What an ass Comey is...
 

On 11/6/2016 6:27 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


It has been reported that almost all the emails found on Weiner's laptop
were duplicates of those already reviewed by the FBI. So, as Comey
reports ... nothing has changed. In other words, his conclusions made
in July that she *did* have classified email on her server, that she
*did* lie to congress and she *was* reckless and careless in handling
classified material ... none of that has changed.

You're lying. Comey never said she lied to Congress.



I guess for the Lemmings, it has to be explained in simple terms. Just
a few examples:

1. Hillary testified that she did not send or receive classified info
(emails) on her private server.

Comey's response to that claim in his swore testimony: ...
"Not true".

2. Hillary testified that her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on
her personal email system. If so, she compromised classified
information. Her attorneys are not cleared to read classified
emails. Whoops.

3. Hillary testified that she only used one device for emails on one
server. Convenience, you know.

Comey stated that she used multiple devices (now up to 13) and there
were *two* servers.

4. Hillary testified that she had turned over *all* work related
emails.

Comey's comment to Congress ... not true.


The list goes on and on but the one that really underscores her deceit
and attempt to cover up her tracks is when directed by Congress to turn
over her server (and emails on it) it was first "scrubbed" by
her IT company to make it impossible to recover any deleted data. Turns
out there were *two* servers though. Whoops. Of course Hillary can
always claim that she didn't "intentionally" order the server's hard
drives to be acid washed. She was just "wiping it down with a rag" so
it didn't look dusty.

So, she either lied to Congress or she lied to the FBI. Take your pick.
Both are Federal crimes. Scrubbing the server after receiving a
Congressional subpoena is obstruction of justice ... also a federal crime.

But, she didn't mean it.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 07:51:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The list goes on and on but the one that really underscores her deceit
and attempt to cover up her tracks is when directed by Congress to turn
over her server (and emails on it) it was first "scrubbed" by
her IT company to make it impossible to recover any deleted data. Turns
out there were *two* servers though. Whoops. Of course Hillary can
always claim that she didn't "intentionally" order the server's hard
drives to be acid washed. She was just "wiping it down with a rag" so
it didn't look dusty.

So, she either lied to Congress or she lied to the FBI. Take your pick.
Both are Federal crimes. Scrubbing the server after receiving a
Congressional subpoena is obstruction of justice ... also a federal crime.

But, she didn't mean it.

Hillary has a long rich history of destroying evidence. The main
reason why they got away with the early 90s problems is that massive
numbers of documents from the Rose Law firm and her personal files
were shredded.
When she is accused of anything, her first answer is always "there is
no evidence to support that" and that has been said, verbatim, many
times.

What an ass Comey is...
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/6/2016 6:27 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


It has been reported that almost all the emails found on Weiner's
laptop
were duplicates of those already reviewed by the FBI. So, as Comey
reports ... nothing has changed. In other words, his conclusions made
in July that she *did* have classified email on her server, that she
*did* lie to congress and she *was* reckless and careless in handling
classified material ... none of that has changed.

You're lying. Comey never said she lied to Congress.



I guess for the Lemmings, it has to be explained in simple terms. Just
a few examples:

1. Hillary testified that she did not send or receive classified info
(emails) on her private server.

Comey's response to that claim in his swore testimony: ...
"Not true".

2. Hillary testified that her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on
her personal email system. If so, she compromised classified
information. Her attorneys are not cleared to read classified
emails. Whoops.

3. Hillary testified that she only used one device for emails on one
server. Convenience, you know.

Comey stated that she used multiple devices (now up to 13) and there
were *two* servers.

4. Hillary testified that she had turned over *all* work related
emails.

Comey's comment to Congress ... not true.


The list goes on and on but the one that really underscores her deceit
and attempt to cover up her tracks is when directed by Congress to
turn over her server (and emails on it) it was first "scrubbed" by
her IT company to make it impossible to recover any deleted data.
Turns out there were *two* servers though. Whoops. Of course Hillary
can always claim that she didn't "intentionally" order the server's
hard drives to be acid washed. She was just "wiping it down with a
rag" so it didn't look dusty.

So, she either lied to Congress or she lied to the FBI. Take your pick.
Both are Federal crimes. Scrubbing the server after receiving a
Congressional subpoena is obstruction of justice ... also a federal
crime.

But, she didn't mean it.






Kevin doesn't want to believe the obvious facts.

What an ass Comey is...
 

In article ,
says...

On 11/6/2016 6:27 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


It has been reported that almost all the emails found on Weiner's laptop
were duplicates of those already reviewed by the FBI. So, as Comey
reports ... nothing has changed. In other words, his conclusions made
in July that she *did* have classified email on her server, that she
*did* lie to congress and she *was* reckless and careless in handling
classified material ... none of that has changed.

You're lying. Comey never said she lied to Congress.



I guess for the Lemmings, it has to be explained in simple terms. Just
a few examples:

1. Hillary testified that she did not send or receive classified info
(emails) on her private server.

Comey's response to that claim in his swore testimony: ...
"Not true".

2. Hillary testified that her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on
her personal email system. If so, she compromised classified
information. Her attorneys are not cleared to read classified
emails. Whoops.

3. Hillary testified that she only used one device for emails on one
server. Convenience, you know.

Comey stated that she used multiple devices (now up to 13) and there
were *two* servers.

4. Hillary testified that she had turned over *all* work related
emails.

Comey's comment to Congress ... not true.


The list goes on and on but the one that really underscores her deceit
and attempt to cover up her tracks is when directed by Congress to turn
over her server (and emails on it) it was first "scrubbed" by
her IT company to make it impossible to recover any deleted data. Turns
out there were *two* servers though. Whoops. Of course Hillary can
always claim that she didn't "intentionally" order the server's hard
drives to be acid washed. She was just "wiping it down with a rag" so
it didn't look dusty.

So, she either lied to Congress or she lied to the FBI. Take your pick.
Both are Federal crimes. Scrubbing the server after receiving a
Congressional subpoena is obstruction of justice ... also a federal crime.

But, she didn't mean it.

Yet with all you've said, Comey testified that none of it was worthy of
prosecution. Why do you suppose that is?
I know, I know. Master Criminal HRC is just too smart for him.
Now excuse me while I use the same standards you use to judge HRC,
against you.
Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down liar.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down liar.

He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.

This is far from over. The next act will be in the house judiciary
committee. You guys better take the senate back or we are looking at
all investigation all the time. The only way this stops is if you get
the house and there are not many people predicting that.
I am just going to get a big bucket of popcorn and watch. I didn't
vote for any of these guys.
I would prefer a 104th congress situation where debt reduction and a
balanced budget was the main agenda.
Too bad they had a phony "shutdown" and Monica started working at the
White House.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On 11/7/2016 9:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/6/2016 6:27 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


It has been reported that almost all the emails found on Weiner's laptop
were duplicates of those already reviewed by the FBI. So, as Comey
reports ... nothing has changed. In other words, his conclusions made
in July that she *did* have classified email on her server, that she
*did* lie to congress and she *was* reckless and careless in handling
classified material ... none of that has changed.

You're lying. Comey never said she lied to Congress.



I guess for the Lemmings, it has to be explained in simple terms. Just
a few examples:

1. Hillary testified that she did not send or receive classified info
(emails) on her private server.

Comey's response to that claim in his swore testimony: ...
"Not true".

2. Hillary testified that her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on
her personal email system. If so, she compromised classified
information. Her attorneys are not cleared to read classified
emails. Whoops.

3. Hillary testified that she only used one device for emails on one
server. Convenience, you know.

Comey stated that she used multiple devices (now up to 13) and there
were *two* servers.

4. Hillary testified that she had turned over *all* work related
emails.

Comey's comment to Congress ... not true.


The list goes on and on but the one that really underscores her deceit
and attempt to cover up her tracks is when directed by Congress to turn
over her server (and emails on it) it was first "scrubbed" by
her IT company to make it impossible to recover any deleted data. Turns
out there were *two* servers though. Whoops. Of course Hillary can
always claim that she didn't "intentionally" order the server's hard
drives to be acid washed. She was just "wiping it down with a rag" so
it didn't look dusty.

So, she either lied to Congress or she lied to the FBI. Take your pick.
Both are Federal crimes. Scrubbing the server after receiving a
Congressional subpoena is obstruction of justice ... also a federal crime.

But, she didn't mean it.

Yet with all you've said, Comey testified that none of it was worthy of
prosecution. Why do you suppose that is?
I know, I know. Master Criminal HRC is just too smart for him.
Now excuse me while I use the same standards you use to judge HRC,
against you.
Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down liar.


Good grief. He said that several of her statements made under oath to
Congress were *not true*. I guess Lemmings need to have it spelled out
in words with only one syllable to understand.

And why didn't he recommend a grand jury and indictment to the Justice
Department? Surely you can figure that one out for yourself.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 6:44:16 AM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)

Like one server or two. Like one device or thirteen. Or, "I did not have sex with that woman". Not telling the truth "is" lying, depending on the meaning of "is". :)

What an ass Comey is...
 

On 11/8/2016 6:44 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)





Oh, please Harry ... hold the lectures. I am well aware and educated in
the values of the liberal arts as well as more specific educational
endeavors. Yours are not the only points of view that have merit. In
fact, examples of binary thinking that take place in rec.boats are put
forth in far greater numbers by you and those of your political
persuasions than by most others.

Try reading my statement again ... and take note of the word "specific".

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 21:39:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down liar.

He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.

This is far from over. The next act will be in the house judiciary
committee. You guys better take the senate back or we are looking at
all investigation all the time. The only way this stops is if you get
the house and there are not many people predicting that.
I am just going to get a big bucket of popcorn and watch. I didn't
vote for any of these guys.
I would prefer a 104th congress situation where debt reduction and a
balanced budget was the main agenda.
Too bad they had a phony "shutdown" and Monica started working at the
White House.

Do you think your vote supported that preference?

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 06:44:13 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)



Just more proof that all that money you spent on a 'liberal arts' education was a waste. Here people
with and without 'real' degrees are making you the fool.

What an ass Comey is...
 

In article , says...

On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)

You're talking to a known liar. He specifically said that Comey said HRC
lied to Congress. That's a damned lie. Specifically.
Besides, if Congress if affronted they can have the DOJ file charges
under 18 U.S.C. §1621 ? perjury and 18 U.S.C. §1001 ? false
representations before Congress.
I ****ing dare them to do it.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 8:49:43 AM UTC-5, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)

You're talking to a known liar. He specifically said that Comey said HRC
lied to Congress. That's a damned lie.

You're a hoot. Keep thrashing around. Call it what you like.

Synonyms of "lying":
deceitful
deceptive
false
fraudulent
misleading
untrustworthy
bluffing
cheating
corrupt
crooked
deceiving
disreputable
double-crossing
double-dealing
lying
shady
shifty
sneaking
sneaky
tricky
two-face
two-timing
underhanded
Hillary Clinton

That sums it up pretty well.

What an ass Comey is...
 

"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 11/7/2016 9:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/6/2016 6:27 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


It has been reported that almost all the emails found on Weiner's laptop
were duplicates of those already reviewed by the FBI. So, as Comey
reports ... nothing has changed. In other words, his conclusions made
in July that she *did* have classified email on her server, that she
*did* lie to congress and she *was* reckless and careless in handling
classified material ... none of that has changed.

You're lying. Comey never said she lied to Congress.



I guess for the Lemmings, it has to be explained in simple terms. Just
a few examples:

1. Hillary testified that she did not send or receive classified info
(emails) on her private server.

Comey's response to that claim in his swore testimony: ...
"Not true".

2. Hillary testified that her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on
her personal email system. If so, she compromised classified
information. Her attorneys are not cleared to read classified
emails. Whoops.

3. Hillary testified that she only used one device for emails on one
server. Convenience, you know.

Comey stated that she used multiple devices (now up to 13) and there
were *two* servers.

4. Hillary testified that she had turned over *all* work related
emails.

Comey's comment to Congress ... not true.


The list goes on and on but the one that really underscores her deceit
and attempt to cover up her tracks is when directed by Congress to turn
over her server (and emails on it) it was first "scrubbed" by
her IT company to make it impossible to recover any deleted data. Turns
out there were *two* servers though. Whoops. Of course Hillary can
always claim that she didn't "intentionally" order the server's hard
drives to be acid washed. She was just "wiping it down with a rag" so
it didn't look dusty.

So, she either lied to Congress or she lied to the FBI. Take your pick.
Both are Federal crimes. Scrubbing the server after receiving a
Congressional subpoena is obstruction of justice ... also a federal crime.

But, she didn't mean it.

Yet with all you've said, Comey testified that none of it was worthy of
prosecution. Why do you suppose that is?
I know, I know. Master Criminal HRC is just too smart for him.
Now excuse me while I use the same standards you use to judge HRC,
against you.
Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down liar.


Good grief. He said that several of her statements made under oath to
Congress were *not true*. I guess Lemmings need to have it spelled out
in words with only one syllable to understand.

And why didn't he recommend a grand jury and indictment to the Justice
Department? Surely you can figure that one out for yourself.




She may not be telling the truth, but to call her a liar is
deplorable.
--
x


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

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.



Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is.
She will just be questioning about when saying something that she
knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury)
As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with
it.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On 11/8/16, 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.



Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is.
She will just be questioning about when saying something that she
knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury)
As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with
it.



What's a leppo?

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 07:49:41 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article , says...

On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)

You're talking to a known liar. He specifically said that Comey said HRC
lied to Congress. That's a damned lie. Specifically.
Besides, if Congress if affronted they can have the DOJ file charges
under 18 U.S.C. §1621 ? perjury and 18 U.S.C. §1001 ? false
representations before Congress.
I ****ing dare them to do it.

You need to get your head out of Krause's (a known liar) butt.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 06:58:36 -0800 (PST), Its Me wrote:

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 8:49:43 AM UTC-5, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)

You're talking to a known liar. He specifically said that Comey said HRC
lied to Congress. That's a damned lie.

You're a hoot. Keep thrashing around. Call it what you like.

Synonyms of "lying":
deceitful
deceptive
false
fraudulent
misleading
untrustworthy
bluffing
cheating
corrupt
crooked
deceiving
disreputable
double-crossing
double-dealing
lying
shady
shifty
sneaking
sneaky
tricky
two-face
two-timing
underhanded
Hillary Clinton
Harry Krause

That sums it up pretty well.

There, I fixed it for you.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 09:59:29 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 11/7/2016 9:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/6/2016 6:27 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


It has been reported that almost all the emails found on Weiner's laptop
were duplicates of those already reviewed by the FBI. So, as Comey
reports ... nothing has changed. In other words, his conclusions made
in July that she *did* have classified email on her server, that she
*did* lie to congress and she *was* reckless and careless in handling
classified material ... none of that has changed.

You're lying. Comey never said she lied to Congress.



I guess for the Lemmings, it has to be explained in simple terms. Just
a few examples:

1. Hillary testified that she did not send or receive classified info
(emails) on her private server.

Comey's response to that claim in his swore testimony: ...
"Not true".

2. Hillary testified that her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on
her personal email system. If so, she compromised classified
information. Her attorneys are not cleared to read classified
emails. Whoops.

3. Hillary testified that she only used one device for emails on one
server. Convenience, you know.

Comey stated that she used multiple devices (now up to 13) and there
were *two* servers.

4. Hillary testified that she had turned over *all* work related
emails.

Comey's comment to Congress ... not true.


The list goes on and on but the one that really underscores her deceit
and attempt to cover up her tracks is when directed by Congress to turn
over her server (and emails on it) it was first "scrubbed" by
her IT company to make it impossible to recover any deleted data. Turns
out there were *two* servers though. Whoops. Of course Hillary can
always claim that she didn't "intentionally" order the server's hard
drives to be acid washed. She was just "wiping it down with a rag" so
it didn't look dusty.

So, she either lied to Congress or she lied to the FBI. Take your pick.
Both are Federal crimes. Scrubbing the server after receiving a
Congressional subpoena is obstruction of justice ... also a federal crime.

But, she didn't mean it.

Yet with all you've said, Comey testified that none of it was worthy of
prosecution. Why do you suppose that is?
I know, I know. Master Criminal HRC is just too smart for him.
Now excuse me while I use the same standards you use to judge HRC,
against you.
Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down liar.


Good grief. He said that several of her statements made under oath to
Congress were *not true*. I guess Lemmings need to have it spelled out
in words with only one syllable to understand.

And why didn't he recommend a grand jury and indictment to the Justice
Department? Surely you can figure that one out for yourself.




She may not be telling the truth, but to call her a liar is
deplorable.

LOL. Who've you got writing your jokes for lately. That one was damn good.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 11:36:29 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/8/16, 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.



Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is.
She will just be questioning about when saying something that she
knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury)
As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with
it.



What's a leppo?

Sums up Harry's concern with integrity.

What an ass Comey is...
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)





Even those with high school diplomas or a GED took English and understand
semantics. Liberals majors seem to learn to ignore meanings that do not
conform to their preconceived notions.

What an ass Comey is...
 

Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)

You're talking to a known liar. He specifically said that Comey said HRC
lied to Congress. That's a damned lie. Specifically.
Besides, if Congress if affronted they can have the DOJ file charges
under 18 U.S.C. §1621 ? perjury and 18 U.S.C. §1001 ? false
representations before Congress.
I ****ing dare them to do it.


The FBI can not have DOJ file charges. They can recommend, but you have a
DOJ who does not want to thwart Hillary as POTUS.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On 11/8/16, 1:07 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)





Even those with high school diplomas or a GED took English and understand
semantics. Liberals majors seem to learn to ignore meanings that do not
conform to their preconceived notions.


Thanks for the comic relief you supply here.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On 11/8/16, 1:07 PM, Califbill wrote:
Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)

You're talking to a known liar. He specifically said that Comey said HRC
lied to Congress. That's a damned lie. Specifically.
Besides, if Congress if affronted they can have the DOJ file charges
under 18 U.S.C. §1621 ? perjury and 18 U.S.C. §1001 ? false
representations before Congress.
I ****ing dare them to do it.


The FBI can not have DOJ file charges. They can recommend, but you have a
DOJ who does not want to thwart Hillary as POTUS.


Doubtful but on the other hand, we have an FBI director who is in the
bag for Trump.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On 11/8/2016 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.



Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is.
She will just be questioning about when saying something that she
knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury)
As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with
it.



Ok. I get it. According to BOA, uttering a "non-truth" under oath is
*not* a lie. It's simply a "non-truth". I guess I have a ways to go
to get up to speed on modern, progressive liberal lingo.

What an ass Comey is...
 

Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
On 11/8/16, 1:07 PM, Califbill wrote:
Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)

You're talking to a known liar. He specifically said that Comey said HRC
lied to Congress. That's a damned lie. Specifically.
Besides, if Congress if affronted they can have the DOJ file charges
under 18 U.S.C. §1621 ? perjury and 18 U.S.C. §1001 ? false
representations before Congress.
I ****ing dare them to do it.


The FBI can not have DOJ file charges. They can recommend, but you have a
DOJ who does not want to thwart Hillary as POTUS.


Doubtful but on the other hand, we have an FBI director who is in the
bag for Trump.

Agreed. The only reason he was so generous to Hillery is that
it's rumored his wife recieved bagsful of money from the machine.
Not acuseing him of accepting bribes, mind you.

--
x


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

What an ass Comey is...
 

"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 11/8/2016 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.



Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is.
She will just be questioning about when saying something that she
knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury)
As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with
it.



Ok. I get it. According to BOA, uttering a "non-truth" under oath is
*not* a lie. It's simply a "non-truth". I guess I have a ways to go
to get up to speed on modern, progressive liberal lingo.




A long ways. That lingo is inbred. Normal folks will never
understand or subscribe to it. Their way of thinking is beyond
belief. That's why they had to invent lingo to mask their
unsavory adventures.
--
x


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

What an ass Comey is...
 

In article ,
says...

On 11/8/2016 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.



Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is.
She will just be questioning about when saying something that she
knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury)
As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with
it.



Ok. I get it. According to BOA, uttering a "non-truth" under oath is
*not* a lie. It's simply a "non-truth". I guess I have a ways to go
to get up to speed on modern, progressive liberal lingo.

Are you excusing your lie because you weren't under oath?
Does that make your lie a "non-truth?" In your eyes I suppose it does.
I can't put you under oath. But using the same standards you apply to
HRC, you're a low-down liar.
I can't prosecute you for lying here.
But if HRC lied to Congress, they have a remedy.
Why don't they use it?
Because this entire "lying" line is simply bull****.

What an ass Comey is...
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/8/16, 1:07 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)





Even those with high school diplomas or a GED took English and understand
semantics. Liberals majors seem to learn to ignore meanings that do not
conform to their preconceived notions.


Thanks for the comic relief you supply here.


I realize it is hard for you to recognize the truth. How did Gates, Jobs,
Zukerburg, and a few other billionaire people make it without finishing
college? According to the HK rules, they understand very little.

What an ass Comey is...
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/8/16, 1:07 PM, Califbill wrote:
Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 11/8/16, 5:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/7/2016 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:17:36 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Comey never said HRC lied to Congress. That makes you a a low-down
liar.


He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.


Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.




Wow...an argument about semantics from posters who do not believe in the
value of those danged "liberal arts." Language and its usage are, of
course, part of the liberal arts.

"How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?", you ask.

Easy. Facts may be interpreted differently. I'd give examples but, heck,
this is rec.boats. What difference does it make? :)

You're talking to a known liar. He specifically said that Comey said HRC
lied to Congress. That's a damned lie. Specifically.
Besides, if Congress if affronted they can have the DOJ file charges
under 18 U.S.C. §1621 ? perjury and 18 U.S.C. §1001 ? false
representations before Congress.
I ****ing dare them to do it.


The FBI can not have DOJ file charges. They can recommend, but you have a
DOJ who does not want to thwart Hillary as POTUS.


Doubtful but on the other hand, we have an FBI director who is in the
bag for Trump.


Even if they recommended prosecution would fall through the Lynch cracks.
Maybe that is what the private meeting with Bill was concerning. Maybe she
will get a couple million buck speaking engagement.

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 15:11:32 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Wait...you think I don't know about Aleppo? How far up that right wing
ass is your head?

What we should know about Aleppo is that the war we started against
Assad made it a worse place to live. That goes all the way back to
GHWB and involves every president since.

What an ass Comey is...
 

Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 11/8/2016 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.

Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.


Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is.
She will just be questioning about when saying something that she
knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury)
As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with
it.


Ok. I get it. According to BOA, uttering a "non-truth" under oath is
*not* a lie. It's simply a "non-truth". I guess I have a ways to go
to get up to speed on modern, progressive liberal lingo.
Are you excusing your lie because you weren't under oath?
Does that make your lie a "non-truth?" In your eyes I suppose it does.
I can't put you under oath. But using the same standards you apply to
HRC, you're a low-down liar.
I can't prosecute you for lying here.
But if HRC lied to Congress, they have a remedy.
Why don't they use it?
Because this entire "lying" line is simply bull****.

How was your day today, Kevin?

What an ass Comey is...
 

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 19:30:46 -0500, Alex wrote:

Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 11/8/2016 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.

Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.


Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is.
She will just be questioning about when saying something that she
knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury)
As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with
it.


Ok. I get it. According to BOA, uttering a "non-truth" under oath is
*not* a lie. It's simply a "non-truth". I guess I have a ways to go
to get up to speed on modern, progressive liberal lingo.
Are you excusing your lie because you weren't under oath?
Does that make your lie a "non-truth?" In your eyes I suppose it does.
I can't put you under oath. But using the same standards you apply to
HRC, you're a low-down liar.
I can't prosecute you for lying here.
But if HRC lied to Congress, they have a remedy.
Why don't they use it?
Because this entire "lying" line is simply bull****.

How was your day today, Kevin?

Before or after Greg smacked him upside the head?

What an ass Comey is...
 

Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 19:30:46 -0500, Alex wrote:

Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 11/8/2016 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.

Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.


Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is.
She will just be questioning about when saying something that she
knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury)
As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with
it.

Ok. I get it. According to BOA, uttering a "non-truth" under oath is
*not* a lie. It's simply a "non-truth". I guess I have a ways to go
to get up to speed on modern, progressive liberal lingo.
Are you excusing your lie because you weren't under oath?
Does that make your lie a "non-truth?" In your eyes I suppose it does.
I can't put you under oath. But using the same standards you apply to
HRC, you're a low-down liar.
I can't prosecute you for lying here.
But if HRC lied to Congress, they have a remedy.
Why don't they use it?
Because this entire "lying" line is simply bull****.
How was your day today, Kevin?
Before or after Greg smacked him upside the head?



That was yesterday. Today is a new day!