Trumpers Use Unsecure Communication Lines, LOCK 'EM UP !!!

[mog...@hotmail.com]

"The July 26 phone call between Trump and Sondland also raised concerns among some Democrats because it took place on an open, unsecured cell phone. "

NBC Local - November 20, 21019
-- https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/ambassador-at-center-of-ukraine-scandal-to-testify

[Ed Pawlowski]

Wouldn't it make a difference what is discussed?

Hey, for the meeting we're ordering pizza. Do you want pepperoni or
sausage? Coke or Pepsi?

[trader_4]

With Trump there are many categories to classify phone calls into,
including "highly inappropriate" and "criminal".

[Terry Coombs]

  The thing is , if they'd used a secure line he'd be screaming about
what are they trying to hide . Trump can't win either way .

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

[Clare Snyder]

Regulations require ALL government business to be transacted on a
secure phone - and be "logged". Trump using his personal phone is an
attempt to bypass "logging" and traceability.

[Clare Snyder]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:11:23 -0600, Terry Coombs <snag...@msn.com>
wrote:

NOT using the secure phone is evidence of "something to hide" - not
the other way around. He's "going in the back door" assuming (mostly
correctly) that there is no record of the call so he has "weasel room"
- and "plausible deniability"

[rbowman]

Is the weasel's name Sondland? Seems there was a record.

[Clare Snyder]

Just means Thumper wasn't as amart as he thought he was (seldom is)

[Joe]

The democrats are on a witch hunt.  The treasonous little bitches have been hunting for 3 years yet they got nothing.  Now that the election is a year away, the 'rats are very desperate.  Anything the FUDmaster democrats "find" now will be a total
fabricated lie.

[trader_4]

Gee, you think that's why he had Kusnher meeting with the Russians after
the election to try to set up a secret communication channel with Russia?
Makes sense and very appropriate, right? Top of a new president's list
is to set up a secret channel with the evil empire that Trump has shown
a still unexplained fondness for during the campaign and right up to this
day. Then the FBI starts investigating, because Australia warned the US
because they heard from Trump staffer George the Greek that the Russians
had stolen DNC emails and were going to help Trump, and Trump and the trumpets
can't understand why the FBI would do such a thing.

Apparently the IG report coming out next week won't be anything at all like
what the trumpets have been claiming for the last year. It was supposed to
show that everyone from Australia to Prof Mifsud were all working for the
CIA to do Trump in. Instead reports are that it says that the FBI counter
intelligence investigation into Trump was justified.

[trader_4]

That's pure BS. There is no requirement that all govt business be transacted
on a secure phone. Only classified or otherwise sensitive information needs
to go on a secure phone system. They would need orders of magnitude
more secure phones if that were true or there would be very long lines
to use any phone.

And actually, you have the basic facts wrong. The call being referred to
is apparently the call between Trump at the WH and Sondland in a Kiev
restaurant. Sondland initiated the call and there has been nothing about
it going to Trump's cell phone, he called the WH to speak to Trump.
Trump is said to be using his cell phone inappropriately, but I haven't
seen anything that shows that was the case here.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Knowing there is a witch hunt you'd think they would take measure to be
well above board on what they do. No, they just did as they pleased.

Only thing that counts is facts. We'll see.

[trader_4]

Simply stunning, isn't it? Having gone through two years of investigation,
of seeing everything being put under a microscope, Trump and company decided
it was a grand idea to pull the Ukraine stunt. The Democrats are right, he
gets away with one thing, it just emboldens him to try to get away with more.
Most stunning perhaps is how Ruddy is in the very middle of this. You'd
think a former US Atorney and mayor of NYC would have better judgment.
He may be like
Biden, slowly losing it. Most of the others wound up sucked up into this,
because they did what Micky said they should do. They tried to make a deal
with the devil, serve in the administration, and try to steer a course to
keep Trump from doing stupid and illegal things. Tillerson said that he
had to frequently tell Trump that he couldn't do what he wanted, it was
against the law. Trump got rid of all the people like Tillerson, so here
we are.

And then the trumpets claim it's all a witch hunt, how unfair everyone is to
poor widdle Trump. As if all this, from the Russia investigation to the
Ukraine scandal, just fell in on him, that he had no direct role in causing
most of it. Who hired Manafort, Flynn, George the Greek, lied about his
business involvement with Russia, praised Putin and shows a still unexplained
and very disturbing affinity to Putin and Russia? And who was at the top
of the Ukraine scandal, exercising powers, ie withholding aid, that only
a president can do?

[Cindy Hamilton]

On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

It would make a difference. But we'll never know what was discussed
because those calls weren't logged.

Maybe we should ask GRU. They probably have recordings they could
share with us.

Cindy Hamilton

[rbowman]

Fact: what they've come up with in three years is so weak the
impeachment will die in the Senate. It's just theatrics like a seven
year old knowing she isn't going to get a pony despite all the weeping,
wailing, and pouting.

Of all the things Trump is, he isn't an ideologue. The Democrats
probably could have accomplished something but we'll never know.

[rbowman]

He was asking Sondland to pick up a loaf of povitica for Melania on the
way home... What he wasn't doing was discussing the replacement of the
elected government of Ukraine like members of the Obama administration.
Nuland could get away with saying 'Fuck the EU'; Yanukovych couldn't so
he had to go.

[Clare Snyder]

FACT - Republicans are blind to the OBVIOUS impeachable offences by
Trump and his gang of thugs.
The strong possibility impeachment will die in the senate is NOT
based on how weak the evidence is, but how thoroughly infected the
Republican Senate is with the Trump "virus".

It's not just at the NATO meeting that the world leaders (and the
world itself) is laughing at TRUMP

[Clare Snyder]

Don't choke on the koolaid

[Barb]

On 12/7/2019 3:05 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
> FACT - Republicans are blind to the OBVIOUS impeachable offences by
> Trump and his gang of thugs.
> The strong possibility impeachment will die in the senate is NOT
> based on how weak the evidence is, but how thoroughly infected the
> Republican Senate is with the Trump "virus".
>
> It's not just at the NATO meeting that the world leaders (and the
> world itself) is laughing at TRUMP

That's a factoid, not a real fact.  Did you get that from CNN?

[Clare Snyder]

NO. Not CNN.

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 16:05:33 -0500, Barb <xenas...@aol.spam> wrote:

From Bloomerg:

After three days of public impeachment hearings, it’s becoming clear
that there’s not much distance between Democrats and Republicans on
the House Intelligence Committee when it comes to the facts as
witnesses have presented them.



Republicans have occasionally pushed witnesses over a few specifics,
but overall they seem to have little to say about the basic story of
what President Donald Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani,
Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and other loyalists
actually did. They don’t dispute that there was an official Ukraine
policy that had been approved of by Congress, most of the executive
branch and the president himself, and then another “irregular” one
involving Giuliani, Sondland and also the president himself. They
don’t dispute what Trump said to Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelenskiy on the July 25 phone call in which he dangled an invitation
to the White House and pressed for an investigation of a leading
Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. They don’t dispute
a string of evidence of contacts between Ukrainian officials and
Americans working on behalf of the irregular policy.

And the atlantic, AP, Al Jazeera,BBC,NBC, NYT,USA Today, Financial
Times, Guardian,Reuters,Washington Post, and even half of FOX admit to
the FACTS that prove he is guilty.

The differences of opinion relate to whether his being GUILTY is
worthy of impeachment, and whether the facts matter or it's just
"politics as usual". The Repugnicans' only defence is they BELIEVE the
democrats have also misbehaved, and Hey, 2 wrongs make a right - - - -
ANd half of them don't even BELIEVE it - they just figure it's the
only card they've got left to play in the deck Trump has stacked
against himself and them

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 7 Dec 2019 06:11:08 -0500, Joe

<j...@internet.net> wrote:

>On 12/6/19 11:18 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:11:23 -0600, Terry Coombs <snag...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/2019 3:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 12/6/2019 4:07 PM, mog...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> "The July 26 phone call between Trump and Sondland also raised
>>>>> concerns among some Democrats because it took place on an open,
>>>>> unsecured cell phone. "
>>>>>
>>>>> NBC Local - November 20, 21019
>>>>> --
>>>>> https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/ambassador-at-center-of-ukraine-scandal-to-testify
>>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it make a difference what is discussed?
>>>>
>>>> Hey, for the meeting we're ordering pizza.  Do you want pepperoni or
>>>> sausage?  Coke or Pepsi?
>>>   The thing is , if they'd used a secure line he'd be screaming about
>>> what are they trying to hide . Trump can't win either way .
>>
>> NOT using the secure phone is evidence of "something to hide" - not
>> the other way around. He's "going in the back door" assuming (mostly
>> correctly) that there is no record of the call so he has "weasel room"
>> - and "plausible deniability"
>
>
>The democrats are on a witch hunt.

If so, Stumpie is the witch they want. White House stewards have
reported that he brought a big black cauldron, an iron pot about 3 feet
high, into the part of the white house garden that the public does not
see. It's their job to bring wood and light the fire underneath it, and
he's often seen standing over the boiling brew, wearing all black and
chanting curses.

When it comes to Stumpie, America needs a witch hunt.

>  The treasonous little bitches have been hunting for 3 years yet they got nothing.

You think the 10 instances of obstruction of justice are nothing? I'll
never lend you any money.

[Clare Snyder]

The democrats don't need to fabricate anything - and they could not
in their wildest dreams - even pharmeceutically induced, come up with
MOST of what Thumper has been handing them - - - -

[trader_4]

Oh no, it's much worse than that. The GOP, with only a few rare exceptions, deny that Trump is guilty of anything. They say what transpired, as outlined above, is all perfectly fine. Like George Will said, this is far worse than Watergate. What Nixon did, he did surreptitiously, because he knew that it was wrong and illegal. Once exposed, he was finished. Trump commits his offenses openly and then claims it's all perfect.

The Repugnicans' only defence is they BELIEVE the
> democrats have also misbehaved, and Hey, 2 wrongs make a right - - - -
> ANd half of them don't even BELIEVE it - they just figure it's the
> only card they've got left to play in the deck Trump has stacked
> against himself and them

I think the latter is the reality. The cult of Trump is strong, the GOP has lost all its principles, values and morality and they won't stand against Trump because they fear they will lose their jobs. History will not be kind to any of them.

[trader_4]

The trumpets are like parents with a horrible child with serious problems. Every few days the principal or police call. Johnny flooded the school bathroom, Johnny threw a rock through the window, Johnny was in a fight, Johnny set fire to the school..... But through it all, they say it's never Johnny's fault, it just "happens". I call that the poor widdle Trump defense.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 07 Dec 2019 21:40:20 -0500, Clare Snyder

That's true. I was just trying to add some humor. I don't think anyone
would believe what I wrote.

[patriot taxpayer]

President Trump was exonerated yet the 'rats keep coming at him.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 07 Dec 2019 17:31:26 -0500, Clare Snyder

A couple days ago, a reporter asked Nancy Pelosi if she hated Trump,
because I believe that's what some Republicans have been saying. They
want to portray the impeachment effort as based on emotion, hate, etc
and not on the facts or what's good for America.

Pelosi was offended and shaid she was raised not to hate anyone, that
she didn't hate him or anyone, and that she prayed for the President
every day. I believe her, but even if I didn't I know the impreachment
effort is based on the facts, on STumpie's illegal acts, including
selling out the American interest in having Ukraine defend itself
against the Russians, just so he can get them to fabricate a story to
make Joe Biden look bad.

[Ed Pawlowski]

But he was NOT exonerated. Aside from his babble, nowhere will you find
that said. Just as in court, "not guilty" does not assure innocence.

[Terry Coombs]

  Interesting thought process there Ed . If I'm not guilty how can I be
anything BUT innocent ? Is there another classification between guilty
and innocent that I'm not aware of ?
  Please please please clarify this for me !

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

[Grumpy Old White Guy]

Yup!  One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.  The treasonous lying democrats got nuthin'!

--
Get off my lawn!

[Cindy Hamilton]

Hung jury doesn't mean the guy didn't do it.
Having critical evidence thrown out because the police didn't follow
proper procedures doesn't mean the guy didn't do it.
Failure on the part of the prosecutor to convince the jury doesn't
mean the guy didn't do it.

There are a lot of ways to be "not guilty" and also be "not innocent".

Cindy Hamilton

[Cindy Hamilton]

Trump isn't in a court of law. It's the Senate who will try him
(if the House brings in a bill of impeachment).

Cindy Hamilton

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 12/8/2019 10:35 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:

Simple really. Not Guilty is a legal term. To be called guilty the
prosecution has to prove it. If you robbed a bank, got arrested, but
there were not enough witnesses, the security cameras did not work and
your cousin two states away lied and said you were fishing with him, the
jury may find you "not guilty". Does that mean you are innocent?

Exonerated is different.
(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a
fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.

Glossary. In general, an exoneration occurs when a person who has been
convicted of a crime is officially cleared based on new evidence of
innocence. ... A person who otherwise qualifies has not been exonerated
if there is unexplained physical evidence of that person's guilt.

Nowhere in the paperwork was Trump exonerated, only in his mind.

[Grumpy Old White Guy]

Blah-blah-blah.  More DNC propaganda.  Get back with us when you have real evidence.

[Ed Pawlowski]

How are legal terms DNC propaganda? Perhaps you should get back when
you have real evidence he was exonerated. You can't.

Would you like to refresh your Kool-Aid?

[rbowman]

On 12/08/2019 05:36 AM, micky wrote:
> Pelosi was offended and shaid she was raised not to hate anyone, that
> she didn't hate him or anyone, and that she prayed for the President
> every day. I believe her, but even if I didn't I know the impreachment
> effort is based on the facts, on STumpie's illegal acts, including
> selling out the American interest in having Ukraine defend itself
> against the Russians, just so he can get them to fabricate a story to
> make Joe Biden look bad.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict

You better review the history.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <RJaHF.76686$8z3....@fx24.iad>, e...@snet.xxx says...

> Simple really. Not Guilty is a legal term. To be called guilty the
> prosecution has to prove it. If you robbed a bank, got arrested, but
> there were not enough witnesses, the security cameras did not work and
> your cousin two states away lied and said you were fishing with him, the
> jury may find you "not guilty". Does that mean you are innocent?
>
> Exonerated is different.
> (especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a
> fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.
>
> Glossary. In general, an exoneration occurs when a person who has been
> convicted of a crime is officially cleared based on new evidence of
> innocence. ... A person who otherwise qualifies has not been exonerated
> if there is unexplained physical evidence of that person's guilt.
>
> Nowhere in the paperwork was Trump exonerated, only in his mind.
>
>

Yes, the good old legal law. Just like Clintons lying about a BJ not
being sex. While a wrong thing to do, Congress said that was not sex.

[trader_4]

On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 10:35:11 AM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:

Simple. Prosecutors routinely choose not to prosecute some cases for
a variety of reasons. That could be because there isn't enough evidence,
the crucial evidence is tainted and can't be used, or they figure that
they will be unlikely to be able to win a conviction. If you had a drug
dealer and the case hinged on evidence obtained by a search that was
later ruled illegal by a judge, that doesn't mean the drug dealer wasn't
dealing drugs. And in the case of Trump, the reasons not to try to prosecute
include that he's a sitting president and the DOJ has established policy
that you can't try him while he's in office. And even if you could prosecute
him, it's obvious that 40% of America would vote not guilty if he shot someone
on Fifth Ave. It only takes one juror to avoid a conviction. Knowing that,
it's illogical to charge him, put the country through that, with a
conviction being unlikely.


In this case, you Mueller said that if they could have exonerated Trump
on the obstruction of justice charges,
they would have. Applying that to the drug dealer example, if it turned
out they arrested the wrong guy, it was a case of mistaken identity,
the prosecutor would do the same, indicate that this was the wrong guy,
he is exonerated. But not if they couldn't proceed with the case for
some reason, like tainted evidence. Then they would simply drop the charges.
We all saw what Trump did and it sure looks like attempted obstruction of
justice to me. Trump's main defense is that it didn't succeed, which of
course is no defense.

[Clare Snyder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 09:35:40 -0600, Terry Coombs <snag...@msn.com>

Not guilty of 1st degree murder doesn't mean you didn't kill someone
- might still be guilty of second degree or manslaughter.

Or not guilty by reason of diminished mental capacity doesn't mean you
didn't kill the guy.

But in this case the verdict was NOT "not guilty" - It was "not
exonerated" and "unable to establish criminal behavior" due to the
effectiveness of his "obstruction of justice" and "lying to FBI" and
now Congress

[Clare Snyder]

Keep digging - there is a lot more behind even THAT.

[rbowman]

Hell, yes, but the run of the mill American is lucky to be able to
process the consequences of what happened last week let alone understand
the nuances of European history.

"But now we got weapons
Of chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side"

'With God on Our Side' Bob Dylan

https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/withgodonourside.html

The song goes back to 1963. A lot of water has went over the dam since
then but the sclerotic bureaucrats in Washington are still fighting the
Cold War. They need an enemy to ensure hoi polloi aren't watching the
rest of the shit they're pulling.

[Clare Snyder]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 18:20:23 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:

>On 12/08/2019 05:35 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:35:25 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/08/2019 05:36 AM, micky wrote:
>>>> Pelosi was offended and shaid she was raised not to hate anyone, that
>>>> she didn't hate him or anyone, and that she prayed for the President
>>>> every day. I believe her, but even if I didn't I know the impreachment
>>>> effort is based on the facts, on STumpie's illegal acts, including
>>>> selling out the American interest in having Ukraine defend itself
>>>> against the Russians, just so he can get them to fabricate a story to
>>>> make Joe Biden look bad.
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
>>>
>>> You better review the history.
>> Keep digging - there is a lot more behind even THAT.
>>
>
>Hell, yes, but the run of the mill American is lucky to be able to
>process the consequences of what happened last week let alone understand
>the nuances of European history.

So sad, but so TERRIBLY true.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 8 Dec 2019 13:46:55 -0500, Ralph Mowery

No, that was not what anyone said. Clinton never said they didn't have
sex. He said they didn't have sexual relations. Sex and sexual
relations are not the same. Some people think they are, and he was
perhaps "too smart by half", but if you're going to talk about it, you
have to repeat what was really said. Otherwise, you'll confuse even
yourself.

> While a wrong thing to do, Congress said that was not sex.

While individual congressment may have said something like that, I don't
think Congress said anything one way or the other -- they just voted
against impeachment or against conviction -- but any issue would have
been whether it was sexual relations.
>

[patriot]

On 12/9/19 12:14 AM, micky wrote:
> No, that was not what anyone said. Clinton never said they didn't have
> sex. He said they didn't have sexual relations. Sex and sexual
> relations are not the same. Some people think they are, and he was
> perhaps "too smart by half", but if you're going to talk about it, you
> have to repeat what was really said. Otherwise, you'll confuse even
> yourself.

There are three types of sex relations (maybe more) - oral, anal and vaginal.

Do you really believe Slick Willy was not aware of that?

Apparently democrats are immune to perjury.

[trader_4]

Of course he believes Bill Clinton. Micky is a partisan Democrat hack,
he constantly complains about Republicans doing wrong things, but never,
ever a Democrat. Not once.

As to his above BS,

Sexual Relations Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

https://definitions.uslegal.com › sexual-relations


Sexual relations refer to physical sexual activity that does not necessarily end up in an intercourse. It involves touching another person in his/her private parts. However, the person who touches and the person who is touched engage in sexual relations.


And this:

"Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her. His lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, stated with Clinton present that Lewinsky's affidavit showed that there was no sex in any manner, shape or form between Clinton and Lewinsky. The Starr Report states that the following day, Clinton "coached" his secretary Betty Currie into repeating his denials should she be called to testify. "



I suppose Micky will tell us that Clinton lying about being alone with
Monica wasn't a lie either, because there were other people in the
White House, etc, etc, etc. It's what lying shysters do. They lie and
then their lame supporters accept the lies and spread them, instead of
admitting what their guy did was wrong.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Dec 2019 06:16:18 -0500, patriot

<pat...@trump-2020.usa> wrote:

>On 12/9/19 12:14 AM, micky wrote:
>> No, that was not what anyone said. Clinton never said they didn't have
>> sex. He said they didn't have sexual relations. Sex and sexual
>> relations are not the same. Some people think they are, and he was
>> perhaps "too smart by half", but if you're going to talk about it, you
>> have to repeat what was really said. Otherwise, you'll confuse even
>> yourself.
>
>There are three types of sex relations (maybe more) - oral, anal and vaginal.

That's debateable. In the language of someone born around 1947, I
don't think so.

But what is not debateable is whether one should quote the words used or
replace them with his own choice of words, when making accusations based
on the words the other party said. If you had agreed with that, you're
complaint above would have looked a lot better.

If you are willing to make an accusation about words using the wrong
words, why not make an accusation using the wrong location? When
someone's accused of robbing a bank in NYC and he says he was in
Pittsburgh at the time, why not say he said he was in NYC at the time.

YOU think Pittsburgh and NYC are different, but sex and sexual relations
are the same, but if the latter pair are the same, why not use the words
that were actually said? Why is it that eveyone who doesn't like
Clinton misquotes him, why do they change from sexual relations to sex,
if they really think the words are the same? It could very well be they
know the words mean different things and they choose the words that, if
believed, strengthen their case.

[trader_4]

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 12:01:23 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Dec 2019 06:16:18 -0500, patriot
> <pat...@trump-2020.usa> wrote:
>
> >On 12/9/19 12:14 AM, micky wrote:
> >> No, that was not what anyone said. Clinton never said they didn't have
> >> sex. He said they didn't have sexual relations. Sex and sexual
> >> relations are not the same. Some people think they are, and he was
> >> perhaps "too smart by half", but if you're going to talk about it, you
> >> have to repeat what was really said. Otherwise, you'll confuse even
> >> yourself.
> >
> >There are three types of sex relations (maybe more) - oral, anal and vaginal.
>
> That's debateable. In the language of someone born around 1947, I
> don't think so.
>

Of course not. Bill is a Democrat and you're a partisan hack, so any
excuse, no matter how lame and it's all good.

and the person who is touched engage in sexual relations.

Sexual Relations Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

https://definitions.uslegal.com › sexual-relations

"Sexual Relations Law and Legal Definition. Sexual relations refer to physical sexual activity that does not necessarily end up in an intercourse. It involves touching another person in his/her private parts. However, the person who touches and the person who is touched engage in sexual relations."

Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her. His lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, stated with Clinton present that Lewinsky's affidavit showed that there was no sex in any manner, shape or form between Clinton and Lewinsky. The Starr Report states that the following day, Clinton "coached" his secretary Betty Currie into repeating his denials should she be called to testify. "

That's right. This wasn't Bill being asked a casual question at a cocktail
party, with no time to think about it. It was in a legal deposition,
under oath, where he KNEW what they were going to be asking about and
where he had weeks to prepare with his counsel. His peers, the bar,
knows perjury when they see it. They fined and suspended Clinton for it and
Clinton resigned from being certified to appear before the SC because
they were about to ban him. Don't spit in our faces and try to tell
us it's raining.

> But what is not debateable is whether one should quote the words used or
> replace them with his own choice of words, when making accusations based
> on the words the other party said. If you had agreed with that, you're
> complaint above would have looked a lot better.
>
> If you are willing to make an accusation about words using the wrong
> words, why not make an accusation using the wrong location? When
> someone's accused of robbing a bank in NYC and he says he was in
> Pittsburgh at the time, why not say he said he was in NYC at the time.
>
> YOU think Pittsburgh and NYC are different, but sex and sexual relations
> are the same, but if the latter pair are the same, why not use the words
> that were actually said? Why is it that eveyone who doesn't like
> Clinton misquotes him, why do they change from sexual relations to sex,
> if they really think the words are the same? It could very well be they
> know the words mean different things and they choose the words that, if
> believed, strengthen their case.

Heh, any excuse. any excuse. After all Bill is a Democrat. You fully
defend the unprecedented pay-to-play shakedown that went on at the
"foundation" and with Bill pocketing $500K a speech, while Hillary
was sec of state too. Move along folks, nothing improper or wrong
there either. And then you're such a hypocrite, always bitching about
a Republican doing something, but never, ever a DEMOCRAT.

[devnull]

On 12/9/19 12:01 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Dec 2019 06:16:18 -0500, patriot
> <pat...@trump-2020.usa> wrote:
>
>> On 12/9/19 12:14 AM, micky wrote:
>>> No, that was not what anyone said. Clinton never said they didn't have
>>> sex. He said they didn't have sexual relations. Sex and sexual
>>> relations are not the same. Some people think they are, and he was
>>> perhaps "too smart by half", but if you're going to talk about it, you
>>> have to repeat what was really said. Otherwise, you'll confuse even
>>> yourself.
>> There are three types of sex relations (maybe more) - oral, anal and vaginal.
> That's debateable. In the language of someone born around 1947, I
> don't think so.

And the girl in the blue dress testified,

"When I was in the Oval Office, I experimented with felatio a time or two and I didn't like it...and didn't swallow and never tried it again."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGeZnLoGGkA

[trader_4]

Typical JAP.

[Grumpy Old White Guy]

LOL