Real World Event Discussions
Presidential lies
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2025 15:06
VIEWED: 27467
PAGE 22 of 24
Sunday, May 25, 2014 9:06 AM
Quote:Yeah, she was a pretty hot MI6 agent, eh? A bit daft, but what a dish.
Originally posted by MIKER:
Goodnight.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, May 25, 2014 9:28 AM
Quote:Thanks MIKER!
Originally posted by MIKER:
You got that right, very good.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, May 28, 2014 6:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
The reason it is not called an Impeachment is because he accepted guilt of all charges and to just call it an Impeachment would be to lessen the graveness of history's final judgment against Richard Nixon.
In this thread you all keep saying Nixon has not accepted guilt, but Gerald Ford his Vice President at the time of the offence,
Incorrect. Ford was not the Veep at the time of any of the 3 proposed charges, or Articles of alleged misdeeds. Are you claiming another charge or Article specifying misdeeds which occurred at a time when Ford was Veep?
This is a repeat quote, where you can clearly see that you stated another falsehood, that Ford was Veep at the time of the offence.
Now, you shuffle the facts to say you never said this, that you never said that Ford was Veep at the tinme of the offence. This is another falsehood.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
Now you are offering up other peoples opinions as prof of your argument. Read what you have just posted. It is about Nixon's innocents. Along with a personal opinion about me that I also found entertaining.
As I have said many times now including when I answered your quoted post the first time, it is Gerald Ford and others who say he is guilty. Take it up with them.
I have no idea which post you are referring to. This post and it's claims don't make sense, so I would respond to them if I knew what you meant.
This is my post which is stamped 24 May, 2:34pm my time. In it I quote your post from 23 May, 5:44pm.
Your next post at 24 May, 2:43pm states that the post you are referring to in your 23 May, 5:44pm post is a post from 24 May, 2:06pm.
So you referred to a post which was not yet made?
You are a really funny guy. Show me where it shows a time stamp on the quotes in blue you have posted. DUH! You show me quotes with no time stamps and then proceed to put your own to them. That's great. Proves nothing.
I am still waiting for the documents showing all the White House Lawyers reigned with Nixon to prepare his defense. You have done nothing but change the subject since I ask you to produce them. When you produce them I will start responding to your posts. Show me documents showing they resigned.
WASH: Yes, Jayne. She’s a witch. She has had congress with the beast. JAYNE: She’s in Congress? WASH: How did your brain even learn human speech? I’m just so curious.
You know before I insult you I should ask your age?
Is anybody else this dense? Does anybody else not understand this?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
In this thread you all keep saying Nixon has not accepted guilt, but Gerald Ford his Vice President at the time of the offence,
You miss understand. While this whole process was taking place ford was first a vice president and then president. I never implied he was vice president during the break in.
"Vice President at the time of the offence" certainly sounds like you not only implied but clearly stated that he was Veep during the break in.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, May 30, 2014 5:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
Show me the documents that support what you suggest. That all the White House lawyers resigned with Nixon and started preparing his defense?
Your quote:
"Incorrect. Nixon's White House Staff of lawyers was out of the game for a month between resignation and pardon. The lawyers of Nixon's White House were preparing to defend the false charges (Articles) when Nixon himself made the decision to resign in the best interests of the nation".
This seems like a tangent. How does the presence of lawyers determine whether Nixon was Impeached? None of these people were in the House of Representatives at the time, and could not have voted for or against Impeachment.
But, to satisfy your diversion,
White House Counsels:
Nixon 1969-73 Charles W. Colson
Nixon 1969-70 John Erlichman
Nixon 1970-73 John W. Dean III
Nixon 1973-74 Leonard Garment
Ford 1974-75 William E Cassellman II
Ford 1974-77 Philip W. Buchen
Note that none of the White House Counsels from Nixon carried over to Ford.
Other Nixon lawyers in White House:
Herbert W. Kalmbach
Egil "Bud" Krogh
Nixon Lawyers for Pardon, after he resigned:
Leonard W. Buchen
Herbert J. "Jack" Miller (criminal defense)
All of the other Nixon Counsels (listed above) were not practicing by this time.
Other Ford White House lawyers:
Benton Becker
John Marsh
Robert Hartmann
Fred Buzhardt
Does that help you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, May 30, 2014 6:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by MIKER:
Now you are offering up other peoples opinions as prof of your argument. Read what you have just posted. It is about Nixon's innocents. Along with a personal opinion about me that I also found entertaining.
As I have said many times now including when I answered your quoted post the first time, it is Gerald Ford and others who say he is guilty. Take it up with them.
I have no idea which post you are referring to. This post and it's claims don't make sense, so I would respond to them if I knew what you meant.
This is my post which is stamped 24 May, 2:34pm my time. In it I quote your post from 23 May, 5:44pm.
Your next post at 24 May, 2:43pm states that the post you are referring to in your 23 May, 5:44pm post is a post from 24 May, 2:06pm.
So you referred to a post which was not yet made?
For your information, time stamps do not follow with the quotes. In order to help you find your mistakes and perhaps correct your errors so that the rest of us can follow what you were trying to distract us with, I went and found the time stamps (in my time zone, which should be the same as yours despite different Meridian segments) so that you could find tham yourself and untangle that which you tangled and confused.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME