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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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!
There's a well established legal test for this:
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 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.
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
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.
TYFYS
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?
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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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!
There's a well established legal test for this:
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 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.
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
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.
TYFYS
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?
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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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!
There's a well established legal test for this:
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 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.
What. Thee. Unbelievable. Fuck. ?!
The pathology of your lies knows no bounds when it comes tim to defend the Clinton machine.
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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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!
You are HondoFS if you think that meets any legal definition of “reliable first-hand knowledge”. Which is why a lot of what the whistleblower claimed (at least what wasn’t a regurgitation of Liberal news articles and Twitter) was proven false from 1) the transcript and 2) the Ukraine not even knowing $$ had been put on hold until a month after.
Did the transcript show that Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike,”
Nope
Did the transcript show that “The President also praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep him in his position,”
Nope
Etc..etc...and classifying the phone call (which I think pissed the Brennan protégé off the most because he couldn’t access it to shape his complaint without raising red flags) is not only anything but proof of corruption...it’s standard when sensitive material is present, which in this case was the other person (the Ukrainian Prez) bashing Merkel as he did.
The DOJ was correct in not turning it over, but it didn’t matter because Shitt had it since August and likely helped write it.
But keep on letting the Dems drive their party over a cliff...
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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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!
There's a well established legal test for this:
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 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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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.
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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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!
There's a well established legal test for this:
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 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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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.
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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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!
There's a well established legal test for this:
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 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.
What. Thee. Unbelievable. Fuck. ?!
The pathology of your lies knows no bounds when it comes tim to defend the Clinton machine.
In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit accusing Clinton of sexual harassment when he was governor of Arkansas. Clinton attempted to delay a trial until after he left office, but in May 1997 the Supreme Court unanimously ordered the case to proceed and shortly thereafter the pre-trial discovery process commenced. Jones' attorneys wanted to prove that Clinton had engaged in a pattern of behavior with women that lent support to her claims. In late 1997, Linda Tripp began secretly recording conversations with her friend Monica Lewinsky, a former intern and Department of Defense employee, in which Lewinsky divulged that she had had a sexual relationship with the President. Tripp shared this information with Paula Jones' lawyers, who put Lewinsky on their witness list in December 1997. According to the Starr Report, after Lewinsky appeared on the witness list Clinton began taking steps to conceal their relationship, including suggesting she file a false affidavit, suggesting she use cover stories, concealing gifts he had given her, and helping her obtain a job to her liking.
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
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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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!
There's a well established legal test for this:
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 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.
Really. No video
No video. There was secretly recorded audio from Lewinsky.
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
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.
TYFYS
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?
You know, you are going to be making Hondo jealous with your industrial grade meltdowns.
Meltdown?
a) Ironic af
b) what part of that post oozed emotion that might lead one to reasonably assume meltdown?
popcorn.gif
Allow me to interject. Calling somebody a pussy is cringey enough, but making it a full standalone sentence makes you sound hysterical.
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 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
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.
TYFYS
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?
The TDS is skrong in this one.
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.”
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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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!
There's a well established legal test for this:
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 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.
Really. No video
No video. There was secretly recorded audio from Lewinsky.
No dick in mouth. He could have wanked off on the shirt later. Hearsay!!!
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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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!
There's a well established legal test for this:
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 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
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.
TYFYS
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?
You know, you are going to be making Hondo jealous with your industrial grade meltdowns.
Meltdown?
a) Ironic af
b) what part of that post oozed emotion that might lead one to reasonably assume meltdown?
popcorn.gif
Allow me to interject. Calling somebody a pussy is cringey enough, but making it a full standalone sentence makes you sound hysterical.
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.
a) disagree. I typed that ice cold.
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)
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
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.
TYFYS
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?
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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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!
There's a well established legal test for this:
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 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
By definition a “whistleblower” has first-hand knowledge of an event of which this guy did not, and Shitt has had it since August.
But OK...nominate Dementia Biden or Fauxahontas and see how that works out for you.
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.
The entire HondoFSBros are out in force...
No, that is not the law as written for intelligence whistle blowers no matter how much you would want it to be.
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
If russia-gate wasn't enough, you fucking idiots just handed him 2020.
TYFYS
If the idiotic president had learned from Russia he wouldn't be getting impeached. Why do you support a treasonous bastard?
You know, you are going to be making Hondo jealous with your industrial grade meltdowns.
Meltdown?
a) Ironic af
b) what part of that post oozed emotion that might lead one to reasonably assume meltdown?
popcorn.gif
Allow me to interject. Calling somebody a pussy is cringey enough, but making it a full standalone sentence makes you sound hysterical.
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.
a) disagree. I typed that ice cold.
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)
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.
Comments
a) Ironic af
b) what part of that post oozed emotion that might lead one to reasonably assume meltdown?
popcorn.gif
The pathology of your lies knows no bounds when it comes tim to defend the Clinton machine.
#aclockworkshill #rightontim #lapdog #cumstainonabluedress
Did the transcript show that Trump made a “specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike,”
Nope
Did the transcript show that “The President also praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep him in his position,”
Nope
Etc..etc...and classifying the phone call (which I think pissed the Brennan protégé off the most because he couldn’t access it to shape his complaint without raising red flags) is not only anything but proof of corruption...it’s standard when sensitive material is present, which in this case was the other person (the Ukrainian Prez) bashing Merkel as he did.
The DOJ was correct in not turning it over, but it didn’t matter because Shitt had it since August and likely helped write it.
But keep on letting the Dems drive their party over a cliff...
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
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.
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.”
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)
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...
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.