Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Reminder to far right fringe revisionists
Comments
-
No video. There was secretly recorded audio from Lewinsky.ApostleofGrief said:
Really. No video2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof. -
Allow me to interject. Calling somebody a pussy is cringey enough, but making it a full standalone sentence makes you sound hysterical.pawz said:
Meltdown?ApostleofGrief said:
You know, you are going to be making Hondo jealous with your industrial grade meltdowns.pawz said:
You used the word treason.ApostleofGrief said:
Do I seem like law enforcement?pawz said:
So you position is he should hang?ApostleofGrief said:
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?pawz said:
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
TYFYS
@NSA_Dawg ?
Treason is punishable by death.
I'm using your words.
Are you saying the big game you talk is bullshit?
Or that your mouth runs off without your brain?
If treason is what you mean, then own it. Pussy.
a) Ironic af
b) what part of that post oozed emotion that might lead one to reasonably assume meltdown?
popcorn.gif
FWIW treason is frequently narrowly defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime, so it doesn't apply in this specific case. However, subverting American national interests for personal political gain is indefensible and impeachable, the mark of a grifting traitor. Not a fan of the death penalty, but a few of these guys should be looking at jail time when this is all said and done. -
Bottom line is that Trump was working a deal. He held the as aid and obviously wanted investigation into his political opponents. That is a high crime.
-
The TDS is skrong in this one.ApostleofGrief said:
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?pawz said:
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
TYFYS
You really should only use words that apply.
“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
-
No dick in mouth. He could have wanked off on the shirt later. Hearsay!!!2001400ex said:
No video. There was secretly recorded audio from Lewinsky.ApostleofGrief said:
Really. No video2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof. -
HahahahahahaApostleofGrief said:
Hairsplitting.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof.
But he does have proof. The phone reconstruction -
a) disagree. I typed that ice cold.BearsWiin said:
Allow me to interject. Calling somebody a pussy is cringey enough, but making it a full standalone sentence makes you sound hysterical.pawz said:
Meltdown?ApostleofGrief said:
You know, you are going to be making Hondo jealous with your industrial grade meltdowns.pawz said:
You used the word treason.ApostleofGrief said:
Do I seem like law enforcement?pawz said:
So you position is he should hang?ApostleofGrief said:
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?pawz said:
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
TYFYS
@NSA_Dawg ?
Treason is punishable by death.
I'm using your words.
Are you saying the big game you talk is bullshit?
Or that your mouth runs off without your brain?
If treason is what you mean, then own it. Pussy.
a) Ironic af
b) what part of that post oozed emotion that might lead one to reasonably assume meltdown?
popcorn.gif
FWIW treason is frequently narrowly defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime, so it doesn't apply in this specific case. However, subverting American national interests for personal political gain is indefensible and impeachable, the mark of a grifting traitor. Not a fan of the death penalty, but a few of these guys should be looking at jail time when this is all said and done.
b) I actually agree completely with the second paragraph. However it needs to extend across both sides of the aisle.
What Biden bragged about doing - on video - falls precisely inside the definition of the accusations lobbed at Trump
queue 1:20 in the following video, although the entire video is the whole story
(it would be nice if another news source than RT would publish the clip, but that's another discussion)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCF9My1vBP4
-
You're going to be so disappointed. Again.ApostleofGrief said:
So anyway Trump is being impeached because he broke whistleblower law.pawz said:
Meltdown?ApostleofGrief said:
You know, you are going to be making Hondo jealous with your industrial grade meltdowns.pawz said:
You used the word treason.ApostleofGrief said:
Do I seem like law enforcement?pawz said:
So you position is he should hang?ApostleofGrief said:
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?pawz said:
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
TYFYS
@NSA_Dawg ?
Treason is punishable by death.
I'm using your words.
Are you saying the big game you talk is bullshit?
Or that your mouth runs off without your brain?
If treason is what you mean, then own it. Pussy.
a) Ironic af
b) what part of that post oozed emotion that might lead one to reasonably assume meltdown?
popcorn.gif -
The entire HondoFSBros are out in force...HHusky said:GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof.
By definition a whistleblower has information about wrongdoing. Hearsay is information. It either leads to evidence or it does not. This whistleblower’s information has proven very accurate based on what we saw today.HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
No, that is not the law as written for intelligence whistle blowers no matter how much you would want it to be.
Keep lying though...
-
a) sure you did.pawz said:
a) disagree. I typed that ice cold.BearsWiin said:
Allow me to interject. Calling somebody a pussy is cringey enough, but making it a full standalone sentence makes you sound hysterical.pawz said:
Meltdown?ApostleofGrief said:
You know, you are going to be making Hondo jealous with your industrial grade meltdowns.pawz said:
You used the word treason.ApostleofGrief said:
Do I seem like law enforcement?pawz said:
So you position is he should hang?ApostleofGrief said:
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?pawz said:
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
TYFYS
@NSA_Dawg ?
Treason is punishable by death.
I'm using your words.
Are you saying the big game you talk is bullshit?
Or that your mouth runs off without your brain?
If treason is what you mean, then own it. Pussy.
a) Ironic af
b) what part of that post oozed emotion that might lead one to reasonably assume meltdown?
popcorn.gif
FWIW treason is frequently narrowly defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime, so it doesn't apply in this specific case. However, subverting American national interests for personal political gain is indefensible and impeachable, the mark of a grifting traitor. Not a fan of the death penalty, but a few of these guys should be looking at jail time when this is all said and done.
b) I actually agree completely with the second paragraph. However it needs to extend across both sides of the aisle.
What Biden bragged about doing - on video - falls precisely inside the definition of the accusations lobbed at Trump
queue 1:20 in the following video, although the entire video is the whole story
(it would be nice if another news source than RT would publish the clip, but that's another discussion)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCF9My1vBP4
b) Biden brags about a lot of shit. He's a mouthy twerp, and I won't defend him. But the EU guys who were advocating for the guy's dismissal had a lot more to do with it than Biden did. This smacks of the Uranium One accusations where people thought that Hillary could push something through that in reality had so many more agencies involved (and she wasn't). That's just not how this shit works.
FWIW I'd have no problem if Biden's campaign is fatally torpedoed by his name being connected in any way to this shitstorm. -
Who said I support Obama?ApostleofGrief said:
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?pawz said:
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
TYFYS -
Not at all. Always took you for a Hillary-Supporting Dyke.ApostleofGrief said:
Do I seem like law enforcement?pawz said:
So you position is he should hang?ApostleofGrief said:
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?pawz said:
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
TYFYS
@NSA_Dawg ? -
Says the shitty lawyer who can't get his facts straight as he gets out-lawyered by a retired cop.HHusky said:
Really? “I heard some kids say Johnny threatened to plant a bomb at school.” Not urgent, right? Can’t look into it because it’s hearsay.Sledog said:
Not urgent. Hearsay is never urgent. Keep trying.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
This is how we know your “retirement” was a welcome development at the mall. You must have sucked at your job. You may be the stupidest fucking TugCon here, and that’s saying something!
Yup. That's saying something alright. -
Very weak stuff even for a dullard with low brain power.TurdBomber said:
Who said I support Obama?ApostleofGrief said:
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?pawz said:
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
TYFYS -
You're so easy, Central. What Kindergarten do you teach at?ApostleofGrief said:
Very weak stuff even for a dullard with low brain power.TurdBomber said:
Who said I support Obama?ApostleofGrief said:
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?pawz said:
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
TYFYS -
That's the best part. The same people that tried calling Obama out for treason are now using the actual definition to support Trump.TurdBomber said:
Who said I support Obama?ApostleofGrief said:
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?pawz said:
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
TYFYS -
I think my favorite is their long-winded argument that a Trump-appoonted career lawyer/civil servant IG doesn't know how to do his fucking job2001400ex said:
That's the best part. The same people that tried calling Obama out for treason are now using the actual definition to support Trump.TurdBomber said:
Who said I support Obama?ApostleofGrief said:
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?pawz said:
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
TYFYS -
Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr. But when do you ever get anything right.2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof. -
Bob is wrong. As always:SFGbob said:
Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr. But when do you ever get anything right.2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof.
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. The Starr Report states that the following day, Clinton "coached" his secretary Betty Currie into repeating his denials should she be called to testify.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
Pundits debated whether Clinton would address the allegations in his State of the Union Address. Ultimately, he chose not to mention them. Hillary Clinton remained supportive of her husband throughout the scandal. On January 27, in an appearance on NBC's Today she said, "The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."
For the next several months and through the summer, the media debated whether an affair had occurred and whether Clinton had lied or obstructed justice, but nothing could be definitively established beyond the taped recordings because Lewinsky was unwilling to discuss the affair or testify about it. On July 28, 1998, a substantial delay after the public break of the scandal, Lewinsky received transactional immunity in exchange for grand jury testimony concerning her relationship with Clinton.[26] She also turned over a semen-stained blue dress (that Linda Tripp had encouraged her to save without dry cleaning) to the Starr investigators, thereby providing unambiguous DNA evidence that could prove the relationship despite Clinton's official denials.[27]
Clinton admitted in taped grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, that he had engaged in an "improper physical relationship" with Lewinsky. That evening he gave a nationally televised statement admitting that his relationship with Lewinsky was "not appropriate".[28][29]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton–Lewinsky_scandal -
Hondo with shitty reading comprehension as always.2001400ex said:
Bob is wrong. As always:SFGbob said:
Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr. But when do you ever get anything right.2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof.
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. The Starr Report states that the following day, Clinton "coached" his secretary Betty Currie into repeating his denials should she be called to testify.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
Pundits debated whether Clinton would address the allegations in his State of the Union Address. Ultimately, he chose not to mention them. Hillary Clinton remained supportive of her husband throughout the scandal. On January 27, in an appearance on NBC's Today she said, "The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."
For the next several months and through the summer, the media debated whether an affair had occurred and whether Clinton had lied or obstructed justice, but nothing could be definitively established beyond the taped recordings because Lewinsky was unwilling to discuss the affair or testify about it. On July 28, 1998, a substantial delay after the public break of the scandal, Lewinsky received transactional immunity in exchange for grand jury testimony concerning her relationship with Clinton.[26] She also turned over a semen-stained blue dress (that Linda Tripp had encouraged her to save without dry cleaning) to the Starr investigators, thereby providing unambiguous DNA evidence that could prove the relationship despite Clinton's official denials.[27]
Clinton admitted in taped grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, that he had engaged in an "improper physical relationship" with Lewinsky. That evening he gave a nationally televised statement admitting that his relationship with Lewinsky was "not appropriate".[28][29]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton–Lewinsky_scandal
Was that January 17, 1998 deposition carried out by Starr you fucking moron?
For a Kunt who's favorite dodge is claim the other person has poor reading comprehension you sure suck at it yourself Hondo. -
-
This needs to be framed2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof. -
Starr already had Monica's blue dress in his possession before he put Clinton in front of the Grand Jury. Hondo, because he is a fucking moron with a big mouth is confusing the depo Bill gave in the Paula Jones case which was a civil matter that didn't have anything to do with the government with the Starr investigation.GrundleStiltzkin said:
This needs to be framed2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof.
-
SFGbob said:
Starr already had Monica's blue dress in his possession before he put Clinton in front of the Grand Jury. Hondo, because he is a fucking moron with a big mouth is confusing the depo Bill gave in the Paula Jones case which was a civil matter that didn't have anything to do with the government with the Starr investigation.GrundleStiltzkin said:
This needs to be framed2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof.
-
I said "put under oath". What do you think that sworn deposition in January 1998 was? The blue dress wasn't handed over until the summer of 1998. Are you seriously that fucking stupid?SFGbob said:
Starr already had Monica's blue dress in his possession before he put Clinton in front of the Grand Jury. Hondo, because he is a fucking moron with a big mouth is confusing the depo Bill gave in the Paula Jones case which was a civil matter that didn't have anything to do with the government with the Starr investigation.GrundleStiltzkin said:
This needs to be framed2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof. -
The Clintons must pay you a lot of fucking money.2001400ex said:
I said "put under oath". What do you think that sworn deposition in January 1998 was? The blue dress wasn't handed over until the summer of 1998. Are you seriously that fucking stupid?SFGbob said:
Starr already had Monica's blue dress in his possession before he put Clinton in front of the Grand Jury. Hondo, because he is a fucking moron with a big mouth is confusing the depo Bill gave in the Paula Jones case which was a civil matter that didn't have anything to do with the government with the Starr investigation.GrundleStiltzkin said:
This needs to be framed2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof.
#aclockworkshill #rightontim #lapdog -
So... I'd read it again man..... 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. All they had at that point was secretly recorded words of Monica. Of which I haven't found what they containing.GrundleStiltzkin said:
This needs to be framed2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof. -
So the third string is getting some playing time for team hondo as they get blown out
-
2001400ex said:
So... I'd read it again man..... 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. All they had at that point was secretly recorded words of Monica. Of which I haven't found what they containing.GrundleStiltzkin said:
This needs to be framed2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof.
-
And I said:2001400ex said:
I said "put under oath". What do you think that sworn deposition in January 1998 was? The blue dress wasn't handed over until the summer of 1998. Are you seriously that fucking stupid?SFGbob said:
Starr already had Monica's blue dress in his possession before he put Clinton in front of the Grand Jury. Hondo, because he is a fucking moron with a big mouth is confusing the depo Bill gave in the Paula Jones case which was a civil matter that didn't have anything to do with the government with the Starr investigation.GrundleStiltzkin said:
This needs to be framed2001400ex said:
I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath. So I dig your words in all caps, but you entire point is meaningless.GrundleStiltzkin said:
There's a well established legal test for this:ApostleofGrief said:
He did have first-hand knowledge. He was working with colleagues who told him what happened and that was corroborated with the phone reconstruction along with all relevant details!HoustonHusky said:
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.ApostleofGrief said:The reason impeachment was initiated as an inquiry was strictly because the White House blocked an urgent whistleblower report. It was not started because Trump was working a quid pro quo of dirt for aid. That ensures it will happen though
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof.
Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr.
Mr. Shitty reading comprehension.
