.

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Oh dear: the FBI were meanies wanting to investigate Clinton for her crimes. How dare they...there should be a law against it.

Right?

FBI. We are investigating for possible crimes.

YAY.!

FBI. We have finished our investigation and found no crimes.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CRIMES!

 

What crimes? They said there weren't any, but a weeks worth of uncertainty right before the election intimating that there might be was gold for Trump.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

FBI. We are investigating for possible crimes.

YAY.!

FBI. We have finished our investigation and found no crimes.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CRIMES!

 

What crimes? They said there weren't any, but a weeks worth of uncertainty right before the election intimating that there might be was gold for Trump.

On no...the emails.

What to do? Read 'em all?? There are a LOT. Guys? What do you think? Any crimes?

No.

No.

No.

We're settled... there's nothing to see in 650,000 emails.

[DogOnPorch]

Sir? Obama on line 2...

[Argus]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

On no...the emails.

What to do? Read 'em all?? There are a LOT. Guys? What do you think? Any crimes?

No.

No.

No.

We're settled... there's nothing to see in 650,000 emails.

I don't know if you've never actually used email, but it's not a difficult task to simply, with the click of a button, separate them out by sender. They didn't need to read all the emails on Wiener and his wife's computer. They only needed to look at the ones that came from Clinton's account. Then they used a computer program which sifted through them to compare them to the ones they had already gone through which came from Clinton's own server in order to eliminate duplicates. There wasn't much left to look at.

[DogOnPorch]

Telling the FBI how to investigate: a LOT of folks are doing this lately.

[Wilber]

Quote

We're settled... there's nothing to see in 650,000 emails.

Probably lots of juicy Weiner stuff to see but how many involved Clinton discussing state business or any from her that they hadn't seen before?

Quote

Sir? Obama on line 2...

Obama is gone in January. Trump will be his new master and Clinton probably wouldn't keep him. What do you think?

Edited November 14, 2016 by Wilber

[Boges]

7 minutes ago, Smallc said:

538 has a band of possible outcomes by state.

I'm sorry but extrapolating a 3 in 4 chance of winning based on narrow margins in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Perhaps the odds were low that he would take all the states he needed. But it seems, in hindsight, that each state race were a lot closer than pundits let us believe. Both Florida and Ohio went pretty comfortably to Trump. 

[DogOnPorch]

10 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Probably lots of juicy Weiner stuff to see but how many involved Clinton discussing state business or any from her that they hadn't seen before?

Obama is gone in January. Trump will be his new master and Clinton probably wouldn't keep him. What do you think?

 

My scenario: investigation squashed by a phone-call...or...lol...email...from a higher authority.

[Smallc]

14 minutes ago, Boges said:

I'm sorry but extrapolating a 3 in 4 chance of winning based on narrow margins in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Perhaps the odds were low that he would take all the states he needed. But it seems, in hindsight, that each state race were a lot closer than pundits let us believe. Both Florida and Ohio went pretty comfortably to Trump. 

Florida didn't go comfortably for Trump.  Ohio was always predicted to go for him.

[Wilber]

16 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

My scenario: investigation squashed by a phone-call...or...lol...email...from a higher authority.

Doesn't matter what the FBI says, DOP knows.

[?Impact]

Requoting the 650,000 email figure is again proof positive of how dumb Trump supporters were. It was very clear from earlier FBI statements based on serial numbers on the Clinton email server, the one they used to demonstrate there were deleted emails, is that there were about 63,000 emails total and they had copies of 30,000 of them. That means that only in ones blind partisan deranged mind could another 590,000 emails be conjured up in a spirit dinner. 
 

[Boges]

7 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Requoting the 650,000 email figure is again proof positive of how dumb Trump supporters were. It was very clear from earlier FBI statements based on serial numbers on the Clinton email server, the one they used to demonstrate there were deleted emails, is that there were about 63,000 emails total and they had copies of 30,000 of them. That means that only in ones blind partisan deranged mind could another 590,000 emails be conjured up in a spirit dinner. 
 

And what of the Obama voters that stayed home? 

[DogOnPorch]

47 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Doesn't matter what the FBI says, DOP knows.

That moment one realizes the corruption goes right to the top...or not.

[DogOnPorch]

27 minutes ago, Boges said:

And what of the Obama voters that stayed home? 

 

Vote??? This was SUPPOSED to be a coronation.

[Wilber]

8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

That moment one realizes the corruption goes right to the top...or not.

I know, the truth can only be found on my internet sources, Only the internet doesn't lie.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

I know, the truth can only be found on my internet sources, Only the internet doesn't lie.

A Brave New World, Alpha...the Gammas are knocking.

[Wilber]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

A Brave New World, Alpha...the Gammas are knocking.

Unlike the internet, the law requires law enforcement agencies to tell the truth. I know that they don't always but they can be subject to legal consequences when they don't. No restrictions on the internet, you don't even need to give your identity.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

Unlike the internet, the law requires law enforcement agencies to tell the truth. I know that they don't always but they can be subject to legal consequences when they don't. No restrictions on the internet, you don't even need to give your identity.

 

Requires...LOL.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

Telling the FBI how to investigate: a LOT of folks are doing this lately.

That is what the FBI said they did.

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

That is what the FBI said they did.

 

650,000 emails....start reading....NOW.

~click~ goes the stop watch.

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

650,000 emails....start reading....NOW.

~click~ goes the stop watch.

And a few seconds later the scanning software completes. It spits out a dozen for humans to look at.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, ?Impact said:

And a few seconds later the scanning software completes. It spits out a dozen for humans to look at.

 

Let's 're-calibrate' it a bit.

[taxme]

32 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Unlike the internet, the law requires law enforcement agencies to tell the truth. I know that they don't always but they can be subject to legal consequences when they don't. No restrictions on the internet, you don't even need to give your identity.

Would you tell us all your identity? There are lots of crazy people out there that just might come knocking on your door one day if you did tell them who you are. It would be nice if it were safe to do so but in today's world remaining anonymous is the only thing one can do, if they know what is good for them.  

[DogOnPorch]

Google Earth is particularly good re: sniffing out where you took that photo you just shared. Right where you were standing...

There is no privacy. These days, you could have a drone looking through your window from a mile away.

I fear even Trumpzilla could do Zilch about dat.

 

[Wilber]

20 minutes ago, taxme said:

Would you tell us all your identity? There are lots of crazy people out there that just might come knocking on your door one day if you did tell them who you are. It would be nice if it were safe to do so but in today's world remaining anonymous is the only thing one can do, if they know what is good for them.  

I'm not suggesting you share your identity, just point out the willingness of many to believe anonymous internet sources over those who are actually accountable for what they say.