Comey Defends Decision Not To Recommend Indictment of Hillary

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Wait. Did you just say you only need Yahoo and CNBC to prove that Yahoo and CNBC are lying? I think I saw that episode on Star Trek
You know where Kirk told the Android that he was lying and everything he said was a lie. The Android went into a mind spin because if he was lying then he was telling the truth but if he was telling the truth was was lying and so and so on. Kinds like when Bush did the fool me once skit on SNL. No wait that wasn't a skit was it. Just typical conservative logic. Hell I am glad I am not an Android you almost got me with that one.

Once again you confirm what a stupid mutha fucking lib-retard you are, MT Jockstrap. The New York Times article is the one that confirms, that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are lying about what the New York Times reported Powell said, MT Jockstrap.

BTW, MT Jockstrap, I enjoy pointing how stupid you are and I enjoy pointing out how the lib-retard lame-stream media lies, MT Jockstrap. So, if you want to keep pretending that you're too stupid to understand, just give me another opportunity to happily explain how and why you are stupid, MT Jockstrap.

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Which one are you in that pic, MT Jockstrap?

Lets just say in that pic I was the "MT" one.

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Once again you confirm what a stupid mutha fucking lib-retard you are, MT Jockstrap. The New York Times article is the one that confirms, that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are lying about what the New York Times reported Powell said, MT Jockstrap.

BTW, MT Jockstrap, I enjoy pointing how stupid you are and I enjoy pointing out how the lib-retard lame-stream media lies, MT Jockstrap. So, if you want to keep pretending that you're too stupid to understand, just give me another opportunity to happily explain how and why you are stupid, MT Jockstrap.

I know that but read what you posted dumbass

"I don't need any fucking source other than the one that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are misquoting to prove that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are lying, MT Jockstrap."

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

I know that but read what you posted dumbass

"I don't need any fucking source other than the one that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are misquoting to prove that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are lying, MT Jockstrap."

The "one" they are misquoting is the article in the New York Times, MT Jockstrap!

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Lets just say in that pic I was the "MT" one.

Oh, so you are the one dropping his load, forcefully, into another man. That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up! Oh, you are a sick bastard, MT Jockstrap.

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The "one" they are misquoting is the article in the New York Times, MT Jockstrap!

Now see is that so hard you can do it. Don't be scared to say it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Now see is that so hard you can do it. Don't be scared to say it.

Now you don't even understand that you never understood, MT Jockstrap, just like hildebeest lies about never lying.

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Now you don't even understand that you never understood, MT Jockstrap, just like hildebeest lies about never lying.

I told you on several occasions that I read the article or I would not have known his name. You wanted to play dumb so I played by your rules. You like to make an observation and then make it the format of an argument. I agreed that the OP was wrong but you just kept on rolling down the track because of your blinders you like to put on. Several times I told you I read the fucking article but you had tunnel vision. Think about it how else would I know his name? Idiot!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

I told you on several occasions that I read the article or I would not have known his name. You wanted to play dumb so I played by your rules. You like to make an observation and then make it the format of an argument. I agreed that the OP was wrong but you just kept on rolling down the track because of your blinders you like to put on. Several times I told you I read the fucking article but you had tunnel vision. Think about it how else would I know his name? Idiot!

You'd be the one who played stupid, MT Jockstrap. The veracity of the story hinged on what Powell was reported to have said, MT Jockstrap, and flighty, Yahoo and CNBC mendaciously misquoted what Powell said according to the New York Times, MT Jockstrap. And like I said, MT Jockstrap, I enjoy pointing out where lib-retards are stupid and where the lame-stream media lies.

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You'd be the one who played stupid, MT Jockstrap. The veracity of the story hinged on what Powell was reported to have said, MT Jockstrap, and flighty, Yahoo and CNBC mendaciously misquoted what Powell said according to the New York Times, MT Jockstrap. And like I said, MT Jockstrap, I enjoy pointing out where lib-retards are stupid and where the lame-stream media lies.

What you are having trouble with is that I began by asking a simple question and making a comment of my opinion of Conasan.
Instead of saying something like, Well you know MT that dude is a pretty reliable source and I don't have another at the moment if you must have another I will look. Not promising anything but I will try' Or you could have said too bad motherfucker he said it and I believe him. Instead you were so consumed with your pulpit ramblings using all kinds of morphed names for people you completely lost sight of what the question even was.

Even now you just said "the story hinged on what Powell was reported to have said" "was reported" to have said? Sounds like you are not even sure now.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

What you are having trouble with is that I began by asking a simple question and making a comment of my opinion of Conasan.
Instead of saying something like, Well you know MT that dude is a pretty reliable source and I don't have another at the moment if you must have another I will look. Not promising anything but I will try' Or you could have said too bad motherfucker he said it and I believe him. Instead you were so consumed with your pulpit ramblings using all kinds of morphed names for people you completely lost sight of what the question even was.

Even now you just said "the story hinged on what Powell was reported to have said" "was reported" to have said? Sounds like you are not even sure now.

What your stupid ass is having trouble with is understanding how what Conasan said about Powell is fundamentally germane to the story. The New York Times article is built around what Conasan said about Powell, MT Jockstrap. The New York Times article quoted what Conasan said about Powell, MT Jockstrap. It really doesn't matter whether Conasan is right or wrong to understand that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are mendaciously misrepresenting what the New York Times reported about Conasan's remark by ignoring what is boldly highlighted below, MT Jockstrap.

“Powell told her to use her own email, as he had done, except for classified communications, which he had sent and received via a State Department computer.”

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What your stupid ass is having trouble with is understanding how what Conasan said about Powell is fundamentally germane to the story. The New York Times article is built around what Conasan said about Powell, MT Jockstrap. The New York Times article quoted what Conasan said about Powell, MT Jockstrap. It really doesn't matter whether Conasan is right or wrong to understand that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are mendaciously misrepresenting what the New York Times reported about Conasan's remark by ignoring what is boldly highlighted below, MT Jockstrap.

What you seem to have trouble with is I acknowledged that Conasan said it. I then commented that I would like to see another source to support what he asserted. Surely Powell has been asked this by somebody else and he would confirm what Conasan said. Why is that so hard? I am gonna research and see if I can find it. You should be the one supporting your claim but you are too bust making up nicknames.
Honestly I am gonna see if I can find a confirmation of it and get back to you. May be later today I am always busy on fridays.

I did find this just now.

" The New York Times said journalist Joe Conason first reported the talk in his forthcoming book about Bill Clinton’s life after the presidency, “Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton.”
An advanced copy the newspaper received states that Hillary Clinton spoke with Powell during a dinner party in Washington, D.C., hosted by Madeleine Albright, another former secretary of State.

Former secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Condoleeza Rice also attended the festivities, which occurred at Albright’s home.

“Toward the end of the evening, over dessert, Albright asked all of the former secretaries to offer one salient bit of counsel to the nation’s next top diplomat,” Conason wrote.

“Powell told [Clinton] to use her own email, as he had done, except for classified communications, which he had sent and received via a State Department computer,” he added.

“Saying that his use of personal email had been transformative for the department, [Powell] thus confirmed a decision she had made months earlier — to keep her personal account and use it for most messages.”

The Times said Conason is a longtime defender of the Clintons and interviewed both Bill and Hillary for his book.

Powell’s office released a statement late Thursday saying he had no recollection of the dinner conversation.

Powell did write Hillary Clinton an email memo, the Times said, detailing his use of his personal email account for unclassified messages “and how it vastly improved communications within the State Department.”

Hillary Clinton also had a 2009 email exchange with Powell about his email practices at State after deciding to use a personal account there."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-private-email

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

What you seem to have trouble with is I acknowledged that Conasan said it. I then commented that I would like to see another source to support what he asserted. Surely Powell has been asked this by somebody else and he would confirm what Conasan said. Why is that so hard? I am gonna research and see if I can find it. You should be the one supporting your claim but you are too bust making up nicknames.
Honestly I am gonna see if I can find a confirmation of it and get back to you. May be later today I am always busy on fridays.

I did find this just now.

" The New York Times said journalist Joe Conason first reported the talk in his forthcoming book about Bill Clinton’s life after the presidency, “Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton.”
An advanced copy the newspaper received states that Hillary Clinton spoke with Powell during a dinner party in Washington, D.C., hosted by Madeleine Albright, another former secretary of State.

Former secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Condoleeza Rice also attended the festivities, which occurred at Albright’s home.

“Toward the end of the evening, over dessert, Albright asked all of the former secretaries to offer one salient bit of counsel to the nation’s next top diplomat,” Conason wrote.

“Powell told [Clinton] to use her own email, as he had done, except for classified communications, which he had sent and received via a State Department computer,” he added.

“Saying that his use of personal email had been transformative for the department, [Powell] thus confirmed a decision she had made months earlier — to keep her personal account and use it for most messages.”

The Times said Conason is a longtime defender of the Clintons and interviewed both Bill and Hillary for his book.

Powell’s office released a statement late Thursday saying he had no recollection of the dinner conversation.

Powell did write Hillary Clinton an email memo, the Times said, detailing his use of his personal email account for unclassified messages “and how it vastly improved communications within the State Department.”

Hillary Clinton also had a 2009 email exchange with Powell about his email practices at State after deciding to use a personal account there."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-private-email

According to the New York Times article, Conason put his remark on paper before hildebeest had her FBI interview, MT Jockstrap. So, your notion that Conason is intentionally -- after-the-fact -- manipulating the story to hildebeest's disadvantage is pure bullshit, MT Jockstrap. However, what is trivially obvious to anyone with the education of a fifth grader and above, MT Jockstrap, is that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC misrepresented what the New York Times actually reported and excluded what Powell was quoted as saying about handling classified material.

[lustylad]

This MT Pockface jackass is such a worthless, ignorant troll that he actually expects other people to jump through hoops and find additional sources for him, when he can't even give a basis for dismissing the original source.

Since the pock-faced troll never had a proper education (that's why he's an internet troll), he never learned how to substantiate anything. He has no grasp of logical thinking or how to debate. When challenged, he repeats himself, argues in circles, and melts down. His crude spoutings are childish and obscene, a constant primal scream for attention. He is stuck on the lowest rung of the educational ladder. He is a shining example of the trashy high-school dropout demographic - the very group that he stupidly claims is supporting Trump, after he produced data showing that they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats! And he is too chickenshit to bet on how his fellow retards in the high-school dropout bracket will vote on November 8, even while he insists they all support Trump!

Notice the irony here? Everyone on eccie can see that MT Pockface is a "liar" and a "hack" and a thoroughly "unreliable source" for anything other than disinformation and gibberish. And that's a fact that is well-substantiated by his 195 eccie posts!

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

According to the New York Times article, Conason put his remark on paper before hildebeest had her FBI interview, MT Jockstrap. So, your notion that Conason is intentionally -- after-the-fact -- manipulating the story to hildebeest's disadvantage is pure bullshit, MT Jockstrap. However, what is trivially obvious to anyone with the education of a fifth grader and above, MT Jockstrap, is that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC misrepresented what the New York Times actually reported and excluded what Powell was quoted as saying about handling classified material.

What on earth do you mean by after the fact? Just more bullshit to avoid you have only one source and Powell himself denying it was said. I gave you a chance to find out for yourself but no you had to go wild with the name calling instead. If you find something that can prove it was said I would be interested in seeing it. I never denied it was said I merely asked for another source. Take a breath before you pop a vain.