Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Putting classified information on a classified server is now a crime

13»

Comments

  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,107
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    This statement by me was a statement of fact.

    Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr. But when do you ever get anything right.

    You then put your head up your ass and responded:

    Bob is wrong. As always:

    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.


    That Jan 17, depo wasn't given to Starr, it was a civil suit and despite the fact that you crammed your head even further up your ass and claimed Clinton was put under oath by a "prosecutor"


    There was no proof before the sworn deposition in January of 1998. So.... He was put under oath before the prosecutors had the dress or anything.


    You made all of these bullshit statements just a few hours ago and now you lie and claim you don't recall them.

    How big a fucking coward do you have to be in order to unable to admit you were wrong on an anonymous message board?

    Thanks Bob for showing that you are a word semantics genius and I suck at being exactly precise on my wording. Now that are you done with that exercise and you've shown your superiority. Do you want to comment on the actual point that Clinton was put under oath before any actual corroborated evidence was found? Hell he was under oath before Monica even admitted to it. Monica never confirmed it until she was offered a deal.
    He was put under oath in a civil suit not a criminal suit. You're comparing apples to dog shit. And the only person playing a "word semantics" game is you Kunt. I clearly said Clinton was put under oath by Starr and that Starr already had the dress. You're the one who decided to stick your head up your ass and claim the "prosecutors" put him under oath in the Paula Jones case. It's obvious you didn't know that January depo was in the Jones case, instead of just admitting your error you went full Kunt.
    So he was put under oath prior to having actual evidence. Thanks for finally admitting that. Fuck it's painful talking to you man.
    No. they had evidence you fucking lying sack of shit. I didn't admit anything other than the fact that you're a fucking moron and a liar.

  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,107
    I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath.

    That's what you said dumbfuck. You clearly thought the January Paula Jones case depo had something to do with Monica. Why would they have needed evidence that Clinton had sex with Monica before putting him under oath in the Paula Jones civil suit you fucking moron?

    Keep digging Hondo you lying sack of shit.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,107
    And other than an affidavit that Monica signed in the Jones matter where she denied having a sexual relationship with Clinton and 20 hours of audio tape where Monica discussed having sex with Clinton, they had no proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica, right Hondo, you fucking dipshit.
  • CirrhosisDawgCirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    Epic GayBob meltdown. Seek help.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,107

    Epic GayBob meltdown. Seek help.

    Could there be a more clearer sign that you hate yourself.
  • CirrhosisDawgCirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    SFGbob said:

    Epic GayBob meltdown. Seek help.

    Could there be a more clearer sign that you hate yourself.
    Yes.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath.

    That's what you said dumbfuck. You clearly thought the January Paula Jones case depo had something to do with Monica. Why would they have needed evidence that Clinton had sex with Monica before putting him under oath in the Paula Jones civil suit you fucking moron?

    Keep digging Hondo you lying sack of shit.

    If it only had something to do with Paula Jones. Then why did they ask him about Lewisnky? Seriously. The team giving the deposition was trying to establish a track record of Clinton harassing women. That's why he was asked about it. Fuck Bob. You are fucking delusional and it gets even worse.



    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.
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 34,482 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath.

    That's what you said dumbfuck. You clearly thought the January Paula Jones case depo had something to do with Monica. Why would they have needed evidence that Clinton had sex with Monica before putting him under oath in the Paula Jones civil suit you fucking moron?

    Keep digging Hondo you lying sack of shit.

    If it only had something to do with Paula Jones. Then why did they ask him about Lewisnky? Seriously. The team giving the deposition was trying to establish a track record of Clinton harassing women. That's why he was asked about it. Fuck Bob. You are fucking delusional and it gets even worse.



    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.
    Clinton shill shilling!

    Get back to work on Hillary's ham wallet Hondo, stat!
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,107
    edited September 2019
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath.

    That's what you said dumbfuck. You clearly thought the January Paula Jones case depo had something to do with Monica. Why would they have needed evidence that Clinton had sex with Monica before putting him under oath in the Paula Jones civil suit you fucking moron?

    Keep digging Hondo you lying sack of shit.

    If it only had something to do with Paula Jones. Then why did they ask him about Lewisnky? Seriously. The team giving the deposition was trying to establish a track record of Clinton harassing women. That's why he was asked about it. Fuck Bob. You are fucking delusional and it gets even worse.



    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.
    Sorry I don't speak lying, barely literate dumbfuck. The deposition with Clinton was scheduled months in advance and Monica wasn't even in the picture at the time. They didn't need evidence that he had sex with Monica to depose him about the Jones case.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,107
    And by the time of Clinton's deposition Jan. 17 1998, the "prosecutor" had the evidence they needed to show that Clinton had sex with Lewinsky and that Lewinsky perjured herself in her affidavit. So despite what you may "feel" Hondo, you don't know shit.
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,628
    SFGbob said:

    Securing classified information on a classified serve is now a “cover up.”

    SFGbob said:

    Securing classified information on a classified serve is now a “cover up.”

    Playing dumb is a good look for you.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,107
    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    Securing classified information on a classified serve is now a “cover up.”

    SFGbob said:

    Securing classified information on a classified serve is now a “cover up.”

    Playing dumb is a good look for you.
    Yeah, shocking that a smart Kunt like you couldn’t address anything I said.
  • CirrhosisDawgCirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    Securing classified information on a classified serve is now a “cover up.”

    SFGbob said:

    Securing classified information on a classified serve is now a “cover up.”

    Playing dumb is a good look for you.
    Yeah, shocking that a smart Kunt like you couldn’t address anything I said.
    GayBob is “working class.”
    And a coward.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,107
    El Monte’s melt down continues
  • CirrhosisDawgCirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    SFGbob said:

    El Monte’s melt down continues

    Did you get a federal income tax cut in 2019? You’ve been running like the bitch you are all day afraid to answer the question. Man of integrity? Not working class? You are a coward GayBob.
Sign In or Register to comment.