In article ,
says...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

8:20 AMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
The Repugnants have been hounding Hillary nearly 30 years with one
bull**** investigation after another, and all of them have had only one
purpose, to try to destroy her as a POTUS candidate.
......

She's been running for POTUS for 30 years???

Wow. That beats Nixons ....

Jul 8Keyser Söze
- show quoted text -
I'm sorry...what crimes did Mrs. Clinton been charged with or convicted of?
.....

Hmmm. I guess we could ask the same about OJ Simpson

On 7/9/16 9:46 AM, Tim wrote:
Jul 8Keyser Söze
- show quoted text -
I'm sorry...what crimes did Mrs. Clinton been charged with or convicted of?
....

Hmmm. I guess we could ask the same about OJ Simpson


OJ's been convicted of felonies, Timmy. Try to keep no more than 15
years behind the curve on the news, eh?

Well with two corpses lying in his wake, OJ WASNT convicted of murder.... Lol.

That's right. It's been 15 years Harrie. Maybe you did forget already.

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

In article ,
says...

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

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

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

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

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

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:48:38 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/9/16 9:46 AM, Tim wrote:
Jul 8Keyser Söze
- show quoted text -
I'm sorry...what crimes did Mrs. Clinton been charged with or convicted of?
....

Hmmm. I guess we could ask the same about OJ Simpson


OJ's been convicted of felonies, Timmy. Try to keep no more than 15
years behind the curve on the news, eh?

Nixon would have been a better analogy ... for all of this.

On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 10:31:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:48:38 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/9/16 9:46 AM, Tim wrote:
Jul 8Keyser Söze
- show quoted text -
I'm sorry...what crimes did Mrs. Clinton been charged with or convicted of?
....

Hmmm. I guess we could ask the same about OJ Simpson


OJ's been convicted of felonies, Timmy. Try to keep no more than 15
years behind the curve on the news, eh?

Nixon would have been a better analogy ... for all of this.


https://cdn.creators.com/588/181885/181885_image.jpg

On 7/9/16 10:20 AM, Tim wrote:
Well with two corpses lying in his wake, OJ WASNT convicted of murder.... Lol.

That's right. It's been 15 years Harrie. Maybe you did forget already.


In his murder trial, OJ could afford and had the best defense team a
rich white man could buy. They simply outclassed and outperformed the
prosecutors and the defense was helped by a racist cop.