PDA

View Full Version : #1 legal reason Clinton impeachment was BOGUS!



DeSPURado
05-31-2004, 10:21 PM
Clinton's impeachment was completely bogus for one reason and one reason alone. Whether or not you believe he lied in front of the grand jury is immaterial and I will prove it to you!


1) Step one: the fifth Ammendment to the constitution states:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

2) Clinton was compelled to testify under penalty of a subpoena


July 25 — President Clinton was subpoenaed last week by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to testify in the Monica Lewinsky investigation, ABCNEWS has learned.
link (http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/clinton980725.html)


3) In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436...

The court established 2 principles: 1) the miranda warning must be given to inform suspects of their rights. 2) It also established the exclusionary principle. That is all evidence gathered in a way that breeches someones' constitutional rights is inadmissable.



Therefore: Clinton's tesitmony and later impeachment based upon that testimony is BOGUS! It goes against his constitutional rights. Now you can argue all you want that a president doesn't have that right, but then you would have to find a reason why the president is not protected by the constitution? Is it because he is a public servant? Did a blow job have something to do with National security?

------------------------------------------------

The reason for the 5th ammendment is very straightforward: we expect people to lie in their own defense. By forcing people to testify against themselves we are in fact compelling them to lie, according to the founding fathers. The republicans decided the constitution didn't apply to the president, and therefore didn't care about this little principle.

Yonivore you may know the facts of the case better than I (seems to be your obsession), but you do not know the law better than I. Oh and you were wrong, Paula Jone's case was thrown out for being trumped up. it was Paula who tried to weasal a settlement out of Clinton.


April 1
Judge Susan Webber Wright dismisses the Paula Jones case, saying in her decision that there is not enough evidence to prove either quid pro quo harassment or that the alleged incident created a hostile work environment.

March 31
Lawyers for Paula Jones offer to postpone the sexual harassment trial against President Clinton in exchange for the reversal of an earlier court decision barring their use of information about Monica Lewinsky in court.


link (http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/clinton_timeline.html)

DeSPURado
05-31-2004, 10:59 PM
If you still aren't buying it, or are otherwise getting stuck on the language of the 5th, The following is a selection from the official handbook on the rules for federal grand juries:



Upon request, preferably in writing, an accused may be given the opportunity by the grand
jury to appear before it. An accused who does so appear cannot be forced to testify because of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. If the grand jury attempts to force the accused to testify, an indictment returned against that person may be nullified.

Because the appearance of an accused before the grand jury may raise complicated legal
problems, a grand jury that desires to request or to permit an accused to appear before it should
consult with the United States Attorney and, if necessary, the court before proceeding.

Even if the accused is willing to testify voluntarily, it is recommended that he or she first be
warned of the right not to testify. Also, he or she may be required to sign a formal waiver of this
right. The grand jury should be completely satisfied that the accused fully understands what he or
she is doing.

link (http://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/pdf/grandjur.pdf)

Guru of Nothing
05-31-2004, 11:16 PM
Whether or not you believe he lied in front of the grand jury is immaterial and I will prove it to you!


Come on. Nothing is immaterial in politics.

You have proved nothing.

DeSPURado
05-31-2004, 11:17 PM
Furthermore anything said in front of a grand jury is absolutely secret:


The law imposes upon each grand juror a strict obligation of secrecy. This obligation is emphasized in the oath each grand juror takes and in the charge given to the grand jury by the judge.

The tradition of secrecy continues as a vital part of the grand jury system for many reasons. It protects the grand jurors from being subjected to pressure by persons who may be subjects of investigations by the grand jury or associates of such persons. It prevents the escape of those against whom an indictment is being considered. It encourages witnesses before the grand jury to give full and truthful information as to the commission of a crime. It also prevents tampering with or intimidation of such witnesses before they testify at trial. Finally, it prevents the disclosure of investigations that result in no action by the grand jury and avoids any stigma the public might attach to one who is the subject of a mere investigation by the grand jury.

link (http://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/pdf/grandjur.pdf)

DeSPURado
05-31-2004, 11:18 PM
Guru I have proven nothing? Oh Really? Go and read everything written down here and then tell me that....

DeSPURado
05-31-2004, 11:38 PM
Yonivore, Hook, etc I have something for yall to eat, I baked it all by myself. Enjoy!

http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/142/03_2_1.jpg

LandShark
05-31-2004, 11:46 PM
Give it up. :rolleyes

DeSPURado
05-31-2004, 11:48 PM
Yeah I'll give up the constitution sure, that sounds like a good idea.

Guru of Nothing
05-31-2004, 11:55 PM
Guru I have proven nothing? Oh Really? Go and read everything written down here and then tell me that....

I'm not an attorney, so I will not dive into the minutae, BUT, .....

Suffice it to say that lieing is a serious ethics violation in my eyes. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but it does seem that you gloss over, moreso than I, the lie part of this little equation.

Bottom line, Clinton got busted for getting a blow job several years ago. Ideally, he should have 'fessed up and taken his medicine, so to speak; but **** no, he opted for a starring role in "Who Wants to be a Media Bitch?"

Why are bringing up the subject of Clinton's blowjob?

DeSPURado
05-31-2004, 11:57 PM
That lie is inadmissable because in getting it republicans violated the accused's civil rights. And as such should be subject to an investigation. You republican's went on a witch hunt and were willing to sacrifice one of the most important principles in the constitution to do it!

An accused who does so appear cannot be forced to testify because of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. If the grand jury attempts to force the accused to testify, an indictment returned against that person may be nullified.

Guru of Nothing
06-01-2004, 12:07 AM
That lie is inadmissable because in getting it republicans violated the accused's civil rights. And as such should be subject to an investigation. You republican's went on a witch hunt and were willing to sacrifice one of the most important principles in the constitution to do it!

This is where I bow out of the argument.

You accuse me of being a Republican, when I am anything but a Republican.

If you can't be real, be shrill.

Adios.

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 12:08 AM
I never said you were a republican....:rolleyes :rolleyes

I said republicans violated his civil rights, unless you were a part of Ken Starr's investigation I know this has nothing to do with you.

Let me ask you something Guru, If this becomes a precedent where Grand Juries can subpeona whoever they want and ask them about all of their sexual history under oath...Would you like that? Under penalty of perjury would you like to answer all the questions of you sexual history, including the way your penis is shaped? It is explicitly forbidden in the constitution, but thats what republicans did anyway. That is why democrats have a right to be angry.

Guru of Nothing
06-01-2004, 12:39 AM
I never said you were a republican....

Dude, as plain as the nose on your face, you called me a Republican. For the sake of your credibility, admit as much.

Geez!

Guru of Nothing
06-01-2004, 12:51 AM
Let me ask you something Guru, If this becomes a precedent where Grand Juries can subpeona whoever they want and ask them about all of their sexual history under oath...Would you like that? Under penalty of perjury would you like to answer all the questions of you sexual history, including the way your penis is shaped? It is explicitly forbidden in the constitution, but thats what republicans did anyway. That is why democrats have a right to be angry.

So in one corner, there is the Constitution (Democrats apparently), and in the other corner there is the Truth (Republicans, apparently); and I'm the drunk in the crowd hoping, somehow, they both win.

SaD.

Guru of Nothing
06-01-2004, 01:18 AM
Dude, as plain as the nose on your face, you called me a Republican. For the sake of your credibility, admit as much.

What happened DeSPURado?

Fact got your tongue?

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 01:23 AM
look your taking a statement that was meant as a general critique of republicans , but whatever its horrible that I falsely accused you of being republican...Sad that you think being a republican might be something to be ashamed of.....But whatever.


You still haven't answered my question....would you want to be forced to testify about your sexual history? What fact got you tongue?

Regardless it was still illegal to force Clinton to testify against himself. Even more heinous that it delved into his sex life.

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 06:43 PM
Yonivore I know you are dying to apologize to me for being wrong....Here is a perfect place to do it.

xrayzebra
06-01-2004, 07:11 PM
I am sure you still believe Bush stole the election. Gee, you folks live a funny (like ha-ha) life. Wake up and smell the coffee. He lied under oath....period. End of argument.

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 07:17 PM
The oath was taken illegally....end of story! You seriously have no understanding of how the law works in the US do you...First you think the constitution doesn't apply to the president...then you think the judge who overturned the abortion ban was just out to make a name for herself. The law doesn't work that way, she had to follow the guide lines set up by the decision of Roe vs. Wade until the SC amends that decision. And the law clearly states you can not be forced to testify against yourself.

An accused who does so appear cannot be forced to testify because of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. If the grand jury attempts to force the accused to testify, an indictment returned against that person may be nullified.

xrayzebra
06-01-2004, 07:34 PM
No oath, given or taken, is illegal. It is an oath. He appeared before the Grand Jury and was sworn. He was cited for making false statements. I am very familiar with the law and this country. And about the Judge in California, how about the judge who ruled something was against the constitution when the wording was taken from the constitution almost verbatin. Like all men (okay women too) are created equal and should be treated as such........are we in school again....quit hunting for excuses to excuse people who have an agenda. Hopefully people will start using a little common sense one of these days....I hope so for the sake of people like you....I haven't got that long to worry about it.

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 07:41 PM
Thats where you are wrong an oath is illegal if it is forced on the acussed...IE a subpeona which has the force of contempt of court behind it is called using force...What part of that do you not undertand....Its so black and white even you shouldn't be able to miss it.


And you really have no idea about what the power of precedence is do you? A court has to go with the present interpretation of what the Supreme court hands down to them. Since Roe vs. Wade was the last big decision from the supreme court and it directly conflicts with the partial birth abortion ban, she had to strke down the abortion ban, until the SC hands down a new ruling or interpretation....Don't even think to misrepresent what I am saying about the constitution needing to be interpreted literally, that only shows your nievate on this issue...It has nothing to do with what the constitution literally says. It has everything to do with the precendance or set of rules handed down by the supreme court.

xrayzebra
06-01-2004, 07:47 PM
DP, Go look at all the rulings make and then do you still want to say: "And you really have no idea about what precedence is do you? A court has to go with the present interpretation of what the Supreme court hands down to them." Lower courts go against the supreme court all the time. Anyhow, both our arguments are mute. Like I said, and you agreed, it is only the beginning. As for as Clinton and his oath, I don't recall a gun at his head. His oath was not forced, his appearance was not forced. He protested and lost....and then tried to get the taxpayers to pay the bill, and finally ask his supporters to pay the bill. Did you send him a little money to help the poor guy out.....just curious. I guess the judge that fined him was all wrong too.........at least he didn't send him to jail.

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 07:54 PM
I don't recall a gun at his head. His oath was not forced, his appearance was not forced.

the subpeona is force if you do not obey a subpeona (then he could have been legally impeached, presenting a nice catch-22 don't you think?) and held in jail until he was no longer in contempt of court again I am going to show you the rules from the official handbook of the grand jury and the pertinent part of the fifth:

An accused who does so appear cannot be forced to testify because of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. If the grand jury attempts to force the accused to testify, an indictment returned against that person may be nullified.

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

And again I should repeat the purpose behind that part of the fifth ammendment:
The reason for the 5th ammendment is very straightforward: we expect people to lie in their own defense. By forcing people to testify against themselves we are in fact compelling them to lie, according to the founding fathers. I know Clinton chose to lie and I know that was morally reprehensible. But it was done under really reprehensible circumstances, and the impeachment based upon that lie is a joke. It holds no legal water. It shows that this really was a witch hunt, and not something that had any good intentions like the truth behind it. The point was to catch him in a lie, and so they forced him into an illegal oath.


About the issue of judges going against the SC they do so only at the cost of their own decisions. And its the way our courts work...I'm just saying she didn't have to be out to make a name for herself, going with the standards set by Roe vs. Wade was the correct legal thing to do.

Hook Dem
06-01-2004, 09:27 PM
DeSPURado:"Yonivore, Hook, etc I have something for yall to eat, I baked it all by myself. Enjoy!" Sorry DeSPURATE! Us Republicans don't eat crow! That kind of pie is for you and your buddies! I didn't even comment in here because I wasn't in town, but nice to know you thought of me while I was gone. I don't know what GON is or isn't, but he has made you look like the fool that you are! I'm glad that others(regardless of party affiliation) are starting to see how radical you are. Have a nice day!

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 09:31 PM
:sleep :sleep :sleep

Uh huh try to paint me as a radical, as if that has anything to do with the issues at hand. Why are you so scared of the issues? Huh?


Manny was right when he said this about you:
for once i'd like to see hook prove a point of his own instead of piggybacking on someone else.

I think you are afraid of the debate because you don't know didley squat besides what the political pundits tell you to think...You didn't even know what the articles of confederation are...You thought that they were from the civil war. Yonivore maybe be someone I disagree with but at least he has an argument to make (most of the time) while menawhile you just hide behind him, and some stupid ass rhetoric.

Yonivore
06-01-2004, 09:38 PM
DeSPURate:

Okay, I skipped many of the posts in this thread...well, because, I wanted to address the original premise.

In fact, President Clinton was only compelled, by subpoena, to appear before the grand jury. His fifth amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination was never revoked. That he chose to lie instead of invoking his fifth amendment protections is where he violated the law.

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 09:40 PM
for my responce go read post number 1045...I adress the issue of subpeonas being force....Which they are, they have the power of contempt of court behind them.

Hook Dem
06-01-2004, 09:42 PM
DeSPURado:"I think you are afraid of the debate because you don't know didley squat besides what the plotical pundits tell you to think...You didn't even know what the articles of confederation are...You thought that they were from the civil war." How the **** do you know what I know or don't know? That was a joke which you don't have the intellegence to realize! And if you have to make reference to Manny to back you up, then your ass is showing. Your problem is that you don't realize that anyone who does not agree with you is not ignorant. On the contrary, I may be way smarter than you but this is not a contest to see who's dick is the biggest. Grow up little man and quit underestimating your enemies!:flipoff

Yonivore
06-01-2004, 09:44 PM
And, again, I agree that his appearance before the grand jury was compelled, under penalty of contempt. However, his testimony was not. He could invoke his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination at any time an answer to a question would place him in jeopardy of doing so.

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 09:46 PM
Yeah it was a joke...Uh huh whatever...Try and pass it off as joke whatever now who is the fool?


Despurado: Scott don't let Yonivore off the hook....Ask him why the articles of confederation were dumped in favor of the constitution....

Hook Dem
Longest Horn
Posts: 1275
(5/21/04 9:52 am)
Reply Re: + So now it's the north against the south? Geezzzzzzzz !!!

link (http://p221.ezboard.com/ffullsportpressfrm25.showMessage?topicID=514.topic )

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 09:48 PM
Actually he couldn't invole the fifth in his testimony because his testimony wasn't directly implicating him in a crime (the only time you can invole the fifth on the stand as a witness to a crime is when it could be used to incriminate yourself in another crime or somehow implicate you in the crime at hand.) My argument is totally based upon the fact that his testimony was compelled and it was in a case in which he was the accused. That is illegal.

If for instance you can show that he waived that right then I will partially shut up. I still think he was compelled to testify by the pressure put on him to diminish the appearance of hiding something.

Yonivore
06-01-2004, 09:53 PM
Wait a minute, you're losing sight of the fact that he was not accused of a crime but was party to a civil suit. Ms. Jones had a compelling reason to have honest answers to the questions asked.

Lying in that situation has put many people in federal and state prison. Why is it a crime? Because it serves to do just what Clinton did to Paula Jones; deny them due process and proper redress in court.

You're right, he was compelled to answer the questions but, since his answers would not have incriminated him, there was no reason -- other than to deny Ms. Jones her constitutional rights -- to lie.

More despicable.

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 09:54 PM
It was a criminal grand jury, not a civil suit. The civil suit came latter and was also dismissed. They don't hold grand juries for civil suits.

Your argument that she had a compelling interest for redress, is a form of presumption of guilt. You are presuming that Clinton had something to answer for...

Yonivore
06-01-2004, 10:43 PM
Actually, DeSPURate, the first instances of perjury were committed during a deposition in a civil suit that wasn't thrown out but, was settled out of court between Ms. Jones and Mr. Clinton for an undisclosed amount and under seal preventing the disclosure of the terms of the settlement.

The second instances of perjury occurred before a federal Grand Jury convened to investigate criminal allegations against President Clinton -- just one of which was that he committed perjury in a deposition in a civil suit brought against him by Paula Jones.

Really, you should know history if you're going to defend the liar in Chief, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 10:58 PM
Again I already proved that the case was thrown out in the very first post, and that case wasn't what made it to a senate vote. And again my allegation still stands. You can not be forced into testifying against yourself.

Yonivore
06-01-2004, 11:03 PM
You're talking apples and oranges DeSPURate. The two cases, Jones's civil suit and the impeachment, are completely separate legal issues.

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 11:07 PM
:wtf :wtf You were the one who brought the civil suit up...I was just on my marry own way talking about the impeachment issue, and I think I have a valid argument.

Guru of Nothing
06-01-2004, 11:16 PM
look your taking a statement that was meant as a general critique of republicans , but whatever its horrible that I falsely accused you of being republican...Sad that you think being a republican might be something to be ashamed of.....But whatever.

Why not just say "Oops," or "My bad?"

Simplicity confounds you.

DeSPURado
06-01-2004, 11:21 PM
I don't have the time nor the desire to get into a battle of semantics with you...It merely is a distraction from the issue at hand if you want to discuss those I would be happy to, but I don't feel any more need to apoligize for something that was never intended to be directed towards you personally.

Guru of Nothing
06-01-2004, 11:53 PM
I don't have the time nor the desire to get into a battle of semantics with you...It merely is a distraction from the issue at hand if you want to discuss those I would be happy to, but I don't feel any more need to apoligize for something that was never intended to be directed towards you personally.

Translation: Facts Suck.

scott
06-02-2004, 12:07 AM
Given the fact that Clinton isn't president anymore... maybe we should all quit giving a shit.

DeSPURado
06-02-2004, 01:25 AM
Translation GON I don't give a shit what you think or if your feelings were hurt grow up and stop whining.

Hook Dem
06-02-2004, 01:35 AM
DeSPURado:"Translation GON I don't give a shit what you think or if your feelings were hurt grow up and stop whining." When you get your ass whipped around a little, even you leave the issue don't you?:lol

DeSPURado
06-02-2004, 01:40 AM
My problem is that I am trying to discuss the issus, and I can't with this going on...Besides its ruingin my vibe. I'm chilling and watching some SNL best pf Phil Hartman....Right now he is doing a seriously funny impression of Clinton, eating McDonalds and taking food from everyone's plates.

Look GON I seriously meant a generic version of you, which wouldn't even refer to you if you aren't a republican as you so claim. Don't insult my intelligence by thinking I would necessarily equate you with the people who prosecuted Clinton. I don't even think that of Yonivore or Hook Dem. I know you guys had nothing to do with it except maybe a little cheerleading. But really that doesn't matter to me.

Hook Dem
06-02-2004, 01:51 AM
Actually Despurado, I've said it before and I'll say it again......I do not blame Clinton for 9/11. I do not blame Bush for 9/11. I blame Al-Quada for it. Is that not the way to look at it? I hold no animosity for Clinton. He will have his place in history and if he was the president right now, I would back him in Iraq because he was the president and not the enemy. I will support whomever is in office against our enemies. Simple!

DeSPURado
06-02-2004, 04:02 AM
Oh you can hold animosity towards Clinton personally I hate the bastard...but you guys are so busy attacking him that we kind of have to defend his otherwise decent record as a president....He was arrogant, concieted, and he bretrayed the very women who got him elected. He did fucking lie, and he tried to weasal himself out of it.

But again I really can't blame him for it. The shit you (generic again) republicans put him through was insane. You accused him of murders, Whitewater, filegate, FBIgate, Lewinskigate, Flowersgate, Jonesgate, etc etc. All of which after five years of unhibited infinitely funded investigations got you one blow job. Paula Jones turned out to be lying about half the shit she said, and the other half was a couple of passes he made at her, I don't remeber what happened with Jennifer Flowers, and Monica was consenual. But I do know that Kenneth Star pretty much ended up clearing Clinton on all of the rest of the charges including those ridiculous murders.

And I mean come on Bush did cocaine, probably had a girlfriend have an abortion when it was still illegal, had a least one DUI, and is dumber than anyone who posts on this board...that would all be forgivable but he has made some horrible desicions.

I would so rather have a blow job seeking prick for a president that made the right decisions about handling terrorism, Iraq, and the economy than a dumb one who didn't. And yes I am calling Bush dumb, you guys hate that PC crap anyways right? Bush is the stupidest person I have ever witnessed on television. And believe me I am including the Olson twins on this one. At least the Olson twins know they are as dumb as dirt, and they don't try to act misunderestimated. They just grope eachother and smile, and smile, and smile.

DeSPURado
06-02-2004, 04:43 AM
Ok I take it back I just read the Atheist thread again, and well I have come to the conclusion that well maybe I was wrong to assert Bush is dumber than anyone who posts here. In fact I have come to quite the opposite conclusion. Bush is smarter than MFD. I am profusely sorry for the mix up, and I apoligize for the pain and anguish I might have caused to President Bush and his family. MFD is indeed dumber than you.

Guru of Nothing
06-02-2004, 11:24 AM
Don't insult my intelligence

That would be wholly unnecessary.

Hook Dem
06-02-2004, 11:44 AM
You know, I guess when someone gets under your skin, it's just the norm to call them dumb. However, I do not think you, NBA Dan, or any of the others are "dumb". I think you hear a different drummer. Thats all!!!! Is it a defense to call your advesaries "dumb"? Let's pull ourselves up out of the mud and either quit insulting each other or quit talking. The only thing we know about each other for sure is the fact that we disagree. We used to insult others on the school yard by saying, "he's dumber than dirt". When it made our followers laugh, we stuck our chest out and considered ourselves as leaders in the neighborhood. But haven't we gotten past that now? Here in the United States we have the right to disagree with some form of dignity. Even Manny tries to be the big man and tells me that I am old and he can take me to school on debating. He is a legend in his own mind and uses that to cloak insecurity issues. I am not impressed! What I'm trying to say is that all of you may indeed be good individuals but do not show those qualities when posting in here. The bottom line is that I am no "dumber" than anyone who posts here.OK?

DeSPURado
06-02-2004, 04:33 PM
I never mean to insult your intelligence, Hook, and I can think some of the things you say are dumb but that doesn't make you dumb.

But seriously don't you think its funny that I can't call Guru a republican, and yet he can call me dumb? Strange world yah live in their GON.

Guru of Nothing
06-02-2004, 10:47 PM
But seriously don't you think its funny that I can't call Guru a republican, and yet he can call me dumb? Strange world yah live in their GON.

I thought you said you did not call me a Republican.

Nbadan
07-20-2004, 07:33 AM
kick

Nbadan
08-31-2004, 03:49 AM
bump

NeoConIV
08-31-2004, 03:51 AM
Dan's on a bump frenzy again!! Run for your lives!!!

Honestly though. Do you mind? It's kind of annoying.

Nbadan
08-31-2004, 03:54 AM
Sorry just trying to archive older threads before they get bumped off the forum

NeoConIV
08-31-2004, 04:00 AM
The last one to look at this thread besides you was GON on June 2. I don't get what you're doing. Is there some "The Club Political Forum Historical Foundation" somewhere that I'm not aware of?

How many more were you going to bump before I said something? 8? 9? Didn't you say last time you weren't going to do this again? Bad form Dan, bad form.

Nbadan
08-31-2004, 04:37 AM
How many more were you going to bump before I said something? 8? 9? Didn't you say last time you weren't going to do this again? Bad form Dan, bad form.

I never said I wouldn't do it again, just that we needed to find a way to save some older threads for reference points in the future. No big deal really.

NeoConIV
08-31-2004, 04:40 AM
I'll ask Kori if we can get a new forum for archiving threads. Much more effcient, much less primitive than bumping threads.

Nbadan
08-31-2004, 04:47 AM
I agree, much more efficient. Sometimes it's hard not to feel like the forgotten step-child at FSP, still, I think this forum is a good fit, and with about 5-6 months under our belt, I couldn't be happier with the amount of traffic we get.

I think we could really blow up during the November elections.

Winehole23
12-10-2018, 01:05 PM
Wait a minute, you're losing sight of the fact that he was not accused of a crime but was party to a civil suit. Ms. Jones had a compelling reason to have honest answers to the questions asked.

Lying in that situation has put many people in federal and state prison. Why is it a crime? Because it serves to do just what Clinton did to Paula Jones; deny them due process and proper redress in court.

You're right, he was compelled to answer the questions but, since his answers would not have incriminated him, there was no reason -- other than to deny Ms. Jones her constitutional rights -- to lie.

More despicable.NO REAL ESTATE COLLUSION ONLY SILLY PROCESS CRIMES!

DMC
12-10-2018, 02:46 PM
NO REAL ESTATE COLLUSION ONLY SILLY PROCESS CRIMES!

Necro psychosis... seek help

Winehole23
12-10-2018, 02:49 PM
direct analogy from the early days

DMC
12-10-2018, 03:26 PM
You dug 14 years deep to make a snide remark? Yeah...

Spurtacular
12-10-2018, 05:07 PM
NO REAL ESTATE COLLUSION ONLY SILLY PROCESS CRIMES!

:lmao HRC sperm shielder

Winehole23
12-10-2018, 05:39 PM
You dug 14 years deep to make a snide remark? Yeah...took about one minute

Winehole23
12-10-2018, 05:42 PM
:lmao HRC sperm shielderI'm not surprised you couldn't tell I was being facetious.

The pointy end of the stick was aimed at those carrying a shield for DJT...the reference to COLLUSION and PROCESS CRIMES should have been obvious to most,

Winehole23
12-10-2018, 05:43 PM
MAJUSCULE = blue text

Spurtacular
12-10-2018, 05:45 PM
I'm not surprised you couldn't tell I was being facetious.

The pointy end of the stick was aimed at those carrying a shield for DJT...the reference to COLLUSION and PROCESS CRIMES should have been obvious to most,

I redact my statement, then. No debate needed.

Winehole23
12-10-2018, 05:47 PM
I think you meant retract...

Winehole23
12-10-2018, 05:49 PM
...and Bill Clinton, before the retraction.

Pavlov
12-10-2018, 05:52 PM
:lmao HRC sperm shielderYou've never named one crime you think she committed tbh.

Spurtacular
12-10-2018, 05:55 PM
You've never named one crime you think she committed tbh.

Wrong.

Pavlov
12-10-2018, 05:55 PM
Wrong.Great. Name her crimes.

spurraider21
12-10-2018, 05:59 PM
took about one minute
:lol people here still dont understand how the search function works

DMC
12-10-2018, 07:47 PM
:lol people here still dont understand how the search function works

:lol what were you like 7 or 8 when that post was made?

For someone who lacks the capacity for abstract thought, you sure think highly of yourself. Most of the time your quip is out of phase with what's really happening in the thread. I didn't see anyone even hint that it was difficult to do a search.

spurraider21
12-10-2018, 07:49 PM
:lol what were you like 7 or 8 when that post was made?
DMC zeroing in on personal information of other posters per par

DMC
12-10-2018, 07:52 PM
DMC zeroing in on personal information of other posters per par

You told people here everything about you on your "I love me" monologues. It's not like anybody had to look you up. You can't shut your mouth about yourself.

Besides as you said people here don't understand how the search function works so what are you worried about?

Pavlov
12-10-2018, 07:54 PM
:lol "dug"

Hillary Clinton
12-10-2018, 08:10 PM
:lol

Spurtacular
12-10-2018, 09:38 PM
Great. Name her crimes.

Tell us exactly how you're a Hillary sperm shielder.

spurraider21
12-10-2018, 09:43 PM
best way to get derp nervous is to ask him to name a crime hillary has committed. he folds like a lawnchair and starts flailing angrily. every time.

Pavlov
12-10-2018, 09:47 PM
best way to get derp nervous is to ask him to name a crime hillary has committed. he folds like a lawnchair and starts flailing angrily. every time.Every.

Single.

Time.

I've never seen a poster so terrified of a simple question he claims he can answer.

Watch him freak out but not answer the question.

lol derp

DMC
12-10-2018, 10:59 PM
Every.

Single.

Time.

I've never seen a poster so terrified of a simple question he claims he can answer.

Watch him freak out but not answer the question.

lol derp

You still haven't shown the quote where TSA states that Clinton was or would be arrested.

Chop chop

Pavlov
12-10-2018, 11:00 PM
Chirp chirp

DMC
12-10-2018, 11:00 PM
best way to get derp nervous is to ask him to name a crime hillary has committed. he folds like a lawnchair and starts flailing angrily. every time.

And the best way to get you to respond is to say something to anyone besides you. You only pipe in when you're not part of the conversation so you can duck out.

spurraider21
12-10-2018, 11:08 PM
And the best way to get you to respond is to say something to anyone besides you. You only pipe in when you're not part of the conversation so you can duck out.
oh look a narrative

DMC
12-10-2018, 11:54 PM
oh look a narrative

Oh look a copycat shtick. Is Pavlov your daddy? You parrot everything he says. What's funny about that is he's parroting what I said before about him.

Pavlov
12-11-2018, 12:03 AM
Oh look a copycat shtick. Is Pavlov your daddy? You parrot everything he says. What's funny about that is he's parroting what I said before about him.Well, then you're copying me by making narratives for other posters.

lol DerivativeMC

Spurtacular
12-11-2018, 01:37 AM
oh look a narrative


Oh look a copycat shtick. Is Pavlov your daddy? You parrot everything he says. What's funny about that is he's parroting what I said before about him.

:lol Chump Lite wanting to be Chump Jr.

Spurtacular
12-11-2018, 01:39 AM
Well, then you're copying me by making narratives for other posters.

lol DerivativeMC

He's copying you because you stole his bit and he's still using it?

:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

SMDH Compulsive sociopath never doing that math.

benefactor
12-11-2018, 01:43 AM
I think you meant retract...
:lol

Pavlov
12-11-2018, 01:47 AM
He's copying you because you stole his bit and he's still using it?You're saying I stole his narrative shtick.

lol derp

spurraider21
12-11-2018, 01:58 AM
Oh look a copycat shtick. Is Pavlov your daddy? You parrot everything he says. What's funny about that is he's parroting what I said before about him.
It’s funny seeing you squirm when called out. You used to whine about how i used to post narratives. Then when i call you out for doing the same you shit yourself

Spurtacular
12-11-2018, 03:42 AM
You're saying I stole his narrative shtick.

lol derp

I'm not saying that.

:lol False narrative response demonstration.

Yonivore
01-25-2019, 03:10 PM
:lmao:

Pavlov
01-25-2019, 03:11 PM
:lol det's a pretty desperate distraction bump tbh