[ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
johnkclark at gmail.com
Tue May 10 20:55:40 UTC 2016
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:54 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> John, it isn’t the blowjob. It really isn’t, they don’t care about that.
Balcony. The Republicans had an
unhealthy obsession with other people's sex lives
20 years ago
and they still do.
> The crime was trying to cover it up by not reporting it to the security
> Exactly what law is it that says the President of the United States has
to tell security people, or anybody else
for that matter
, whenever he gets a blowjob?
> and when legitimately questioned, perjury.
> You've got the chronology backward. Ken Starr decided to investigate.
Ken Starr found that no crime had been committed yet. Ken Starr theorized
he could induce perjury in the future by asking the President of the Unites
States of America if he ever had a blowjob. Ken Starr was correct.
> A top level security clearance holder
The president is elected by the people and they have given him the
*ULTIMATE* security clearance
he needs no other. Who on Earth would the president even go to for a
security clearance? And who gave the guy who gave the president a top
top security clearance
? And who gave the guy
The buck has to stop somewhere and under our constitutional
it stops with the president.
The president as commander in chief is the guy who gives
level security clearance
s to other people.
> Ken Starr was interested in perjury, not blowjobs.
> Born again Ken Starr not interested in other people's blowjobs?
>> … So if it became public what would the negative consequences be for the
>> president and from whom would they come from? From the president's wife
>> demanding a divorce?
> No, from the senate demanding impeachment for perjury.
> Incorrect. The Senate a *ACQUITTED* Bill Clinton of perjury, and of the
high crime of getting a blowjob too, and that's why he remained president
for his full 8 years term. It was the house controlled by priggish
republicans that demanded and got impeachment.
> Presidents need a clearance. Otherwise his own military brass may not
> legally brief him.
> **That's just nuts. The president was elected commander in chief by the
people of the United States, he's the boss of the military brass and he's
the one who gives the military brass top secret clearance not the other way
around. Presidents tell Generals secrets, Generals don't tell Presidents
secrets, and no secret is too secret for the President.
But why are we even talking about this? What does a 20 year old sex scandal
have to do with the 2016 presidential election?
> Our next leader is being chosen by the FBI.
> Look on the bright side, if the above turns out to be true you'll be
$200 richer, but I wouldn't start spending that money just yet if I were
you. As for me I already have big plans for my $10.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat