That spells volatility and that is not good for the economy
There may some lucrative trades out there to be had but the market as
a whole is going to go down is my guess. That is going to be tough on
401ks.

Not unprecedented
 

On 11/1/16 10:27 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:39:52 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

Oh, I don't give a **** about the emails or the server. Never did. Big
yawn.

I know you don't. You think a fine upstanding democrat should be able
to leverage her position as SoS into a few hundred million bucks in
bribes.


You're doing it again.

Not unprecedented
 

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:21:03 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

I know you don't. You think a fine upstanding democrat should be able
to leverage her position as SoS into a few hundred million bucks in
bribes.


You're doing it again.

I absolutely have questions and until I hear a better answers I will
continue to connect 6 figure payments to the Clintons to subsequent
favors from Stat. I will continue to ask "why isn't this "pay to
play"?
The classified info thing is still an issue but in a government as
leaky as ours, it is not a big thing beyond demonstrating how
"sloppy", "extremely careless" and "negligent" Hillary is with that
information.

Not unprecedented
 

On 11/1/16 3:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:21:03 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

I know you don't. You think a fine upstanding democrat should be able
to leverage her position as SoS into a few hundred million bucks in
bribes.


You're doing it again.

I absolutely have questions and until I hear a better answers I will
continue to connect 6 figure payments to the Clintons to subsequent
favors from Stat. I will continue to ask "why isn't this "pay to
play"?
The classified info thing is still an issue but in a government as
leaky as ours, it is not a big thing beyond demonstrating how
"sloppy", "extremely careless" and "negligent" Hillary is with that
information.



My comment was about the "You think...." comment of yours. You don't
know what I think.

Not unprecedented
 

9:59 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
I haven't "believed" the FBI since the 1960s, and I wouldn't have
believed it before then if I had been aware of how corrupt Hoover was.
.....

Hoover was corrupt and gave the FBI a proverbial black eye.

But though Hillary is corrupt you give her a pass?

Not unprecedented
 

On 11/2/16 11:16 AM, Tim wrote:
9:59 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
I haven't "believed" the FBI since the 1960s, and I wouldn't have
believed it before then if I had been aware of how corrupt Hoover was.
....

Hoover was corrupt and gave the FBI a proverbial black eye.

But though Hillary is corrupt you give her a pass?


As I have stated several times, I am not concerned about Hillary's email
servers. And I am not impressed with the security of "government" servers.

Compared to Donald Trump, especially, Hillary is a paragon of virtue.

Not unprecedented
 

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 05:42:38 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 6:47:17 AM UTC-5, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:04:42 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

Trump's connections with the Russkies, which the FBI is
investigating.


Whoops:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politi...nvestigations/

Harry's got a good conspiracy theory going on, and here you go throwing a wrench in the works?

C'mon man, don't ruin his fantasies....

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/They%20thin...20russians.jpg

Not unprecedented
 

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:09:24 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:



Oh, right, I'm supposed to believe the FBI because it is the paragon of
virtue.

You are starting to distrust the government, my work is done here ;-)

Not unprecedented
 

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:28:29 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

Compared to Donald Trump, especially, Hillary is a paragon of virtue.

But you still get evil.

Not unprecedented
 

On 11/2/16 11:16 AM, Tim wrote:
9:59 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
I haven't "believed" the FBI since the 1960s, and I wouldn't have
believed it before then if I had been aware of how corrupt Hoover was.
....

Hoover was corrupt and gave the FBI a proverbial black eye.

But though Hillary is corrupt you give her a pass?



There is no shortage of data indicating the FBI is to this day a corrupt
organization that frames suspects, alters evidence, and gives false
testimony. Way back in the 1960s, my civil rights worker buddies in
Mississippi told me on my first visit there to never tell anything to
the FBI, because the FBI was "Klanned up," and there was proof of it
directly and indirectly.

Not unprecedented
 

10:28 AMKeyser Soze
- hide quoted text -
On 11/2/16 11:16 AM, Tim wrote:
9:59 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
I haven't "believed" the FBI since the 1960s, and I wouldn't have
believed it before then if I had been aware of how corrupt Hoover was.
....

Hoover was corrupt and gave the FBI a proverbial black eye.

But though Hillary is corrupt you give her a pass?


As I have stated several times, I am not concerned about Hillary's email
servers. And I am not impressed with the security of "government" servers.

Compared to Donald Trump, especially, Hillary is a paragon of virtue.
.....

Odd. Nobody mentioned e-mails or Trump.

We were talking about corrupt Hillary getting a pass from you though, weren't we?

Not unprecedented
 

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:25:48 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

Way back in the 1960s, my civil rights worker buddies in
Mississippi told me on my first visit there to never tell anything to
the FBI, because the FBI was "Klanned up," and there was proof of it
directly and indirectly.

Yeah that was your JFK/RFK FBI. They were certainly running illegal
wire taps and doing other things against the constitution. Maybe that
was when I started distrusting the government.
There is nothing like seeing a transcript of a phone conversation you
recognize and be identified as "unnamed adolescent" when you are
14-15.
MLK had the same experience.

Not unprecedented
 

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 11/2/16 11:16 AM, Tim wrote:
9:59 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
I haven't "believed" the FBI since the 1960s, and I wouldn't have
believed it before then if I had been aware of how corrupt Hoover was.
....

Hoover was corrupt and gave the FBI a proverbial black eye.

But though Hillary is corrupt you give her a pass?



There is no shortage of data indicating the FBI is to this day a corrupt
organization that frames suspects, alters evidence, and gives false

Did you ever stop to think that your buddies were full of ****,
just as you are now?
testimony. Way back in the 1960s, my civil rights worker buddies in
Mississippi told me on my first visit there to never tell anything to
the FBI, because the FBI was "Klanned up," and there was proof of it
directly and indirectly.



--
x


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

Not unprecedented
 

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 12:41:06 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
10:28 AMKeyser Soze
- hide quoted text -
On 11/2/16 11:16 AM, Tim wrote:
9:59 AMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
I haven't "believed" the FBI since the 1960s, and I wouldn't have
believed it before then if I had been aware of how corrupt Hoover was.
....

Hoover was corrupt and gave the FBI a proverbial black eye.

But though Hillary is corrupt you give her a pass?


As I have stated several times, I am not concerned about Hillary's email
servers. And I am not impressed with the security of "government" servers..

Compared to Donald Trump, especially, Hillary is a paragon of virtue.
....

Odd. Nobody mentioned e-mails or Trump.

We were talking about corrupt Hillary getting a pass from you though, weren't we?


A great article:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-becomes-the-unsafe-hand-1478042102

"It’s the White House Travel Office, the Rose Law Firm billing records, the Seth Ward option (don’t ask), the health-care task force, etc., all over again.

Mrs. Clinton is a screw-up. And when a trait takes such trouble to announce itself, note must be taken."

Not unprecedented
 

On 11/2/16 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:09:24 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:



Oh, right, I'm supposed to believe the FBI because it is the paragon of
virtue.

You are starting to distrust the government, my work is done here ;-)


You're projecting...again.

Not unprecedented
 

On 11/2/16 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:25:48 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

Way back in the 1960s, my civil rights worker buddies in
Mississippi told me on my first visit there to never tell anything to
the FBI, because the FBI was "Klanned up," and there was proof of it
directly and indirectly.

Yeah that was your JFK/RFK FBI. They were certainly running illegal
wire taps and doing other things against the constitution. Maybe that
was when I started distrusting the government.
There is nothing like seeing a transcript of a phone conversation you
recognize and be identified as "unnamed adolescent" when you are
14-15.
MLK had the same experience.


The FBI was a rogue outfit long before JFK became POTUS.

Not unprecedented
 

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:48:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 11/2/16 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:09:24 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:



Oh, right, I'm supposed to believe the FBI because it is the paragon of
virtue.

You are starting to distrust the government, my work is done here ;-)


You're projecting...again.

When you distrust the parts of the government that has the guns (the
military and the FBI) you are distrusting the power of government
because everyone else just gives you lip service. insert white house
intern joke here

Not unprecedented
 

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:54:41 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 11/2/16 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:25:48 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

Way back in the 1960s, my civil rights worker buddies in
Mississippi told me on my first visit there to never tell anything to
the FBI, because the FBI was "Klanned up," and there was proof of it
directly and indirectly.

Yeah that was your JFK/RFK FBI. They were certainly running illegal
wire taps and doing other things against the constitution. Maybe that
was when I started distrusting the government.
There is nothing like seeing a transcript of a phone conversation you
recognize and be identified as "unnamed adolescent" when you are
14-15.
MLK had the same experience.


The FBI was a rogue outfit long before JFK became POTUS.

I don't think they were targeting innocent people as much earlier but
I agree they always had a hazy understanding of the constitution
through the FDR, Truman and Eisenhower days.
When you look at what they did in the 30s it is disgusting, based on
current thinking.
Warrantless searches, torture and assassination were common.

Not unprecedented
 

Wrote in message:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:48:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 11/2/16 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:09:24 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:



Oh, right, I'm supposed to believe the FBI because it is the paragon of
virtue.

You are starting to distrust the government, my work is done here ;-)


You're projecting...again.

When you distrust the parts of the government that has the guns (the
military and the FBI) you are distrusting the power of government
because everyone else just gives you lip service. insert white house
intern joke here


You didn't mention the arming of the I R S.
--
x


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