Why Support A President Who Would Be Charged With These Offences?

[ThoughtCrimes]

What evidence, FOOL! Do you see any person named in the OP at all, shit for brains? So what if I never named a Republican in the OP? I didn't name a Democrat or an Independent either for that matter! So fucking what? I asked ALL who cared to answer the single question directly below;

"How many of you would vote again for the man charged with the above and WHY?"

You see you ignorant twit, the idea was for others to evaluate the charges and then decide if the person charged with that list was worthy of a vote from the person responding? It also had the secondary objective to see how many responding would jump on pointing fingers at Hillary, Obama, B. Clinton, Carter or whoever! Cellblock just can't resist going off the reservation and as usual jumped at a non sequitur, the dumb fuck!

Is giving him a second bite of the apple what set you off and made you go butt-fuck, bat-shit crazy you fucking jerk?? That second question for him is where I purposefully used that hallow and sacred tribal word 'Republican". Then the fucking putz didn't respond to it. That ain't moving a damn blade of grass asshole! Now go piss up a rope Tex, you trolling sack of lying shit!

What evidence, FOOL!

How about you tell me, you brought it up here: My bold

I asked a question! You FAILED to form a response to that question, but instead form two other questions. You're response is fairly ridiculous given the evidence and the question!

So what evidence were YOU referring to?

Here's another chance to redeem yourself. Do you believe an American Republican President deserves the approval of the electorate to any degree with charges such as the above against them should be retained as POTUS or forced out of office in disgrace? Try an actual response to the question this time.

His response to your ambiguous OP was totally appropriate and you didn't give him a second bite at the apple, you inserted an orange.

Now you revert with your typical response of projecting your bat shit craziness on others and childish name calling. Grow up already.

You strip the actual context and quote only a small portion that fits your purpose to confuse with intent and malice. Gawd Damn you are a despicable fucking FRAUD, Tex!

My ambiguous OP? Some facts presented with a question might be somewhat ambiguous to a 5th grader waiting for recess, but you can't sell that bridge here you bloody lying and deceitful asshole!

Do you have you right hand up Cellblock's ass giving you his consent to post and speak for him? If so, when did your affair begin, Texass?

You poor deflecting little thing, you brought up this phantom evidence on an unnamed person, as I pointed out, and now you're refusing to answer what evidence you were referring to, why is that?

BTW your ambiguous OP could have applied to your dear leader just as much as you claim it applies to Trump.

You poor deflecting little thing, you brought up this phantom evidence on an unnamed person, as I pointed out, and now you're refusing to answer what evidence you were referring to, why is that?

"Phantom evidence"? It was real, but asshats like you just didn't comprehend that it was part of history because you're so fucking emotional about protecting the leader of your tribe, that Orange Wonder. The legalese of the 9 accusations listed in the OP should have been a tip off for some one living in the real world and of your age and the following question left a way out for the ignorant and the brain dead to respond to the substance of the accusations and other purposes. But all you wanted to do was troll and make an ass and total fool of yourself. You're a waste of protoplasm and air you fucking trolling asshole!

As you've been told already the Articles of Impeachment were very real and drawn by the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary on July 27, 1974 and the link posted on this thread. More proof of another lie your devious and duplicitous ass has put forward. Now you're lying yet again pretending I'm refusing to disclose what I have already disclosed. How the fuck does your mind process information for you to come up with this bullshit, Texass?

As already stated earlier, your last remark refers to the target among the ignorant ones, the frantic fools of the far right who would point to Obama or Hillary or her hubby Bill and show their partisan freak flag and display their inability to think OBJECTIVELY and respond sans political leanings. And you, along with others, jumped right in and showed you inability to think and respond in a rational and logical manner. I pushed your button, just like your minders do, and you performed your little Pavlovian trick like the little dog acts on the old Ed Sullivan show every Sunday evening back in the '50's. You Were Triggered like the rest, FOOL! Now piss off you used and Useful Idiot!

Have you been diagnosed with multiple personality disorder? The reason I ask is I never know which idiot is occupying your keyboard at any given time. First one idiot says:

I asked a question! You FAILED to form a response to that question, but instead form two other questions. You're response is fairly ridiculous given the evidence and the question!

Then a second idiot says:

What evidence, FOOL!

Then the third idiot asks:

"Phantom evidence"?

Then the fourth idiot refuses to admit that every allegation in the OP could be easily applied to your dear leader. So your objectivity seems to be a bit lacking.

Maybe you should give the reader a heads up on which idiot is responding, it might let things run a little smoother. ROFLMFAO

Hey Tex, how are those man on boy charges coming for ya? Have you got those STD's under control? Are ya still doing that "strawman" gig at the gun shows you told me about that ATF almost nailed ya for? Anyone can lie and attribute shit like that on a message board, slick!

Hey asshole, I know I could go to 4 or 5 different post of yours and contrive a conflated admix of passages to place you in the rack with Hillary as her little slave in chaps and nipple rings, Cowboi, sorta like you did but with a little more believability. Or how about one of the themes I opened with, Texass? You gonna run to a mod again and cry about how the humiliation of my words are making your little tummy hurt, you fucking worm?

I wouldn't put it past you, ya whiny little bitch! You think you're fooling anyone, Tex? How fucking petty and low you have stooped to go to the level you're at now! Fucking despicable! But if it makes you feel good to get that small minded, make yourself proud chump!

 

[OKTexas]

How about you tell me, you brought it up here: My bold

So what evidence were YOU referring to?

His response to your ambiguous OP was totally appropriate and you didn't give him a second bite at the apple, you inserted an orange.

Now you revert with your typical response of projecting your bat shit craziness on others and childish name calling. Grow up already.

You strip the actual context and quote only a small portion that fits your purpose to confuse with intent and malice. Gawd Damn you are a despicable fucking FRAUD, Tex!

My ambiguous OP? Some facts presented with a question might be somewhat ambiguous to a 5th grader waiting for recess, but you can't sell that bridge here you bloody lying and deceitful asshole!

Do you have you right hand up Cellblock's ass giving you his consent to post and speak for him? If so, when did your affair begin, Texass?

You poor deflecting little thing, you brought up this phantom evidence on an unnamed person, as I pointed out, and now you're refusing to answer what evidence you were referring to, why is that?

BTW your ambiguous OP could have applied to your dear leader just as much as you claim it applies to Trump.

You poor deflecting little thing, you brought up this phantom evidence on an unnamed person, as I pointed out, and now you're refusing to answer what evidence you were referring to, why is that?

"Phantom evidence"? It was real, but asshats like you just didn't comprehend that it was part of history because you're so fucking emotional about protecting the leader of your tribe, that Orange Wonder. The legalese of the 9 accusations listed in the OP should have been a tip off for some one living in the real world and of your age and the following question left a way out for the ignorant and the brain dead to respond to the substance of the accusations and other purposes. But all you wanted to do was troll and make an ass and total fool of yourself. You're a waste of protoplasm and air you fucking trolling asshole!

As you've been told already the Articles of Impeachment were very real and drawn by the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary on July 27, 1974 and the link posted on this thread. More proof of another lie your devious and duplicitous ass has put forward. Now you're lying yet again pretending I'm refusing to disclose what I have already disclosed. How the fuck does your mind process information for you to come up with this bullshit, Texass?

As already stated earlier, your last remark refers to the target among the ignorant ones, the frantic fools of the far right who would point to Obama or Hillary or her hubby Bill and show their partisan freak flag and display their inability to think OBJECTIVELY and respond sans political leanings. And you, along with others, jumped right in and showed you inability to think and respond in a rational and logical manner. I pushed your button, just like your minders do, and you performed your little Pavlovian trick like the little dog acts on the old Ed Sullivan show every Sunday evening back in the '50's. You Were Triggered like the rest, FOOL! Now piss off you used and Useful Idiot!

Have you been diagnosed with multiple personality disorder? The reason I ask is I never know which idiot is occupying your keyboard at any given time. First one idiot says:

I asked a question! You FAILED to form a response to that question, but instead form two other questions. You're response is fairly ridiculous given the evidence and the question!

Then a second idiot says:

What evidence, FOOL!

Then the third idiot asks:

"Phantom evidence"?

Then the fourth idiot refuses to admit that every allegation in the OP could be easily applied to your dear leader. So your objectivity seems to be a bit lacking.

Maybe you should give the reader a heads up on which idiot is responding, it might let things run a little smoother. ROFLMFAO

Hey Tex, how are those man on boy charges coming for ya? Have you got those STD's under control? Are ya still doing that "strawman" gig at the gun shows you told me about that ATF almost nailed ya for? Anyone can lie and attribute shit like that on a message board, slick!

Hey asshole, I know I could go to 4 or 5 different post of yours and contrive a conflated admix of passages to place you in the rack with Hillary as her little slave in chaps and nipple rings, Cowboi, sorta like you did but with a little more believability. Or how about one of the themes I opened with, Texass? You gonna run to a mod again and cry about how the humiliation of my words are making your little tummy hurt, you fucking worm?

I wouldn't put it past you, ya whiny little bitch! You think you're fooling anyone, Tex? How fucking petty and low you have stooped to go to the level you're at now! Fucking despicable! But if it makes you feel good to get that small minded, make yourself proud chump!

No, I just find it really funny how easy it is to live in your head rent free and the only one the idiot on your keyboard is humiliating is you. LMAO


.

 

[jc456]

1. Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2. Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
3. Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
4. Interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Congressional Committees;
5. Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;
6. Endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
7. Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
8. Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
9. Endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

I can't understand why folks would still support and approve of any person with these allegations against them above, but about 33% of those polled approved and were that gullible after the fact.

How many of you would vote again for the man charged with the above and WHY?

/----/ How would you like to lose your job based solely on ALLEGATIONS? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

well in the legal world, one without evidence must first report and authorities then watch that individual accused over time. A second event following the initial report is subject to scrutiny and charges if consistent with the first. however, hearsay after 38 years can't fall into that category, however, like with anything human nature wise, habits are habits. And for 38 years there hasn't been another report. I can only conclude since no evidence is available, the story isn't true. Period. I don't have the desire to see a 38 year career damaged on hearsay. The yearbook since introduced as evidence is the only common point to make a determination. let it get analysed. If they refuse to turn it over. It's over.