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

Fire Up the Impeachment Proceedings...

1234579

Comments

  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

    Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

    Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

    Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

    “An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

    You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
    Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

    You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.
    El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.
    You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.
    Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.
    Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?
    Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?

    So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?
    Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.

    Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?

    Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
    First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,492 Standard Supporter
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

    Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

    Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

    Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

    “An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

    You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
    Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

    You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.
    El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.
    You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.
    Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.
    Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?
    Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?

    So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?
    Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.

    Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?

    Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
    First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?
    Take your pick.

    You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

    Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

    Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

    Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

    “An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

    You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
    Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

    You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.
    El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.
    You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.
    Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.
    Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?
    Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?

    So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?
    Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.

    Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?

    Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
    First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?
    Take your pick.

    You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.

    Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,492 Standard Supporter
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

    Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

    Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

    Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

    “An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

    You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
    Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

    You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.
    El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.
    You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.
    Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.
    Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?
    Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?

    So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?
    Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.

    Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?

    Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
    First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?
    Take your pick.

    You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.

    Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?
    Stake it or STFU. Make the case.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

    Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

    Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

    Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

    “An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

    You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
    Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

    You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.
    El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.
    You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.
    Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.
    Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?
    Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?

    So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?
    Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.

    Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?

    Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
    First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?
    Take your pick.

    You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.

    Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?
    Stake it or STFU. Make the case.

    What standard?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,492 Standard Supporter
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

    Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

    Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

    Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

    “An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

    You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
    Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

    You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.
    El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.
    You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.
    Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.
    Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?
    Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?

    So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?
    Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.

    Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?

    Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
    First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?
    Take your pick.

    You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.

    Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?
    Stake it or STFU. Make the case.

    What standard?
    The fuck are you babbling about? I gave you a wide open field.

    Build your case for impeachment of the current POTUS.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

    Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

    Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

    Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

    “An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

    You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
    Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

    You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.
    El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.
    You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.
    Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.
    Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?
    Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?

    So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?
    Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.

    Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?

    Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
    First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?
    Take your pick.

    You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.

    Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?
    Stake it or STFU. Make the case.

    What standard?
    The fuck are you babbling about? I gave you a wide open field.

    Build your case for impeachment of the current POTUS.

    It’s right there in front of you. Pelosi is following article 2 section 4 with exact and precise detail. Impeachment inquiry and hearings followed by a vote. What else do you want? Why is this so hard for you?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,492 Standard Supporter
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

    Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

    Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

    Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

    “An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

    You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
    Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

    You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.
    El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.
    You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.
    Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.
    Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?
    Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?

    So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?
    Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.

    Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?

    Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
    First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?
    Take your pick.

    You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.

    Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?
    Stake it or STFU. Make the case.

    What standard?
    The fuck are you babbling about? I gave you a wide open field.

    Build your case for impeachment of the current POTUS.

    It’s right there in front of you. Pelosi is following article 2 section 4 with exact and precise detail. Impeachment inquiry and hearings followed by a vote. What else do you want? Why is this so hard for you?
    Fuck.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    PurpleThrobber said:

    I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

    Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

    Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

    Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

    “An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

    You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
    Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

    You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.
    El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.
    You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.
    Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.
    Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?
    Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?

    So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?
    Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.

    Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?

    Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
    First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?
    Take your pick.

    You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.

    Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?
    Stake it or STFU. Make the case.

    What standard?
    The fuck are you babbling about? I gave you a wide open field.

    Build your case for impeachment of the current POTUS.

    It’s right there in front of you. Pelosi is following article 2 section 4 with exact and precise detail. Impeachment inquiry and hearings followed by a vote. What else do you want? Why is this so hard for you?
    Fuck.
    You should read the Constitution someday. It’s inspiring and informative.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter