TPP

[bob]

and TT. has a nice ring to it.
TPP-TT-TPP-TT. sing it!

bob

[TT]

Tough on China, tough in gina - grab it!

[Carey]

You sound like John Podesta

[bob]

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:19:39 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

aww, that's gotta hurt. TT would shoot podesta in the head if he
could. :-))

bob

[Carey]

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 6:26:25 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:19:39 -0700 (PDT), Carey

> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 6:11:35 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> >> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 3:58:
> >> > and TT. has a nice ring to it.
> >> > TPP-TT-TPP-TT. sing it!
> >> >
> >> > bob
> >> >
> >>
> >> Tough on China, tough in gina - grab it!
> >
> >
> >You sound like John Podesta
>
> aww, that's gotta hurt. TT would shoot podesta in the head if he
> could. :-))
>
> bob

"Hillary never fails; she can only be failed."


"stupid voters"

[TT]

Why? Nothing against Podesta, smart man.

And there actually was NOTHING in his emails. Rather boring fella.

[bob]

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 04:47:59 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 4:26:
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:19:39 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 6:11:35 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>>>> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 3:58:
>>>>> and TT. has a nice ring to it.
>>>>> TPP-TT-TPP-TT. sing it!
>>>>>
>>>>> bob
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tough on China, tough in gina - grab it!
>>>
>>>
>>> You sound like John Podesta
>>
>> aww, that's gotta hurt. TT would shoot podesta in the head if he
>> could. :-))
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>Why? Nothing against Podesta, smart man.

he's not as good a "phisherman" as putin.

>And there actually was NOTHING in his emails. Rather boring fella.

other than hillary's email address, no. lol!!

bob

[TT]

And what's wrong with that. Are you really blind enough not to see that
there was nothing there and all the 'controversies' rising from Podesta
emails were completely manufactured...

Or, can you name a controversy arising from Podesta's emails without
googling it up? You can't. Now THAT was a real 'nothingburger'.

[bob]

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 05:02:03 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 4:50:
>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 04:47:59 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>
>>> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 4:26:
>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:19:39 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 6:11:35 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>>>>>> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 3:58:
>>>>>>> and TT. has a nice ring to it.
>>>>>>> TPP-TT-TPP-TT. sing it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tough on China, tough in gina - grab it!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You sound like John Podesta
>>>>
>>>> aww, that's gotta hurt. TT would shoot podesta in the head if he
>>>> could. :-))
>>>>
>>>> bob
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why? Nothing against Podesta, smart man.
>>
>> he's not as good a "phisherman" as putin.
>>
>>> And there actually was NOTHING in his emails. Rather boring fella.
>>
>> other than hillary's email address, no. lol!!
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>And what's wrong with that. Are you really blind enough not to see that
>there was nothing there and all the 'controversies' rising from Podesta
>emails were completely manufactured...

? to us that have held ts clearances, what hillary did was criminal.
and the reason she did it was even more criminal.

the fact nobody knew about it til podesta, well, what are you saying?
that "nothing" came out of hillary's email server situation? and the
33,000 emails she deleted many with classified info? that it wasn't a
campain issue?

what on earth are you smokin tonight TT?

>Or, can you name a controversy arising from Podesta's emails without
>googling it up? You can't. Now THAT was a real 'nothingburger'.

i just did. no foogling.

bob

[TT]

What did Hillary do which was found out from Podesta emails?

Since I don't remember a damn thing coming out of them. (apart from
random manufactured nothinburgers)

[Carey]

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 7:22:33 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:


>
> What did Hillary do which was found out from Podesta emails?
>
> Since I don't remember a damn thing coming out of them. (apart from
> random manufactured nothinburgers)

remembering is hard

[bob]

podesta's emails were the reason hillary's email server was exposed.
and what she did on her email server i just explained to you.

she broke laws and acted in complete disregard for an accepted method
of gov't communications just by having it, and did something any other
employee would be fired or prosecuted for.

and she did it for paranoid control hunger power thirsty reasons - she
knew she was running long ago and wanted to make sure she never
slipped up and let her email in gov't control, not her own control.
this is obvious stuff TT, c'mon.

>Since I don't remember a damn thing coming out of them. (apart from
>random manufactured nothinburgers)

she deleted 33,000 of them. after having them for MONTHS. i reckon
those were the ones that had "nothing on them."

bob

[TT]

That was obviously the fault of Russian hackers and Clinton herself, not
really podesta's.

Podesta emails were released on October and November 2016... a bunch of
nothingburgers dripped and twisted & exaggerated by right wing media. No
reason to hate Podesta.

[Carey]

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 7:52:44 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 5:27:

> > On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 05:22:33 +0300, TT wrote:
> >
> >> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 5:08:
> >>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 05:02:03 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 4:50:
> >>>>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 04:47:59 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 4:26:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:19:39 -0700 (PDT), Carey

ROOSKIES! Another evidence-free post.

The DNC, whose contractor Crowdstrike made the claim of Russian! hacking,
very curiously wouldn't allow the FBI to examine their servers for, y'know,
actual evidence of hacking, Russian or otherwise...

odd

[TT]

bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 5:27:
> podesta's emails were the reason hillary's email server was exposed.

No.

...Clinton's private email server was exposed March 2015.
...Podesta's GMAIL account was hacked in March 2016.

"Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first
discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely
distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which
Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account."

[TT]

Sounds like another 911 conspiracy you have cooking there.
Besides, Podesta emails had nothing to do with DNC hack ffs.

[Carey]

you're dissembling again, Titty, and it's not good for you!

How's Mum?

[TT]

Take another beer...

[Carey]

You're a WaPoo lover, so here's a bit from that rag on ISDS:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html

[Carey]

On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 8:20:30 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:

> > you're dissembling again, Titty, and it's not good for you!
> >
> > How's Mum?
> >
>
> Take another beer...

touchy

[bob]

it's not the content in podesta's emails that was important, it's who
was in his contacts list. :-)

bob

[bob]

?? hillary hires a computer cleaning company to wipe anything clean
(well, that which she chose) and that sounds like 911 conspiracy? what
on earth?

>Besides, Podesta emails had nothing to do with DNC hack ffs.

true, nothing to do with DNC hack (or leaks from the guy who was
murdered). but that darn home server...

bob

[TT]

I already pointed out that Podesta had nothing to do with Clinton
private server becoming news. Besides, why are we discussing Clinton now?

[TT]

Hillary wiped DNC servers clean too? Wow.

>> Besides, Podesta emails had nothing to do with DNC hack ffs.
>
> true, nothing to do with DNC hack (or leaks from the guy who was
> murdered). but that darn home server...
>
> bob
>

Yeah, Hillary murdered some random employer - you got me there! Genius.

[bob]

of course not. her own server was sent to that colorado company. DNC
was completely different issue.

>>> Besides, Podesta emails had nothing to do with DNC hack ffs.
>>
>> true, nothing to do with DNC hack (or leaks from the guy who was
>> murdered). but that darn home server...
>>
>> bob
>>
>Yeah, Hillary murdered some random employer - you got me there! Genius.

hillary didn't pull the gun, no. she had an alibi. but somebody
murdered the leaker - at 4am in DC. just by "chance."

you're one naive dude!

bob

[bob]

cause it's fun. don't you enjoy raggin on clinton?

bob

[TT]

bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 16:18:

> hillary didn't pull the gun, no. she had an alibi. but somebody
> murdered the leaker - at 4am in DC. just by "chance."
>
> you're one naive dude!
>
> bob
>

lol

[TT]

More like because you have nothing else when it comes to defending
Trump... "But but but... HILLARY!"

[bob]

were you in DC last year by chance? where were u at 4am?

bob

[bob]

i have nothing to defend trump for.

i mean, he says dumb things on twitter, but i'm still happy at least
it's his own dumb things. i hope his transgender military ban is the
last legislation pertaining to lgbtq or any other minority that comes
from his administration, and i think it will be.

other than that what has trump done to bother me?

hillary was the alternative to trump. why not talk about her?

bob

[Carey]

Wonder if TT is on salary, or paid by the post? Seems like the latter.


"It's not workin'"

[TT]

Carey kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 17:05:
> Wonder if TT is on salary, or paid by the post? Seems like the latter.
>

Soros.

[TT]

bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 16:18:
> hillary didn't pull the gun, no. she had an alibi. but somebody
> murdered the leaker - at 4am in DC. just by "chance."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/01/lawsuit_by_rod_wheeler_alleges_white_house_helped_fox_news_push_the_seth.html

[bob]

you would be 1 of many thousands then.

bob

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 06/08/2017 03:27, bob wrote:


> podesta's emails were the reason hillary's email server was exposed.

Her use of a private email server was known in March 2015, which was
12 months before Podesta's email account was compromised, and a further
6-7 months before his emails were published on WikiLeaks.

Here's a report from March 3, 2015:


<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-state-department-email-private-account/story?id=29352617>

> and what she did on her email server i just explained to you.
>
> she broke laws and acted in complete disregard for an accepted method
> of gov't communications just by having it, and did something any other
> employee would be fired or prosecuted for.

The FBI decided that she didn't break any laws.

Here's another March 3rd article pointing out that 'Hillary Clinton's
use of private email not unusual':


<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-hillary-clinton-emails-20150303-story.html>

John Kerry was the first SoS to rely on a state.gov server.

> and she did it for paranoid control hunger power thirsty reasons - she
> knew she was running long ago and wanted to make sure she never
> slipped up and let her email in gov't control, not her own control.
> this is obvious stuff TT, c'mon.
>
>> Since I don't remember a damn thing coming out of them. (apart from
>> random manufactured nothinburgers)
>
> she deleted 33,000 of them. after having them for MONTHS. i reckon
> those were the ones that had "nothing on them."

And the 31,000 deleted emails were personal and unrelated to her job,
though only she and/or her staff decided that.

> bob
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Carey]

You're conflating 'private email' with a *private server*. False equivalence,
but nice try.

And no, the FBI did not determine that HRC "didn't break any laws".
Please provide a source for that quote.

For whom do you work, Sir?

[Brian W Lawrence]

> You're conflating 'private email' with a *private server*. False equivalence,
> but nice try.

Was I? Damn, I should read more carefully. Anyway, it was still known in
March 2015 that she had used a *private server*.

> And no, the FBI did not determine that HRC "didn't break any laws".
> Please provide a source for that quote.

It wasn't a quote, I typed it based on the fact that the FBI
investigations concluded "we are expressing to Justice our view that no
charges are appropriate in this case", James B. Comey, July 5, 2016

> For whom do you work, Sir?

I don't work for anyone. When I was employed I worked for the United
Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).

<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-atomic-energy-authority>

Who do you work for?

[Carey]

...which is not an FBI statement that no laws were broken.

>
> > For whom do you work, Sir?
>
> I don't work for anyone. When I was employed I worked for the United
> Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).
>
> <https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-atomic-energy-authority>
>
> Who do you work for?
>

laborer

[Carey]

Adding: What's your take on the Treeza and Arlene show, so far?
Will the former still be PM in six months?

[TT]

Brian W Lawrence kirjoitti 8.8.2017 klo 18:15:
> When I was employed I worked for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
> Authority (UKAEA)

Sounds impressive.

[stephenJ]

On 8/5/2017 9:02 PM, TT wrote:
> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 4:50:
>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 04:47:59 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>
>>> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 4:26:
>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:19:39 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 6:11:35 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>>>>>> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 3:58:
>>>>>>> and TT. has a nice ring to it.
>>>>>>> TPP-TT-TPP-TT. sing it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tough on China, tough in gina - grab it!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You sound like John Podesta
>>>>
>>>> aww, that's gotta hurt. TT would shoot podesta in the head if he
>>>> could. :-))
>>>>
>>>> bob
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why? Nothing against Podesta, smart man.
>>
>> he's not as good a "phisherman" as putin.
>>
>>> And there actually was NOTHING in his emails. Rather boring fella.
>>
>> other than hillary's email address, no. lol!!
>>
>> bob
>>
>
> And what's wrong with that. Are you really blind enough not to see that
> there was nothing there and all the 'controversies' rising from Podesta
> emails were completely manufactured...
>

> Or, can you name a controversy arising from Podesta's emails without
> googling it up? You can't. Now THAT was a real 'nothingburger'.

... which makes it impossible that these "leaks" could have swung the
election, right?

[stephenJ]

On 8/5/2017 9:27 PM, bob wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 05:22:33 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>
>> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 5:08:

>>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 05:02:03 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>
>>>> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 4:50:
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 04:47:59 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 4:26:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:19:39 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 6:11:35 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>>>>>>>>> bob kirjoitti 6.8.2017 klo 3:58:
>>>>>>>>>> and TT. has a nice ring to it.
>>>>>>>>>> TPP-TT-TPP-TT. sing it!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> bob
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tough on China, tough in gina - grab it!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You sound like John Podesta
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> aww, that's gotta hurt. TT would shoot podesta in the head if he
>>>>>>> could. :-))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? Nothing against Podesta, smart man.
>>>>>
>>>>> he's not as good a "phisherman" as putin.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And there actually was NOTHING in his emails. Rather boring fella.
>>>>>
>>>>> other than hillary's email address, no. lol!!
>>>>>
>>>>> bob
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And what's wrong with that. Are you really blind enough not to see that
>>>> there was nothing there and all the 'controversies' rising from Podesta
>>>> emails were completely manufactured...
>>>

>>> ? to us that have held ts clearances, what hillary did was criminal.
>>> and the reason she did it was even more criminal.
>>>
>>> the fact nobody knew about it til podesta, well, what are you saying?
>>> that "nothing" came out of hillary's email server situation? and the
>>> 33,000 emails she deleted many with classified info? that it wasn't a
>>> campain issue?
>>>
>>> what on earth are you smokin tonight TT?
>>>

>>>> Or, can you name a controversy arising from Podesta's emails without
>>>> googling it up? You can't. Now THAT was a real 'nothingburger'.
>>>

>>> i just did. no foogling.
>>>
>>> bob
>>>
>>
>> What did Hillary do which was found out from Podesta emails?
>

> podesta's emails were the reason hillary's email server was exposed.

> and what she did on her email server i just explained to you.
>
> she broke laws and acted in complete disregard for an accepted method
> of gov't communications just by having it, and did something any other
> employee would be fired or prosecuted for.
>

> and she did it for paranoid control hunger power thirsty reasons - she
> knew she was running long ago and wanted to make sure she never
> slipped up and let her email in gov't control, not her own control.
> this is obvious stuff TT, c'mon.

Excellent synopsis. Hillary's ineptness was breathtaking at the State
Dept, and yet she thought she should be promoted to control the ship of
state?

[TT]

No. Despite being nothinburgers they were source for lots of negative
nonsense news.

Sort of like Benghazi.

[Brian W Lawrence]

And I didn't claim it was. Nevertheless, no charges have been brought,
none are likely to be brought. What laws could have been broken?

The Federal Records Act (1950)
The Freedom of Information Act (1946/1966)
The National Records and Archives (NARA)
Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and
Criminal Procedure Code

The latter is here: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924>

"U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 93 › § 1924
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified
documents or material"

[Brian W Lawrence]

> Adding: What's your take on the Treeza and Arlene show, so far?
> Will the former still be PM in six months?

I'd say that it's highly likely she will. Changing leader/PM would not
be a good idea for the government nor the Conservative Party. Also,
there are no likely candidates to take over.

Arlene Foster has nothing to do with anything really, apart from the
NI Assembly.

[Brian W Lawrence]

Wasn't really that impressive, I wasn't a nuclear physicist or anything,
although when I joined I was in the Theoretical Physics Division. A
former head of that division had a certain notoriety:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs>

Long before my time, but he probably worked in the same building.

[Carey]

Slippery.

> The Federal Records Act (1950)
> The Freedom of Information Act (1946/1966)
> The National Records and Archives (NARA)
> Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and
> Criminal Procedure Code
>
> The latter is here: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924>
>
> "U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 93 › § 1924
> 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified
> documents or material"
> >
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >

The blizzard-of-text stuff is an interesting tactic.

[Carey]

Wasn't thinking of a Conservative. There's another guy who do come to mind, though.

>
> Arlene Foster has nothing to do with anything really, apart from the
> NI Assembly.
>

Is May's shaky government not being made tenable by DUP (Foster's) support?

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 08/08/2017 18:22, Carey wrote:

>>> Adding: What's your take on the Treeza and Arlene show, so far?
>>> Will the former still be PM in six months?
>>
>> I'd say that it's highly likely she will. Changing leader/PM would not
>> be a good idea for the government nor the Conservative Party. Also,
>> there are no likely candidates to take over.
>
> Wasn't thinking of a Conservative. There's another guy who do come to mind, though.

Well there is no reason for the Conservative government to call another
election any time soon - especially after what happened in June.

>> Arlene Foster has nothing to do with anything really, apart from the
>> NI Assembly.
>
> Is May's shaky government not being made tenable by DUP (Foster's) support?

Not really, the DUP will support the government in any 'critical' votes,
but they probably would have without the agreement, and most of the
legislation over the course of this parliament is related to Brexit,
and Labour are basically in favour of that.

Of course politics in 2017 is liable to produce surprises :-)

[Brian W Lawrence]

Though a waste of time.

[Carey]

On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 10:50:33 AM UTC-7, Brian W Lawrence wrote:

> > The blizzard-of-text stuff is an interesting tactic.
>
> Though a waste of time.

Agreed, although maybe for different reasons. :)

[bob]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 14:44:15 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
<brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:

>On 06/08/2017 03:27, bob wrote:
>
>
>> podesta's emails were the reason hillary's email server was exposed.
>
>Her use of a private email server was known in March 2015, which was
>12 months before Podesta's email account was compromised, and a further
>6-7 months before his emails were published on WikiLeaks.

well that's good news. for whom, i'm not sure. but ok, no problem.

>Here's a report from March 3, 2015:
>
>
><http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-state-department-email-private-account/story?id=29352617>
>
>> and what she did on her email server i just explained to you.
>>
>> she broke laws and acted in complete disregard for an accepted method
>> of gov't communications just by having it, and did something any other
>> employee would be fired or prosecuted for.
>
>The FBI decided that she didn't break any laws.

she did break the law, but the FBI refused to indict the favorite
candidate with virtually unlimited power at that pt in time. the FBI
did say in very harsh terms that it was incredibly bad judgment.

>Here's another March 3rd article pointing out that 'Hillary Clinton's
>use of private email not unusual':
><http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-hillary-clinton-emails-20150303-story.html>

>John Kerry was the first SoS to rely on a state.gov server.
>
>> and she did it for paranoid control hunger power thirsty reasons - she
>> knew she was running long ago and wanted to make sure she never
>> slipped up and let her email in gov't control, not her own control.
>> this is obvious stuff TT, c'mon.
>>
>>> Since I don't remember a damn thing coming out of them. (apart from
>>> random manufactured nothinburgers)
>>
>> she deleted 33,000 of them. after having them for MONTHS. i reckon
>> those were the ones that had "nothing on them."
>
>And the 31,000 deleted emails were personal and unrelated to her job,
>though only she and/or her staff decided that.

said who? her? wow. see, you're an apologist for her, and am not
rational on this topic. why i'm not sure.

bob

[bob]

did you have a home email server detailing locations, plans, and
passwords for the UK's atomic energy sites, nuke plants, uranium
storage facilities and such?

did you bring a camera to work daily and take pics of "the office"?

nah.

bob

[bob]

have you ever held a united states ts security clearance, SCI or SSBI
or similar, from DOE or DOD, or anyone else?

bob

[bob]

brian to those of us who have lived, for many yrs, a life where gov't
security rules are obeyed, we know hillary broke the law.

we also know even if she did not, she behaved in a way that would
demand an immediate security clearance revocation and termination from
her employment. deny it if you will, but is what it is.


bob

[bob]

benghazi was certainly not "nothing news" although i don't blame
hillary that it happened. i do think she tried way too hard to spin it
politically in her favor, lying to do so. that was the problem. all
she needed to do was admit what happened, admit the gov't was caught
unprepared, and apologize and move on.

bob

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 09/08/2017 01:31, bob wrote:

> brian to those of us who have lived, for many yrs, a life where gov't
> security rules are obeyed, we know hillary broke the law.

You may believe that, but you don't 'know' that. If you know that
someone broke the law aren't you also breaking the law by not
reporting that fact to the authorities?

> we also know even if she did not, she behaved in a way that would
> demand an immediate security clearance revocation and termination from
> her employment. deny it if you will, but is what it is.

Same as above really.

Where is the evidence?

Which laws did she allegedly break?

People hate Hillary, people hate Donald. Haters got to hate.

bob, please don't bother replying.

[The Iceberg]

See Brian, this is the problem, the FBI said she didn't break any laws, but any layman knows that if it was somebody else that had done this, there would be serious consequences - they'd be sacked, hugely fined or imprisoned. That's not even counting the claims she "just didn't know what she was doing", it's lolable. Even you know this, but you don't even question it.

[The Iceberg]

I think Brian works for the Clinton Foundation but he'd really like to work for the Clinton News Network, but it quite tough to make up enough fake news to get hired by them.

[The Iceberg]

He's clearly highly knowledgable and dangerous rogue rocket scientist, furious with Trump! He could be hired North Korea at any moment!

[TT]

Sure it was a nothingburger. They had what 9 investigations on Hillary
and she was cleared on all of them.

[*skriptis]

The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> He's clearly highly knowledgable and dangerous rogue rocket scientist, furious with Trump! He could be hired North Korea at any moment!
>

:))
--


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

[bob]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:30:02 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
<brian_w_...@msn.com> wrote:

>On 09/08/2017 01:31, bob wrote:
>
>> brian to those of us who have lived, for many yrs, a life where gov't
>> security rules are obeyed, we know hillary broke the law.
>
>You may believe that, but you don't 'know' that. If you know that
>someone broke the law aren't you also breaking the law by not
>reporting that fact to the authorities?

no.

>> we also know even if she did not, she behaved in a way that would
>> demand an immediate security clearance revocation and termination from
>> her employment. deny it if you will, but is what it is.
>
>Same as above really.
>Where is the evidence?
>Which laws did she allegedly break?
>People hate Hillary, people hate Donald. Haters got to hate.
>bob, please don't bother replying.

the day you get an american ts ssbi or sci clearance you can
understand that culture and you can talk about these things. until
then, you don't know what you don't know and you're bringing your own
history and background of opinions into it, which don't apply.

bob

[bob]

cleared of what? benghazi wasn't her fault.

of course her lies and deception in covering it up in part cost her an
election. :-)

bob

[stephenJ]

Trump was the target of far more negative news than Clinton. Hillary got
off easy.

[TT]

Exactly. That's why the investigations on her actions were nonsense.

[bob]

i agree the investigations were politically motivated nonsense.
hillary did not cause benghazi, and though she wasn't on top of the
situation, it wasn't her fault.

however, her explanation afterward was a lie and it cost her
politically.

bob