Matt Gaetz Exonerated In Sexual Misconduct Investigation, what are your thoughts?

[anylolone]

https://conservativebrief.com/matt-gaetz-50208/

[KimmyKimmy]

I hope it's true, because I feel that Matt's a good man. I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't strand Americans behind enemy lines like the piece of shit president we have.

[Avicenna]

What do you have against shit, comparing it to that corrupt, racist traitor Butcher Beijing Biden?

[anylolone]

Go and check, seriously, it's solid.

[KimmyKimmy]

@Avicenna

I guess that wasn't fair of me on behalf of the shit of the world.

To my knowledge, the only shit I've ever eaten, was from the mussels we kids collected in the creek near town.

www.simplyrecipes.com/.../...4989fdc439c22ccdf.jpg

Mussels are easy to catch, it's those sneaky and fast crawdads that are more of a challenge.

Oh, yeah... this was about Matt. LOL

[anylolone]

Relax. Also, did you boil them in cans?

[KimmyKimmy]

Cans? LOL. No.

[anylolone]

Well, try next time.

[goaded]

OMG. Try a real news site, or read the indictment. The guy was trying to extort money in exchange for a PARDON. A pardon is of absolutely zero value to an innocent person.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndfl/press-release/file/1429001/download
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-alford-charged-don-gaetz/2021/08/31/3f9c67e8-0a9a-11ec-a6dd-296ba7fb2dce_story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/politics/matt-gaetz-stephen-alford.html

[anylolone]

www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../documents-detail-alleged-matt-gaetz-25-million-extortion-scheme

You try actually reading, just reading.
The "project homecoming" doesn't offer only a pardon, it offers to drop the investigation.

The offer of pardon is not for the victim, but for the scammers, as they can then later use it to damage the victim if the victim speaks out.

And he didn't fold yet the scammers despite being charged, haven't leaked a single thing except one contextless text from the scammed to the target.

[goaded]

So, in response to two news stories and the actual indictment from the last couple of days, you give me a Washington Examiner story from March?

"The offer of pardon is not for the victim, but for the scammers"
No. Read the indictment, it's on page 2. "Family Member A" is Matt Gaetz.

"((Alford)) falsely represented in the "Project Homecoming" letter that his "team has been assured by the President" that he will "strongly consider" a "Presidential pardon" or "instruct the Department of Justice to terminate any and all investigations involving [Family Member A] ((Gaetz)) should the team be able to secure the purported release of R. L. from captivity."

[anylolone]

It's still just as accurate.
Gaetz is still exonerated.

[goaded]

My god, man, that was two months ago, and one month ago it came out that the "Justice Department... added two top prosecutors from Washington to the child sex trafficking investigation of Representative Matt Gaetz...

The prosecutors — one a public corruption investigator with an expertise in child exploitation crimes, and the other a top leader of the public corruption unit — have been working on the Florida-based investigation for at least three months"
www.nytimes.com/.../...etz-justice-department.html

If he'd been exonerated, they'd have gone home two months ago.

[Avicenna]

No surprise there. Leftists constantly lie and falsely accuse.

[KyleJackson]

If they lied about it they should go to prison for defamation

[Avicenna]

@KyleJackson: He should sue the hell out of them

[goaded]

The indicted wanted money for a pardon. Why would he need one?

[anylolone]

@goaded He doesn't need one, the scammers do need him to take a pardon and pay up in order to remain compromised in exchange for being left alone.

Which is why he didn't took it.

[goaded]

Didn't Gaetz already ask for one from Trump?

[Avicenna]

@goaded: IF he did, it's because the Democrats go after anyone who is a political opponent in an attempt to bankrupt them. As we have seen numerous times, it doesn't matter what the facts are- Democrats let fellow Democrats skate and they maliciously investigate and prosecute their political opponents, much to the approval of the CCP and leftists worldwide.

[anylolone]

@goaded He didn't ask for a pardon, even though it would have been an expedient way to cut this scam at the root.

[goaded]

@Avicenna No, they don't. In fact that's precisely the sort of thing Gaetz has threatened to do to Pelosi in 2022, without any good reason. And, yes he did ask for a pardon.

"Congressman Matt Gaetz, a close ally of former President Trump, asked the White House for a blanket preemptive pardon before Mr. Trump left office, two sources familiar with the situation confirm to CBS News."
www.cbsnews.com/.../

Of course, Trump says he was never asked for one by Gaetz, but that's not how it works; you ask people to get one for you.

And, no, you don't ask for a pardon if you haven't committed a crime.

[Avicenna]

@goaded: To say that only a guilty person asks for a pardon is naive- it hat assumes that the Democrats in the DOJ or other law enforcement will treat someone close to Trump fairly. We know they will not and that they will do their best to destroy a Trump supporter. So you can put that theoretical idea in the trash bin.

[goaded]

Of course only a guilty person asks for a pardon, it's legally an admission of guilt!

[Avicenna]

@goaded: In theory, yes. But, again, look at the different ways the DOJ treats Democrats and Trump supporters. The Democrats don't need pardons because they aren't prosecuted (Hillary Clinton, for example) or get the tiniest slap on the wrist (James Wolfe and Kevin Clinesmith).

We all saw how a Democrat judge tried to prosecute Michael Flynn from the bench even after the government wanted to drop its politically-motivated case. And we've seen Democrats spending their time looking for any angle to prosecute Trump and anyone connected to him.

The Russia Hoax and illegal surveillance from the 2016 election also remains unprosecuted.

So you can wax philosophically all you like- your heroes in the Democratic Party act like the crime organization they are rather than anything that respects constitutional rights and due process.

[goaded]

I can see how it could look that way, if you think everything is run by a cabal of Democrats, but I doubt it. Maybe Durham's final report will find something worthwhile, if not in time for a 2020 October surprise.

How often does the DoJ decide to drop a case of a person who has confessed to a crime? Why would they do that?

[Avicenna]

@goaded: You're assuming he is guilty rather than seeking protection from malicious persecution. And there is enough of a body evidence to conclude that the DOJ is politicized by Democrats who go after political opponents while failing to prosecute Democrats. It can't just be coincidence.

There can be a number of reasons why someone would plead guilty, e. g., the government threatening to prosecute a family member. And there are a number of reasons why a government might want to drop charges- government misconduct or not wanting to reveal sources and methods come to mind.

[goaded]

And you're assuming he's seeking protection from malicious persecution, rather than being guilty. So, the US justice system is a farce, despite the majority of federal judges being appointed by Republican presidents?

[Avicenna]

@goaded: The evidence points in the direction of avoiding malicious prosecution.

The problem with federal judges lies primarily with the ones appointed by Democrats, since they often legislate from the bench. And now even prosecute from the bench.

I'm not sure what the breakdown of appointments by presidential party is, but keep in mind it's also decided by control of the Senate. Roger Gregory, to give one example, was a very leftist Democrat appointed by Bush 43 in an attempt to get a Democratic-controlled Senate to at least give some of his nominees a vote. And Democrats are much better at getting leftists nominated and to rule predictably on motions and cases than any Republican is in getting their nominees to rule conservatively. Republican doesn't necessarily equate to "conservative", especially McConnell.

And that doesn't begin to consider the leftist pressure on judges appointed by Republicans.

And as an example of prosecutors using leverage to achieve a goal, remember what was done to get Christian Wulff to resign the German Presidency? And that's a case where I was happy to see him resign.

[anylolone]

@goaded I'm not assuming, the evidence exonerates him, the scheme against him was exposed.
It's as easy as that, you on the other hand are assuming we don't know that you know he's innocent but you keep embarrassing yourself because you think it benefits you politically when you are just hurting your camp.

[goaded]

"The evidence points in the direction of avoiding malicious prosecution."
What evidence, and why?

And you say "The problem with federal judges lies primarily with the ones appointed by Democrats, since they often legislate from the bench. And now even prosecute from the bench." a couple of days after all the Republican nominated "justices" on the supreme court who were confirmed with fewer than 60 votes in the Senate overrode the Republican nominated Chief Justice and the Democratic nominated justices, who were all confirmed with over 60 votes, to allow a clearly outrageous Texas law to stand?

How would you react to a law that said anyone who saw a firearm was allowed to sue the carrier for $10,000?

[goaded]

Once again: If I saw you stealing a car, and tred to blackmail you, you'd be able to turn me in for blackmail, but you'd still have stolen the car.

[anylolone]

@goaded But if you turn on them, they release the evidence.
Where is it? Nowhere. The behavior of the scammers is what informs his innocence.

[goaded]

Fair point, but then, there's the letter his mate wrote that implicates him.
www.thedailybeast.com/joel-greenberg-letter-written-for-roger-stone-says-matt-gaetz-paid-for-sex-with-minor

[anylolone]

@goaded Yeay, to the scammers wrote a letter, yay!

Anything substantial?

[goaded]

Do you have the slightest indication that there's a link from Greenberg and the scammers? Greenberg's trying to save himself.

[anylolone]

@goaded The DAs who made the deal are the prime suspects and the trump appointed judge among those asked to resign and she just did, for some weird reason.

[goaded]

That doesn't sound likely. Perhaps you could provide a link to back it up.

[Anonymous]

But he wasn’t
He still could be.
But he hasn’t yet

[anylolone]

I count that as an exoneration. He was extorted, evidentially, he didn't buckle and all his claims match the evidence.

They aren't going to pursue this further because it will only damage them, so they will try to memory hole it instead. If Gaetz wants justice he needs to take to civil court.

[Opinion Owner]

You can consider it an exoneration all you want. Doesn’t make it so. Gaetz said someone was trying blackmail him. He was right. But that has zero to do with what Geatz has been accused of.
And with the investigating still ongoing, who are you talking about when you say they aren’t going to pursue it anymore?
Who will it damage if they do?

[anylolone]

It does, at lot. It shows the officers weren't doing it out of honesty, which means either he's guilty and they have evidence which would mean they would have released it since he didn't buckle to pressure, or they don't have the evidence with means it would be this huge bowl of nothing.

[Opinion Owner]

What are you talking about?
Are you suggesting that the investigators would have released the evidence they have in a pending investigation?
You do know that the investigation of Matt Gaetz is separate from the investigation of those who were trying to blackmail him?
Blackmailing someone is against the law. Even if the person being blackmailed is guilty as hell.

[rcljr]

In the question, at the top it says Matt Gaetz exonerated, exonerated means exactly that, EXONERATED, not maybe, or I wish he wasn’t, it means what it says.

[anylolone]

We know the investigation was a scam, understand this very well, we know the investigation was for extortion. If they had anything on him, considering he didn't fold, they would have released it as punishment for not paying up and reporting the extortion.

[Opinion Owner]

@anylolone
From Conservative Brief article attached above.
“Stephen Alford, 62, was indicted this week for false accusations of sexual misconduct against the congressman, Townhall reported.”
However, in reality, Alford was indicted on charges of wire fraud and destruction of property subject to a seizure warrant.
Stephen Alford hasn’t been indicted for making up the allegations. He’s was only trying to capitalize on the fact that the allegations appeared to have merit.
If you read more than just questionable right-wing sources, you would have know what the actual charges were, and that they have nothing to do with making false accusations.

[Opinion Owner]

@rcljr
They did say exonerated. They are wrong. Don’t believe everything you read.

[rcljr]

I don’t believe anything I read, FROM YOU, I trust a news network over a butt hurt feminazi troll

[Opinion Owner]

@rcljr
Okay. What specific charges was Alford indicted on that shows he’s suspected of making false accusations?
You do have the abilities to use a search engine, yes?
Have a look. Let me know what he’s charged with.
“Butt hurt feminazi troll?” Let’s leave your transgender alter ego out of this please.

[anylolone]

The news doesn't mean "exonerated through a judge's order" it just says exonerated.
But to be honest, the extortionist was convicted of extorting him, besides other people.
Everyone he extorted who didn't fold was as exonerated judicially as they can get without also filling a suit.
And at the very least, almost all, if not all cases they bring to court to clean their name even more will be thrown out as "the issue has been settled".

[Opinion Owner]

I know what your questionable, right wing article said. Doesn’t make it so.
And who exactly was convicted? Stephen Alford? The guy accused of trying to blackmail the Gaetz family? Yeah, no! Indicted? Yes. Convicted? No.
The investigation into Matt Gaetz’s alleged underage sex case is currently still ongoing. Alford has not been accused of making the story up.
Read something besides Conservative Brief if you want to be at least a little more informed than you currently are.

[anylolone]

"he wasn't convicted" yeah, but the evidence is solid:
www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../documents-detail-alleged-matt-gaetz-25-million-extortion-scheme

Now, the "project home coming" scheme is already verified,

[Opinion Owner]

This article is talking about Alford’s blackmail attempts, and the charges he’s been indicted on. Nobody is disputing that he tried to blackmail them. The evidence of that does look pretty solid.
I’m still trying to find out, however, how or what about the Alford case exonerates Gaetz? Alford isn’t accused of making up the whole underage sex story. You know that right? Please direct me to the part of this article specifically covers Matt Gaetz’s exoneration? I read it, but seem to have missed that part.

[anylolone]

The evidence that he blackmailed gaetz father and leaked nothing despite facing legal consequences and getting no money is what exonerates son gaetz.

It's basic induction.

[Opinion Owner]

How does it do that?
Alford, from what I read so far, knew that Matt Gaetz was being investigating for questionable sex acts. He tried to make some money off of it by offering a pardon.
Has no bearing whatsoever on what Gaetz is being investigated for.
I’m still confused as to why you think it exonerated him. Is it because Matt Gaetz has been going around telling people that it exonerates him?

[anylolone]

It's called inference. We know the goals of a scammer, and we know the instrumental incentives for a scammer is.

A scammer wants to hurt the victim if the victims doesn't comply. Specially since it could offer evidence on gaetz case to get a lesser sentence, or just drop it so the political turmoil allows the scammer to get a lesser sentence by being out of the public eye.

Not to mention that scammers rarely scam just one victim, not punishing the resisting victims sends a signal to every other victim that they can resist.

Meaning, if gaetz was guilty, he'd be in jail right now because his case would have moved way faster with the evidence provided by the scammers, either as leverage for a lighter sentence or leaked all together to create turmoil and send a quick signal to all other being scammed.

[Opinion Owner]

You clearly are confused about what exactly happened.
I’m going to post an article. While the source has a left wing slant, it’s information is pretty factual. I know you are used to the questionable right wing sources, but if you want to really understand, this explains it all pretty clearly. I read your articles. Please show me the same courtesy and read mine.
If you have something that shows this article is incorrect in their details, by all means, show it.
www.google.ca/.../

[anylolone]

I quoting the court documents, zero slant on those.

You already agreed that the scam was verified as true, all else needed is inference.

Your article defeats itself. "The indictment does not clear Congressman Matt Gaetz, but it most certainly adds to his credibility. He told us there was an extortion scheme at play.", then through inference it does clear matt gaetz.

[Opinion Owner]

“Your article defeats itself.” 🤔
How does it do that?
Who did they quote when they added that? Was it an official form the investigation? Someone with some inside information?

[anylolone]

It does that with that line:
"The indictment does not clear Congressman Matt Gaetz, but it most certainly adds to his credibility. He told us there was an extortion scheme at play."

[Opinion Owner]

Don’t be dishonest. Post the entire paragraph.
“But even the friendly Newsmax report he shared contradicts this claim: "The indictment does not clear Congressman Matt Gaetz, but it most certainly adds to his credibility. He told us there was an extortion scheme at play." It was said as a contradiction to Matt Gaetz claims. See the use of the word “contradict?” See that word? It means to say something different than what is being claimed. Newsmax contradicted what Matt Gaetz claimed. It’s curios that a far right wing news outlet would contradict what Matt Gaetz is claiming, dontcha think?
Your ability to understand shouldn’t be this difficult.
Unless your are being purposely obtuse. Are you being purposely obtuse?

[anylolone]

Yes, but rhetorical bullshit won't held you here. It just doesn't contradict his claims he was exonerated, as he has by this news. Of course the scammer DA and judge who signed all of this bullshit off wouldn't judicially exonerate him, and they can and will, unless rightful removed, keep this case "up" indefinitely.

Definition of exonerate
transitive verb

1: to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship
2: to clear from accusation or blame

He was cleared from accusation and blame, no one in their right mind will hold him guilty in the court of public opinion since it's obvious now it was nothing but a scam.

[Opinion Owner]

Your inability to understand far exceeds my ability to make it clear enough for you.
Matt Gaetz may very well be innocent. Hopefully the investigation that IS CURRENTLY ONGOING, reveals the truth.
I’m pretty sure that doesn’t matter to you though huh? You already tried the case in your head and he’s been “exonerated.”🙄

Oh, and “rhetorical bullshit?”
Do you even know what the word rhetorical means?

[anylolone]

Essential Meaning of rhetoric
formal
1often disapproving : language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable
absolutist/activist/racist rhetoric
angry rhetoric
See More Examples
2: the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people
a college course in rhetoric
classical rhetoric

Your dishonest is not helping you. The investigation is producing nothing, therefore we can conclude it's effectively stopped considering this evidence does exonerate him.
It quite literally proves his innocence, and since we know the people investigating him are in on the deal, we know they won't compromise themselves further by trying to cook up fake leads and if they bring the case to the courts he will get an innocent verdict which they do not want.
(if they are smart)

[Opinion Owner]

Please refer back to the first paragraph of my last response and have yourself a good day. 👋

[anylolone]

That's why I answered that first, can you please be a little bit more honest?
I doubt you didn't knew the definition of rhetorical.

Rhetorical has that negative definition since the classical period. (well, the greek word that gave it's meaning)

[joeldalton]

Isn’t that interesting. I hear silence out of my left year.

[goaded]

It's not true, as usual for right-wing headlines.

[anylolone]

@goaded Well, the court documents say otherwise.
www.justice.gov/.../download

Project homecoming has been evidentiated.

[goaded]

That's the link I gave you. Try reading it. It doesn't say Gaetz is innocent, it says someone was hoping he was desperate enough to pay millions in the hope of a pardon or the dropping of the investigation. Neither one is worth anything to an innocent man.

Now, Gaetz may be innocent (and they didn't pay the scammer), but there is still an investigation, and this document doesn't say it's over and says nothing about how it's going.

[anylolone]

@goaded It does if you can do at least the minimal of inference.

The conclusion is obvious, he was evidentially scammed, he didn't budge or pay, he entered legal action against his scammers, and their scammers released nothing on him, therefore he's innocent.

Of course, the scamming DA and judge will keep this case "open" for as long as they are allowed.
And if he tries a civil suit, which he's likely to try, I find it hard that after his scammers are convicted, that they will not see the "issues as settled".

You can try and damage your reputation as much as you want with this by keeping this farce instead of biding the bullet and trying to memory hole it, but eventually you'll jump to memory holing it and we will be there to remind you.

[goaded]

I suppose it might look like that to someone who believes the justice department is corrupt throughout, but it still doesn't follow that he's innocent, let alone exonerated. If I saw you stealing a car, I could blackmail you, you could turn me in for it, but you'd still have stolen the car.

The investigation into Gaetz is a federal one by the FBI, I don't think there a DA, scamming or otherwise, involved.

I don't mind you reminding me what I said if it turns out he's innocent, but I've never said he's definitely guilty, whereas you've lied that he's definitely not.

[anylolone]

@goaded What follows that he's innocent is that he was blackmailed, didn't budged and there ain't no evidence on him. Worst, he ratted and there ain't no evidence on him.

[goaded]

I'm confused. First you resurrect a 2 month old question, then you ignore my response and try again on another opinion.

I'd have thought you'd have been out celebrating that it's open season on protesters.

[anylolone]

@goaded Sorry, this wasn't in my feed, but when I searched for the information this poped up.
So, why not?

It's open season on thugs and it has always been!
lol!

[888theGreat]

I knew it was fake charges. That is what Democrats do. Like Trump was really Russian and Russia voted him in. The prostitutes that peed on the bed. The fake pro quo that Joe did not Trump.

[normalice]

Far right disinfotainment doesn't count as a real source.

[anylolone]

Well, want the court document?
www.justice.gov/.../download

He was completely exonerated by the hard evidence of "project homecoming" and the fact that despite him putting charges on the scammers and not folding, they haven't leaked anything yet.

[normalice]

You're going to have to point out where in that document exoneration was mentioned because I'm not seeing it. Assuming "family member a" is Matt Gaetz all this document says is that a grand jury believes there to be enough evidence to convict someone for trying to blackmail him. If anything that makes him seem more guilty, as you can't blackmail a Republican unless you have a shit ton of evidence that they did something wrong. And even then chances are good the will get elected president instead of rejected by voters. Modern Republican voters are giddy if they can vote for a criminal to "own the libs." If Trump decides to run for president the thing that would assure his victory is if he actually goes out and shoots someone in the middle of fifth avenue.

[Stoner710]

let's see what happens if the allegations are proven to be accurate then he should step down

[goaded]

Bear in mind Al Franken stepped down for aggressively kissing on stage and a dodgy photo of pretending to molest someone, all grown women. Gym Jordan should have gone away years ago, and Kavanaugh shouldn't be within a million miles of SCOTUS. It's about integrity (that's not to say all D's are upstanding citizens, just that it's far more likely that they'll take personal responsibility than representatives of the "party of law and order and personal responsibility").

[anylolone]

@goaded Kavanaugh, despite being spineless, was shown to be innocent.

[anylolone]

Who? The FBI agents involved in the project homecoming scheme?

[goaded]

"Kavanaugh, despite being spineless, was shown to be innocent."
You are funny.

[Stoner710]

@goaded in that case Joe Biden should step down due to terra reade. Al Franklin was pretty much through under the bus because the Democratic wanted to show moral superiority when Roy Moore was running for office.

There a lot of sex scandal on both sides of politics remember Ted Kennedy or Ed Murray the old mayor or seattle who was found to be molesting little boys plus his adopted son.

As far as Kavanaugh is considered we were talking about a high school party for the 1980 that could never have been investigated. Also non of Ford’s witnesses said her allegation were correct. “Where was the house? I don't know how did you get there I don't know how did you get home I don't know idk”. She had nothing on him beyond a baseless Alligation that nobody could confirm if it was true, Innocent until proven guilty

[goaded]

You do understand the difference between being shown to be innocent and not being shown to be guilty, right?

The FBI supposedly investigated Kavanaugh for less than a week, and didn't interview him, his highest profile accuser or any of the tips given to the tip line. Perhaps you need a constitutional amendment to ensure that all SCOTIS justices are confirmed by at least 60% of the votes in the senate, because the ones that aren't are crap.

[Stoner710]

@goaded you do realize the Democrats killed the judicial filibuster right? otherwise you would’ve had 60% of votes to confirm a judge there trying to do the same thing with The Congressional Filibuster.

Also there was no way anyone can confirm that Forrest alligation was correct or incorrect it was in The early 1980s she can’t even remember the year. When you work with rape victims they know where there at the date and time. Remember you did this for every single Republican nominee except justice Roberts. Since Robert Bork

[Stoner710]

Also except for Justice Alito which actually agrees with Republicans more than Democrats these days every single nominee has been a women since 1993 and Alito was under Bill Clinton. It wasn’t until we nominated Amy Coney Barrett that you didn’t pull the race card instead you pulled the sheets to religious card when supposedly she shares the same faith as Joe Biden

[goaded]

And why did they kill the filibuster for (specifically non-SCOTUS, by the way) judges? Because the Republicans filibustered more presidential nominees during Obama's administration than all previous administrations put together.

"...68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term"
www.politifact.com/.../

This is a long-running ratchet of Republicans breaking norms to force a change in behaviour by the Democrats (so that they can get something done), then expanding that change in their favour and blaming the Democrats. I challenge you to find a Democratic action in the last 50 years that wasn't in response to a Republican provocation (by which I mean behaviour that wasn't previously common).

[anylolone]

@goaded They are both the same, you know that, being shown not to be guilty is being shown to be innocent. But in the case of gaetz and kavenaugh, they have been shown to not be guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.

[anylolone]

@goaded Also, you killed the filibuster, stop complaining about it.

[goaded]

You know, you could actually have a conversation with someone if you accepted facts.

Facts like Republicans filibustered more presidential nominees during Obama's administration than all previous administrations put together.

What they should have done was make people work for them, stand up and talk, explain why they were doing it.

[anylolone]

@goaded You took away the filibuster.

And yes, republicans as a norm always believed in filibusters.

[goaded]

Did the Republicans block more presidential nominations during Obama's term than all the previous presidents' put together? Yes or no.

[anylolone]

@goaded Possible. I'd do it on the blink of an eye.
Apparently they didn't blocked enough, obama somehow always had another CCP compromised option to go to.

[rcljr]

As we knew he would be, just like Justice Kavanaugh

[Avicenna]

Leftist lie about everything

[anylolone]

@Avicenna Not according to the documents that evidentiate project homecoming.

[anylolone]

@Avicenna Apparently they can't lie about that.

[exitseven]

Big surprise. Did anyone really think there was any truth to the story?

[haphazard]

No, not for a second.

[Anonymous]

He should be a presidential candidate, the kids love him

[goaded]

She did it with him for the money.

[Agape93]

No he wasn't
Your link is full of crap

[KimmyKimmy]

Your anonymous passion is very convincing.

[KimmyKimmy]

I never blocked anyone. Who are you? LOL

[Agape93]

Agape93 :) you blocked me when I was about to reply to you insulting me and a friend. By the way, I sent a screen cap of it to admins :)

[Agape93]

Sent that to admins as well :)

[KimmyKimmy]

If you can get my account deleted, I'll give you $500

It would be worth it.

[Agape93]

Not interested in either of those

[Agape93]

@GirlsAskGuys
Tagged so you can see what I'm talking about

[KyleJackson]

Do you two ever stop f ucking bickering jesus. Be nice to each other.

[Agape93]

Hey i tried on her question. But she proceeded to insult me and a friend, blocked me and started shit with me over here whilst I was anon, and continued after she figured out who I was. I didn't start this, she did, and now I've brought admins to it so they can resolve it.

[jshm2]

He'll join Weinstein and Epstein soon enough...

[Anonymous]

lets investigate cuomo and the biden next

[KyleJackson]

Yup and fire kamalas @ss too

[KyleJackson]

I would throw him in jail.

[anylolone]

But he was exonerated.

[Avicenna]

Leftists want to jail everyone

[Avicenna]

Without evidence, of course

[KyleJackson]

Im not a leftist snowflake dont even say that

[anylolone]

Yeah, come with that BS.

[KimmyKimmy]

I liked how you laid out your convincing and well thought out reasons for throwing him in jail.
You should be a lawyer.

[anylolone]

@KimmyKimmy SOMEONE GET HER A COOKIE!

Great point, great point.

[Avicenna]

Evidence is racist. That he is a straight white male is already plenty of evidence for leftists.

[anylolone]

@Avicenna You know who we are dealing with.

[Avicenna]

Oh, Yeah

[Sabretooth]

Still ongoing.

[Sabretooth]

Political affiliation has become the complete identity of so many people in this country.

[anylolone]

Yeah, still "ongoing" but nothing is out despite him pushing charges on the scammers and not paying a single cent.

[Sabretooth]

... except emails, you mean.