#1. "RE: Comey: "No new findings"" In response to jazz4free (Reply # 0) Mon Nov-07-16 01:15 AM by peterb
Looks like former Republican James Comey bowed under pressure.He's also a former Catholic. No wonder I saw many Trump supporters wearing "Catholics Support Trump".
This whole fiasco reminds me of a quote by Barry Goldwater that was posted here some time ago:
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican Party and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
One only has to look at the former Harper Regime' and Alberta's "Wildrose Alliance" nut-bars to understand how divisive religion is on a Global scale. Trump now claims to be a "Christian" too.
Trump and his surrogates are already questioning how Comey could search 650,000 emails in 8 days. It's as if they've never heard of using computers to whittle down which e-mails need to be searched. Ones not involving Hillary or her staff and ones before/after she was Secretary of State could be disregarded. Furthermore, many were dupes and a computer program can spot these quickly. The remaining e-mails would be given to a team of people (not just one person) to look through and could easily be accomplished in a matter of days.
The 650K e-mails were all of Anthony Weiner's e-mails. Weiner was in Congress from 1999 to 2011. Hillary was Secretary of State from 2009 - 2013. This only leaves three years of Weiner e-mails that might be relevant as far as date is concerned. If his e-mails were uniformly distributed in date, this would cut them down to 150K.
This one step would have reduced the amount of e-mails needed to search to 23% before they even loaded up the commercial software designed to parse through mass quantities of e-mails.
Friendly note: Trying to counter-argue a point by posting a "meme image" isn't an effective counter-argument. In fact, it's pretty much one of the weakest methods of counter argument that exists, especially if it makes an accusation with zero proof to support it.
