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: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:33:52 -0500
Organization: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <o7g9pl$isu$7@dont-email.me>
References: <efkvkmF2eu1U1@mid.individual.net> <o744vt$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$1@dont-email.me> <050220171514537945%nospam@nospam.invalid> <o7bbjs$ggp$1@dont-email.me> <070220172103406656%nospam@nospam.invalid> <D4BFD710.8EF8D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
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="aefecf5c0b034321bbc62e77cdbaad0d"; logging-data="19358"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/vIhR+3ydUMBagp43CpJRl"
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:ht0ikqpBIT5ny+s3uAysjn4j91I=
Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:99994

On 2017-02-07 21:57:04 -0500, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:

> On 2/7/17, 7:39 PM, in article o7e0ck$n89$3@news.datemas.de, "Alan Baker"
> <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 2017-02-07 6:03 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <o7bbjs$ggp$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?
>>> 
>>> sure do, but apparently you do not.
>>> 
>>> although he did say those words, those words are *false*, which means
>>> it's a *lie*.
>> 
>> No. Because those words are inherently a JUDGEMENT.
>> 
>>> 
>>> *many* reasonable prosecutors were not only shocked at what he said,
>>> but they would have *jumped* at the opportunity to pursue it in court.
>> 
>> Quote one.
>> 
> He did not recommend indictment, but he did note:
> 
> Clinton:
> * Mishandled sensitive information
> * Knew she mishandled sensitive information
> * Showed "extreme carelessness" and was "sloppy"
> * Should have understood her actions were illegal
> * Responded to "suspicious emails"
> * Allowed "America's secrets [to be] vulnerable to hostile element[s]"
> * Showed "intent and consciousness of guilt"
> * Failed to follow internal policy
> * Failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act
> * Stored confidential materials on a system less secure than Gmail
> * Showed poor understanding of what how to keep information secure
> * Showed poor understanding of technology in general
> 
> And Clinton lied... here are just some:
> * Claiming under oath that she turned over all work related emails
> * Claiming under oath her lawyers read all of the emails to determine
>   which were work related
> * Claiming under oath that she never sent / received information marked
>   classified (though such markings that existed were done incorrectly)
> * Claiming she never sent / received classified information
> * Claiming the server she used was allowed under policy
> * Claiming she followed the Freedom of Information Act
> * Claiming that her server was secure
> * Claiming she used only one device (Comey is unclear about concurrent
>   usage but elsewhere Clinton speaks of using an iPhone and a Blackberry
>   in such a way)
> * Claiming all of her emails were saved or "captured"
> * Denying she deleted work related emails or had others do so
> * Denying she had emails deleted to prevent others from seeing them
> * Denying the FBI investigation was a criminal investigation
> * Denying she was the target of the FBI investigation
> 
> Additionally, Clinton:
> * Instructed people without clearance to read / handle classified
>   information
> * Instructed these same people to delete and hide classified information
> * Had a system which may have been hacked (we do not know)

Again... proof?  No.

Full os shit?  Yes.
-- 
"Now Trump and his minions are in the driver’s seat, attempting to pose 
as respectable participants in American politics, when their views come 
out of a playbook written in German."  -Ron Rosenbaum, Author of 
'Explaining Hitler'
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson-munich-post/