tvc184

Short kick returned to Nederland 41. 1-10

At 7:49 in 1, PNG 6-0 after blocked PAT

Keeper for 12 yard touchdown

Keeper 10. 1-10 at Nederland 12

R -1. 2-11 kseper 4. 3-7

Keeper 10. 1-10

Keeper 17. 1-10 at Nederland 35

Timeout PNG 9:54 in 1, 0-0

Refs say he got across. 1-10

Keeper fir maybe 1

Keeper 8. 2-2 pass almost intercepted at the line. 3-2 kdeper 1 4-1

Short kick returned to PNG 37

PNG to receive

Still 0-0

I think this is just the biggest rivalry in Grayson County, Texas.

I think Trump stole a bag of potato chips when he was 16 also... oh yeah, and I think he was jaywalking .... uhhh.... and he uhhhh...... like Bill Clinton pulled strings to avoid the draft... and he ........

Here is my two cents on this case. It might not even be worth that much but here goes..... Everyone should know about the "accidental" meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton in a private hangar in Phoenix. For those of you who completely ignored this incident, the AG of the USA bumped into the husband of the current Democratic nominee for the presidency which also happens to be the same person that the FBI was investigating for various crimes. Of course that would be Bill and Hillary Clinton. With people that travel like them, having a former president and a sitting AG bump into each other in a private hangar in an out of the way city like Phoenix is normal........ right? Actually I would think the odds are about the same as winning the lottery but hey, people win the lottery. So during this private meeting, I mean, the accidental bumping into, they exchange pleasantries. You know, like, "Hey Mr. President, what are you doing here?". "Oh, just on my way to wherever, you know, campaigning for Hillary and accepting donations for the Clinton Foundation, stuff like that". But.... they decided to exchange the small talk in Lynch's private government aircraft... all alone... with the FBI guarding the area... to discuss..... what Ms. Lynch says was talking about their grandchildren. Everyone believes that, right? A completely accidental meeting by the woman who is the head of the department running the investigation on Hillary Clinton and the person she bumps into is Bill Clinton and they have this impromptu meeting over grandkids in a plane guarded by federal agents for 30 minutes. By my mindset is that this was not a chance meeting. This meeting was planned. Shortly after the meeting, Hillary or her campaign announced that Lynch might remain as her AG. Then in the same time frame FBI Director Comey announces that Hillary, while committing all kinds of questionable acts (using terms like "reckless"), committed no crime because they could find no "intent". Of course those in criminal justice know that intent is almost never proven in crimes and in fact does not have to be proven. Almost every crime comes with a required culpable mental state that has to be proven by law. There are exceptions for very minor crimes or infractions (as some states call it) like traffic citations that do not have to prove anything. While "intent" may not be proven, many (probably most) laws require a lesser and sometimes much lesser mental state like knowingly, recklessly or criminal negligence. Examples might be under TX law it is not required to prove intent to prove murder. It only requires that you knowingly committed an act that was likely to produce the result. Whether you intended for the person to die is of no consequence. Also under TX law is assault with injuries. That only requires a person to act recklessly while causing the injury. If you recklessly cause simply pain to a person you can get a year in the county jail. There is not need to prove intent to cause pain or even knowingly that the result would likely happen. It only requires a reckless act. To simply say, "We couldn't show intent" only has a bearing if that crime requires the showing of intent. Some of the things that were claimed in the email and Benghazi accusations do not require intent. So why was Comey seeming to concentrate of that term or mental state? Because of plausible deniability. Hey, I couldn't show intent. The part that I was referring to above was when Comey was questioned by Congress. During his presentation Comey made several statements that I thought showed that a crime had been committed. For example Hillary had made statements that she only used one or two or something like that, of cell phones. I believe that she made some of these statements under oath. But Comey under questioning made statements that went something like, "Ms. Clinton use several phone devices contrary to her statement". Hmmm..... Could that be perjury? Obstruction of justice? Now I can't quote what was said and I don't feel like googling it at this moment. This kind of questioning happened more than once during Comey's testimony.... not long after the accidental meeting between the AG and former President. While Comey could not prove intent, was intent a requirement? I believe not. Certainly at the very least it should have been brought before a federal grand jury to decide but that possibility was quashed. If a local cop kills someone, it is routine to run it by the grand jury as an independent body even with the evidence is so clear that there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt (or any proof at all) of a crime yet it is done. Not so in this case. At some point in the questioning of Comey, he was asked about other charges and his response was something like (from my memory), "We didn't look into that aspect of it". That would be like me investigating a homicide and finding evidence of child molesting and not doing anything about it because it was not really what I was looking for. But, that was his answer.... we didn't look into that part of a possible crime. So with all that, here is what I think happened. Comey was ordered by Lynch to announce that there was no evidence of intent and the investigation was over. Comey could likely do so in complete honesty because he could not prove intent. Assuming that is true, Comey was hampered in his investigation. His wings were clipped. And barely over a week from the election, Comey hits the bombshell that the investigation will be reopened .. with the excuse that there were new email revelations. I am fairly certain that Lynch has recently made statements about Comey's integrity. So here we have it. Lynch and Bill Clinton meet. Hillary then announces that Lynch might continue as AG. Also after that meeting, Comey says that there are not charges but that Hillary did make all kinds of errors but he didn't look at those were not really looked at. Then Comey comes forward with info that the investigation is now back open... and naturally Lynch did not approve. Was this Comey's hitting back at being interfered with or merely coincidental in timing? Will Comey now be removed adding more suspicion?

Comey has already said under oath that Clinton broke the law.

Let's see, you have maybe cracked the code. You know about the secrets that are so risky that it may cost your life. You know this and even text a message to your mother "days" before you are killed..... but fail to tell anyone else the secrets? No emails sent to various news agencies so you aren't endangering any one person like your mother? If I discover some government secret that might get me killed so that no one else will find out... and I have days to do so.... I am going to tell no one? Yep and I swear I still have Mount Rushmore for sale.

I think he needs another past time or hobby.

Game. Nederland 28-21

Nederland ball at 0:36 and no Central timeouts

Intercepted

Central calls final timeout

Pass almost picked off. 4-7 0:43