Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FPP <fredp151@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: OT: "Every American"...
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 21:34:14 -0500
Organization: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <o7bbjs$ggp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <efkvkmF2eu1U1@mid.individual.net> <o744vt$ih5$1@dont-email.me> <040220171111192098%nospam@nospam.invalid> <o7531b$nue$1@dont-email.me> <040220171237081072%nospam@nospam.invalid> <040220171706461759%nospam@nospam.invalid> <040220172000548677%nospam@nospam.invalid> <o771fi$52d$1@dont-email.me> <050220171514537945%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9320ab4ba6a586a260ea48aaea12301a"; logging-data="16921"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ASweGFyW6F0hw3VpRUxTe"
User-Agent: Unison/1.8.1
X-Face: $S(1)nD`-E<*bgHp{U3PkEIRK8)#hgSr&jBr)+JRi#,w{fEJJ`mVW_<'}`^z[h6Hm(ewhj<
 `|P!wJ9'\zqYmj0?a3F}DO_7#0'O#l+hE,+Z6@l9>c`(Jr.!Af\<xCn8oxTE'DXvx,Q8)*Kf($<u0q
 ]>9XS_ln2I!V#Y^;UO's/#S2F:8:q2E?D`v&']"F90(j+3a$f3^42B(0El|MJ_l6"_GDD<\?ccjUYa
 0SJ]PajZR:T<e$S<pj^gXo
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4E6J8M+GOfcmB+szAiWGnV3e25c=
Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:99719

On 2017-02-05 15:14:53 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:

> In article <o771fi$52d$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> her statements under oath are as factual as it gets.
>>>> 
>>>> And which of those statements factually supports your allegation that
>>>> she "paid off" an FBI director?
>>> 
>>> why else would he not prosecute someone who broke the law?
>> 
>> He told you.  No reasonable prosecutor would have brought such a weak
>> case to court.
> 
> that is itself a lie.

Nope.  It was his exact testimony.  Do you even know what a lie is?

> "Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the 
> handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable 
> prosecutor would bring such a case," he said.
> 
> Comey said decisions on whether or not to bring charges are partly 
> based on "how similar situations have been handled in the past."
> 
> "In looking back into our investigations into the mishandling or 
> removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would 
> support bringing criminal charges on these facts," Comey said. "All the 
> cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and 
> willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of 
> information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of 
> intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United 
> States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things 
> here."
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html

If 
> 
you disagree, find a case where it has been done.  You won't, though, will you?
Blowhards and know-nothings never do...
-- 
REP. JOHN DUNCAN (R): "Do you understand that great numbers of people 
feel, now, that there's one standard of justice for the Clintons and 
another for regular people?"

COMEY:  "Yeah, I've heard that a lot... it's NOT TRUE, but I've heard 
it a lot."