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
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
Not urgent. Hearsay is never urgent. Keep trying.
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.
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!
Says the shitty lawyer who can't get his facts straight as he gets out-lawyered by a retired cop.
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?
Who said I support Obama?
Very weak stuff even for a dullard with low brain power.
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?
Who said I support Obama?
Very weak stuff even for a dullard with low brain power.
You're so easy, Central. What Kindergarten do you teach at?
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?
Who said I support Obama?
That's the best part. The same people that tried calling Obama out for treason are now using the actual definition to support Trump.
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?
Who said I support Obama?
That's the best part. The same people that tried calling Obama out for treason are now using the actual definition to support Trump.
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 job
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.
Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr. But when do you ever get anything right.
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.
Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr. But when do you ever get anything right.
Bob is wrong. As always:
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.
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]
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.
Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr. But when do you ever get anything right.
Bob is wrong. As always:
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.
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]
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
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.
This needs to be framed
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.
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.
This needs to be framed
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.
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.
This needs to be framed
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.
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?
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.
This needs to be framed
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.
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?
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.
This needs to be framed
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.
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.
This needs to be framed
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.
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.
This needs to be framed
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.
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?
And I said:
Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr.
Comments
Yup. That's saying something alright.
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.
@ApostleofGrief @2001400ex @HHusky
#aclockworkshill #rightontim #lapdog
Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr.
Mr. Shitty reading comprehension.