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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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".