LaxPower Back-Up Stick

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:45 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:17 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:45 pm All I am saying, is yes, he plead guilty.....but that also does not mean what he plead guilty of doing, is factually accurate.

Flynn thought it was factually accurate. He so testified under oath twice in front of a federal judge. He signed one or more documents under oath so stating.

T**** thought it was factually accurate. That’s why he fired him for lying. Pence thought it was factually accurate.

Mueller thought it was factually accurate. The prosecutors thought it was factually accurate. The judge thought it was factually accurate.

Even Bill Barr in his motion to dismiss did not dispute that it was factually accurate.

We have the tapes of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak. We know what Flynn said to him. We have the notes of the FBI agents who interviewed him. Their account has not been disputed by Flynn or anyone else.

Who thinks it isn’t factually accurate and what is their evidence?

Must be some real bad attorneys and judges out there if they couldn’t lock someone up so guilty. Why, then, IYO was it not such a slam dunk case if everyone believes his plea? You guys are so certain and yet, prior to pardon, it was still be argued.

Was Flynn awaiting sentencing? I can’t remember....

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:50 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:45 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:17 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:45 pm All I am saying, is yes, he plead guilty.....but that also does not mean what he plead guilty of doing, is factually accurate.

Flynn thought it was factually accurate. He so testified under oath twice in front of a federal judge. He signed one or more documents under oath so stating.

T**** thought it was factually accurate. That’s why he fired him for lying. Pence thought it was factually accurate.

Mueller thought it was factually accurate. The prosecutors thought it was factually accurate. The judge thought it was factually accurate.

Even Bill Barr in his motion to dismiss did not dispute that it was factually accurate.

We have the tapes of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak. We know what Flynn said to him. We have the notes of the FBI agents who interviewed him. Their account has not been disputed by Flynn or anyone else.

Who thinks it isn’t factually accurate and what is their evidence?

Must be some real bad attorneys and judges out there if they couldn’t lock someone up so guilty. Why, then, IYO was it not such a slam dunk case if everyone believes his plea? You guys are so certain and yet, prior to pardon, it was still be argued.

Was Flynn awaiting sentencing? I can’t remember....

That is the entire point, for such an easy case, the sentencing should have been the easiest part. I also added an edit two posts back to clarify where I am coming from.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:15 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:50 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:45 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:17 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:45 pm All I am saying, is yes, he plead guilty.....but that also does not mean what he plead guilty of doing, is factually accurate.

Flynn thought it was factually accurate. He so testified under oath twice in front of a federal judge. He signed one or more documents under oath so stating.

T**** thought it was factually accurate. That’s why he fired him for lying. Pence thought it was factually accurate.

Mueller thought it was factually accurate. The prosecutors thought it was factually accurate. The judge thought it was factually accurate.

Even Bill Barr in his motion to dismiss did not dispute that it was factually accurate.

We have the tapes of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak. We know what Flynn said to him. We have the notes of the FBI agents who interviewed him. Their account has not been disputed by Flynn or anyone else.

Who thinks it isn’t factually accurate and what is their evidence?

Must be some real bad attorneys and judges out there if they couldn’t lock someone up so guilty. Why, then, IYO was it not such a slam dunk case if everyone believes his plea? You guys are so certain and yet, prior to pardon, it was still be argued.

Was Flynn awaiting sentencing? I can’t remember....

That is the entire point, for such an easy case, the sentencing should have been the easiest part. I also added an edit two posts back to clarify where I am coming from.

So Flynn didn’t lie? OJ didn’t kill anyone either....

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:45 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:17 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:45 pm All I am saying, is yes, he plead guilty.....but that also does not mean what he plead guilty of doing, is factually accurate.

Flynn thought it was factually accurate. He so testified under oath twice in front of a federal judge. He signed one or more documents under oath so stating.

T**** thought it was factually accurate. That’s why he fired him for lying. Pence thought it was factually accurate.

Mueller thought it was factually accurate. The prosecutors thought it was factually accurate. The judge thought it was factually accurate.

Even Bill Barr in his motion to dismiss did not dispute that it was factually accurate.

We have the tapes of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak. We know what Flynn said to him. We have the notes of the FBI agents who interviewed him. Their account has not been disputed by Flynn or anyone else.

Who thinks it isn’t factually accurate and what is their evidence?

Must be some real bad attorneys and judges out there if they couldn’t lock someone up so guilty. Why, then, IYO was it not such a slam dunk case if everyone believes his plea? You guys are so certain and yet, prior to pardon, it was still be argued. Not to mention, POTUS just pardoned him.

EDIT: the quote from NPR, is where I am coming from in my earlier comments, unfortunately, this small back and forth w/njbill does not cover the premise of the original conversation.

Attorney General William Barr was clear in an interview with CBS News on Thursday evening: "People sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes, and the Department of Justice is not persuaded that this was material to any legitimate counterintelligence investigation. So it was not a crime."

who makes that decision, counselor?

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:45 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:17 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:45 pm All I am saying, is yes, he plead guilty.....but that also does not mean what he plead guilty of doing, is factually accurate.

Flynn thought it was factually accurate. He so testified under oath twice in front of a federal judge. He signed one or more documents under oath so stating.

T**** thought it was factually accurate. That’s why he fired him for lying. Pence thought it was factually accurate.

Mueller thought it was factually accurate. The prosecutors thought it was factually accurate. The judge thought it was factually accurate.

Even Bill Barr in his motion to dismiss did not dispute that it was factually accurate.

We have the tapes of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak. We know what Flynn said to him. We have the notes of the FBI agents who interviewed him. Their account has not been disputed by Flynn or anyone else.

Who thinks it isn’t factually accurate and what is their evidence?

Must be some real bad attorneys and judges out there if they couldn’t lock someone up so guilty. Why, then, IYO was it not such a slam dunk case if everyone believes his plea? You guys are so certain and yet, prior to pardon, it was still be argued. Not to mention, POTUS just pardoned him.

EDIT: the quote from NPR, is where I am coming from in my earlier comments, unfortunately, this small back and forth w/njbill does not cover the premise of the original conversation.

Attorney General William Barr was clear in an interview with CBS News on Thursday evening: "People sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes, and the Department of Justice is not persuaded that this was material to any legitimate counterintelligence investigation. So it was not a crime."

Part of the delay was due to the fact that Flynn elected not to proceed to sentencing when he first came up before Judge Sullivan. Then Sid started filing motion after motion. Then Bill Barr filed his motion to dismiss. Then Sid appealed before Sullivan had even ruled. And now Flynn has been pardoned. So the delays are almost entirely due to Sid and Barr.

Yes, Barr claims there was no crime. Importantly, though, to our discussion, he did not say there was no crime because Flynn did not lie. He says there was no crime because Flynn’s lie was not material (in his view).

njbill wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:44 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:45 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:17 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:45 pm All I am saying, is yes, he plead guilty.....but that also does not mean what he plead guilty of doing, is factually accurate.

Flynn thought it was factually accurate. He so testified under oath twice in front of a federal judge. He signed one or more documents under oath so stating.

T**** thought it was factually accurate. That’s why he fired him for lying. Pence thought it was factually accurate.

Mueller thought it was factually accurate. The prosecutors thought it was factually accurate. The judge thought it was factually accurate.

Even Bill Barr in his motion to dismiss did not dispute that it was factually accurate.

We have the tapes of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak. We know what Flynn said to him. We have the notes of the FBI agents who interviewed him. Their account has not been disputed by Flynn or anyone else.

Who thinks it isn’t factually accurate and what is their evidence?

Must be some real bad attorneys and judges out there if they couldn’t lock someone up so guilty. Why, then, IYO was it not such a slam dunk case if everyone believes his plea? You guys are so certain and yet, prior to pardon, it was still be argued. Not to mention, POTUS just pardoned him.

EDIT: the quote from NPR, is where I am coming from in my earlier comments, unfortunately, this small back and forth w/njbill does not cover the premise of the original conversation.

Attorney General William Barr was clear in an interview with CBS News on Thursday evening: "People sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes, and the Department of Justice is not persuaded that this was material to any legitimate counterintelligence investigation. So it was not a crime."

Part of the delay was due to the fact that Flynn elected not to proceed to sentencing when he first came up before Judge Sullivan. Then Sid started filing motion after motion. Then Bill Barr filed his motion to dismiss. Then Sid appealed before Sullivan had even ruled. And now Flynn has been pardoned. So the delays are almost entirely due to Sid and Barr.

Yes, Barr claims there was no crime. Importantly, though, to our discussion, he did not say there was no crime because Flynn did not lie. He says there was no crime because Flynn’s lie was not material (in his view).

Thank you.

In bold of your reply, which means what?

As Flynn said, and Barr alluded, the guilty plea was A calculated decision based on the circumstances he was presented at the time, coupled with the financial ramifications of a drawn out legal battle with the feds, that will certainly impact family.

It is clearly a quagmire.

That was the hearing at which Sullivan said Flynn may have sold out his country, and then apologized for that statement after a break.

The concern on the part of Flynn and his attorneys was that Sullivan was going to give Flynn time. As I recall, Sullivan suggested that if he continued cooperating with Mueller, he might go easier on him.

So Flynn elected not to proceed to sentencing that day and continued working with Mueller.

After that, I think, he changed attorneys.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

njbill wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 8:49 pm That was the hearing at which Sullivan said Flynn may have sold out his country, and then apologized for that statement after a break.

The concern on the part of Flynn and his attorneys was that Sullivan was going to give Flynn time. As I recall, Sullivan suggested that if he continued cooperating with Mueller, he might go easier on him.

So Flynn elected not to proceed to sentencing that day and continued working with Mueller.

After that, I think, he changed attorneys.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

You mean it wasn’t drug out because it couldn’t be determined if Flynn lied?

Flynn co-operated for nearly a year before he agreed to the plea deal. His co-operation was so complete & helpful, the Mueller prosecutors recommended a sentence of only probation. Since Flynn was guilty of nothing more than being misleading in an interview that should never have taken place, Flynn should not have been charged with anything. The Mueller prosecutors were desperate to notch convictions for anything, to justify their existence.

Based on the bragging of Comey & McCabe & Priestap's notes, it's obvious the interview was conducted to entrap Flynn into lying. They had the transcript of the call. If they were really seeking information or clarification, they would have shown Flynn the transcript & then asked their questions.

As Acting AG, on her first visit to the WH, Yates should have taken the transcript & shown it to McGhan, then demanded to show it to Pence & Trump.
Since the transcript was from a FBI wiretap, Yates also needed to answer for the felonious leak of the transcript which was DoJ work product.

It was handled the way it was in order to entrap Flynn, get him fired (per Priestap's note) & make the incoming Trump Admin look bad for reaching out to Putin so he would not overreact to Obama's parting shot at Putin, which Obama took to box in Trump & sabotage any prospect of improved relations with Russia by the incoming Trump Admin. It was an abuse of both our surveillance & law enforcement capabilities for political purposes.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:06 pm Flynn co-operated for nearly a year before he agreed to the plea deal. His co-operation was so complete & helpful, the Mueller prosecutors recommended a sentence of only probation. Since Flynn was guilty of nothing more than being misleading in an interview that should never have taken place, Flynn should not have been charged with anything. The Mueller prosecutors were desperate to notch convictions for anything, to justify their existence.

Based on the bragging of Comey & McCabe & Priestap's notes, it's obvious the interview was conducted to entrap Flynn into lying. They had the transcript of the call. If they were really seeking information or clarification, they would have shown Flynn the transcript & then asked their questions.

As Acting AG, on her first visit to the WH, Yates should have taken the transcript & shown it to McGhan, then demanded to show it to Pence & Trump.

It was handled the way it was in order to entrap Flynn, get him fired (per Priestap's note) & make the incoming Trump Admin look bad for reaching out to Putin so he would not overreact to Obama's parting shot at Putin, which Obama took to box in Trump & sabotage any prospect of improved relations with Russia by the incoming Trump Admin. It was an abuse of both our surveillance & law enforcement capabilities for political purposes.

That’s what they call lying at military academies these days? “Nothing more than misleading in an interview” Huh. Who knew.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:12 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:06 pm Flynn co-operated for nearly a year before he agreed to the plea deal. His co-operation was so complete & helpful, the Mueller prosecutors recommended a sentence of only probation. Since Flynn was guilty of nothing more than being misleading in an interview that should never have taken place, Flynn should not have been charged with anything. The Mueller prosecutors were desperate to notch convictions for anything, to justify their existence.

Based on the bragging of Comey & McCabe & Priestap's notes, it's obvious the interview was conducted to entrap Flynn into lying. They had the transcript of the call. If they were really seeking information or clarification, they would have shown Flynn the transcript & then asked their questions.

As Acting AG, on her first visit to the WH, Yates should have taken the transcript & shown it to McGhan, then demanded to show it to Pence & Trump.

It was handled the way it was in order to entrap Flynn, get him fired (per Priestap's note) & make the incoming Trump Admin look bad for reaching out to Putin so he would not overreact to Obama's parting shot at Putin, which Obama took to box in Trump & sabotage any prospect of improved relations with Russia by the incoming Trump Admin. It was an abuse of both our surveillance & law enforcement capabilities for political purposes.

That’s what they call lying at military academies these days? “Nothing more than misleading in an interview” Huh. Who knew.

The Service Academy Chains of Command do not entrap Mids or Cadets into lying or misleading. They take pains not to. They bend over backwards to give the chance to do the right thing. They're looking to retain the students they admitted, not to weed them out.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:18 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:12 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:06 pm Flynn co-operated for nearly a year before he agreed to the plea deal. His co-operation was so complete & helpful, the Mueller prosecutors recommended a sentence of only probation. Since Flynn was guilty of nothing more than being misleading in an interview that should never have taken place, Flynn should not have been charged with anything. The Mueller prosecutors were desperate to notch convictions for anything, to justify their existence.

Based on the bragging of Comey & McCabe & Priestap's notes, it's obvious the interview was conducted to entrap Flynn into lying. They had the transcript of the call. If they were really seeking information or clarification, they would have shown Flynn the transcript & then asked their questions.

As Acting AG, on her first visit to the WH, Yates should have taken the transcript & shown it to McGhan, then demanded to show it to Pence & Trump.

It was handled the way it was in order to entrap Flynn, get him fired (per Priestap's note) & make the incoming Trump Admin look bad for reaching out to Putin so he would not overreact to Obama's parting shot at Putin, which Obama took to box in Trump & sabotage any prospect of improved relations with Russia by the incoming Trump Admin. It was an abuse of both our surveillance & law enforcement capabilities for political purposes.

That’s what they call lying at military academies these days? “Nothing more than misleading in an interview” Huh. Who knew.

The Service Academy Chains of Command do not entrap Mids or Cadets into lying or misleading. They take pains not to. They bend over backwards to give the chance to do the right thing. They're looking to retain the students they admitted, not to weed them out.

Didn’t ask you all dat....So misleading in an interview is ok now?

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:06 pm Flynn co-operated for nearly a year before he agreed to the plea deal. His co-operation was so complete & helpful, the Mueller prosecutors recommended a sentence of only probation. Since Flynn was guilty of nothing more than being misleading in an interview that should never have taken place, Flynn should not have been charged with anything. The Mueller prosecutors were desperate to notch convictions for anything, to justify their existence.

Based on the bragging of Comey & McCabe & Priestap's notes, it's obvious the interview was conducted to entrap Flynn into lying. They had the transcript of the call. If they were really seeking information or clarification, they would have shown Flynn the transcript & then asked their questions.

As Acting AG, on her first visit to the WH, Yates should have taken the transcript & shown it to McGhan, then demanded to show it to Pence & Trump.
Since the transcript was from a FBI wiretap, Yates also needed to answer for the felonious leak of the transcript which was DoJ work product.

It was handled the way it was in order to entrap Flynn, get him fired (per Priestap's note) & make the incoming Trump Admin look bad for reaching out to Putin so he would not overreact to Obama's parting shot at Putin, which Obama took to box in Trump & sabotage any prospect of improved relations with Russia by the incoming Trump Admin. It was an abuse of both our surveillance & law enforcement capabilities for political purposes.

The problem, after all your sound and fury-----is that Flynn lied. Lied to me, a taxpayer. Lied to the FBI. Lied to his commanders.

And all the "look over there, a squirrel" you can muster? Won't make that go away.

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:31 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:06 pm Flynn co-operated for nearly a year before he agreed to the plea deal. His co-operation was so complete & helpful, the Mueller prosecutors recommended a sentence of only probation. Since Flynn was guilty of nothing more than being misleading in an interview that should never have taken place, Flynn should not have been charged with anything. The Mueller prosecutors were desperate to notch convictions for anything, to justify their existence.

Based on the bragging of Comey & McCabe & Priestap's notes, it's obvious the interview was conducted to entrap Flynn into lying. They had the transcript of the call. If they were really seeking information or clarification, they would have shown Flynn the transcript & then asked their questions.

As Acting AG, on her first visit to the WH, Yates should have taken the transcript & shown it to McGhan, then demanded to show it to Pence & Trump.
Since the transcript was from a FBI wiretap, Yates also needed to answer for the felonious leak of the transcript which was DoJ work product.

It was handled the way it was in order to entrap Flynn, get him fired (per Priestap's note) & make the incoming Trump Admin look bad for reaching out to Putin so he would not overreact to Obama's parting shot at Putin, which Obama took to box in Trump & sabotage any prospect of improved relations with Russia by the incoming Trump Admin. It was an abuse of both our surveillance & law enforcement capabilities for political purposes.

The problem, after all your sound and fury-----is that Flynn lied. Lied to me, a taxpayer. Lied to the FBI. Lied to his commanders.

And all the "look over there, a squirrel" you can muster? Won't make that go away.

or...he lied under oath twice to the judge

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:31 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:06 pm Flynn co-operated for nearly a year before he agreed to the plea deal. His co-operation was so complete & helpful, the Mueller prosecutors recommended a sentence of only probation. Since Flynn was guilty of nothing more than being misleading in an interview that should never have taken place, Flynn should not have been charged with anything. The Mueller prosecutors were desperate to notch convictions for anything, to justify their existence.

Based on the bragging of Comey & McCabe & Priestap's notes, it's obvious the interview was conducted to entrap Flynn into lying. They had the transcript of the call. If they were really seeking information or clarification, they would have shown Flynn the transcript & then asked their questions.

As Acting AG, on her first visit to the WH, Yates should have taken the transcript & shown it to McGhan, then demanded to show it to Pence & Trump.
Since the transcript was from a FBI wiretap, Yates also needed to answer for the felonious leak of the transcript which was DoJ work product.

It was handled the way it was in order to entrap Flynn, get him fired (per Priestap's note) & make the incoming Trump Admin look bad for reaching out to Putin so he would not overreact to Obama's parting shot at Putin, which Obama took to box in Trump & sabotage any prospect of improved relations with Russia by the incoming Trump Admin. It was an abuse of both our surveillance & law enforcement capabilities for political purposes.

The problem, after all your sound and fury-----is that Flynn lied. Lied to me, a taxpayer. Lied to the FBI. Lied to his commanders.

And all the "look over there, a squirrel" you can muster? Won't make that go away.

I am waiting on someone to walk into my office and trick me into telling a lie.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:06 pm Flynn co-operated for nearly a year before he agreed to the plea deal. His co-operation was so complete & helpful, the Mueller prosecutors recommended a sentence of only probation. Since Flynn was guilty of nothing more than being misleading in an interview that should never have taken place, Flynn should not have been charged with anything. The Mueller prosecutors were desperate to notch convictions for anything, to justify their existence.

Based on the bragging of Comey & McCabe & Priestap's notes, it's obvious the interview was conducted to entrap Flynn into lying. They had the transcript of the call. If they were really seeking information or clarification, they would have shown Flynn the transcript & then asked their questions.

As Acting AG, on her first visit to the WH, Yates should have taken the transcript & shown it to McGhan, then demanded to show it to Pence & Trump.
Since the transcript was from a FBI wiretap, Yates also needed to answer for the felonious leak of the transcript which was DoJ work product.

It was handled the way it was in order to entrap Flynn, get him fired (per Priestap's note) & make the incoming Trump Admin look bad for reaching out to Putin so he would not overreact to Obama's parting shot at Putin, which Obama took to box in Trump & sabotage any prospect of improved relations with Russia by the incoming Trump Admin. It was an abuse of both our surveillance & law enforcement capabilities for political purposes.

You never give up.

Flynn lied to the FBI investigators, which is a crime. It was an open and shut case. It was mind numbingly dumb on the part of Flynn to do so. T**** fired him for lying. T**** thought he lied. Everybody on the planet knew he lied, including the person in the best position to know, Flynn.

The purpose of the interview was to find out whether Flynn was working with the Russians off the books. His (illegal) requests to the Russians were contrary to US policy. Contrary to American interests under any possible scenario. The Russians had just tried to interfere with the election. Obama had punished them for that, as any patriotic president would do.

Why is Flynn telling the Russians one thing and the administration something completely different? It was a legitimate inquiry to find out whether Flynn was a Russian operative. I’m sure the FBI expected Flynn to admit his conversations with Kislyak and explain that T**** wasn’t yet ready to bring Pence into the discussion, which is why T**** had Flynn lie to Pence. When Flynn lied to the FBI, that reasonably raised suspicions, as it would with any seasoned investigator.

Those notes were just reflective of brainstorming of possible approaches. Nothing more. Regardless, they don’t excuse Flynn’s lying. Nothing does.

Yates wanted to involve McGahn, but Comey did an end run around her. Whether or not that was proper is for the historians to debate. Even if it wasn’t (no law or rule was broken), that still doesn’t excuse Flynn’s lying. Again, nothing does.

What did Yates have to do with the leak? I’ve read nothing that suggests she was involved.

We disagree about this, but I have no problems with the leak because it informed the American public that the incoming national security advisor was having an improper or illegal phone conversation with the Russian ambassador and was working contrary to American interests.

Obama did the right thing in sanctioning Russia. He didn’t do it to box in T****, but rather to stand up for American interests.

To circle back to the beginning, if Flynn didn’t think he lied, then he shouldn’t have plead guilty (twice). He should have gone to trial and proved his innocence to a jury of his peers. If he had done so, he would’ve been acquitted and walked away a free man. And, he would’ve had his red badge of courage to parade before the frothy right. The big man who stared down Bob Mueller.

Lying under oath only matters if you're trying to parse the meaning of "sexual relations" in a civil case after a 7 year investigation that started by looking into to a real estate deal.

National Security cases are small beans in comparison. Encouraging Martial Law to disrupt the democratic process is patriotic.

holmes435 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 10:40 pm Lying under oath only matters if you're trying to parse the meaning of "sexual relations" in a civil case after a 7 year investigation that started by looking into to a real estate deal.

National Security cases are small beans in comparison. Encouraging Martial Law to disrupt the democratic process is patriotic.

I always wondered if a woman that has only given BJ’s considers herself a virgin?

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 10:43 pm

holmes435 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 10:40 pm Lying under oath only matters if you're trying to parse the meaning of "sexual relations" in a civil case after a 7 year investigation that started by looking into to a real estate deal.

National Security cases are small beans in comparison. Encouraging Martial Law to disrupt the democratic process is patriotic.

I always wondered if a woman that has only given BJ’s considers herself a virgin?

Bill answered that for ya already.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 10:46 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 10:43 pm

holmes435 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 10:40 pm Lying under oath only matters if you're trying to parse the meaning of "sexual relations" in a civil case after a 7 year investigation that started by looking into to a real estate deal.

National Security cases are small beans in comparison. Encouraging Martial Law to disrupt the democratic process is patriotic.

I always wondered if a woman that has only given BJ’s considers herself a virgin?

Bill answered that for ya already.

What do you call it? Just curious