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

Neo-Stalinist Democrats are the domestic enemies we were warned would threaten our Freedom

2»

Comments

  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 38,878 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    DJDuck said:

    That is a stupid question. You know I think your lawyer claim is just a gag. Lawyers aren’t that bright. They sure don’t have the broad liberal education most of the rest of us have.......but you seem too much of a cretin to reach that bar.

    I sure can point to many leftist Dems that accept an anonymous accusers iterations of evidence that he is not directly knowledgeable of is grounds for impeachment and if he is impeached there will be a trial moron and that bogus “evidence WILL TRY TO BE INTRODUCED BY THE DEMOCRATS

    The whistleblower complaint refers to things said by the very witnesses Daddy wants to shoot. The investigators will want to know who those witnesses are and interview them. What the witnesses have to say will not be hearsay. You gals watched just enough Matlock episodes to confuse yourselves.
    That doesn't make it admissible in court. It would supply an investigator with possible witnesses nothing more. You are one shitty attorney! Neither the report or whistleblower would matter in a trial. The Close Cover Before Striking School of Law and Heavy Machinery has failed you!
    Boy I’d be pretty insulted if I was arguing that the whistleblower was a witness and that the complaint was evidence. In light of the fact I just said the opposite, one has to wonder how fucking stupid you actually are.
    You are sorry. This whole thing is a set up. The convenient change in reporting requirements and the knows nothing first hand complaint. Dems went with impeachment immediately before having details. But of course they already knew the content because they made it up themselves.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    HHusky said:

    DJDuck said:

    That is a stupid question. You know I think your lawyer claim is just a gag. Lawyers aren’t that bright. They sure don’t have the broad liberal education most of the rest of us have.......but you seem too much of a cretin to reach that bar.

    I sure can point to many leftist Dems that accept an anonymous accusers iterations of evidence that he is not directly knowledgeable of is grounds for impeachment and if he is impeached there will be a trial moron and that bogus “evidence WILL TRY TO BE INTRODUCED BY THE DEMOCRATS

    The whistleblower complaint refers to things said by the very witnesses Daddy wants to shoot. The investigators will want to know who those witnesses are and interview them. What the witnesses have to say will not be hearsay. You gals watched just enough Matlock episodes to confuse yourselves.
    I'm watching Matlock right now. Dick.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    DJDuck said:

    That is a stupid question. You know I think your lawyer claim is just a gag. Lawyers aren’t that bright. They sure don’t have the broad liberal education most of the rest of us have.......but you seem too much of a cretin to reach that bar.

    I sure can point to many leftist Dems that accept an anonymous accusers iterations of evidence that he is not directly knowledgeable of is grounds for impeachment and if he is impeached there will be a trial moron and that bogus “evidence WILL TRY TO BE INTRODUCED BY THE DEMOCRATS

    The whistleblower complaint refers to things said by the very witnesses Daddy wants to shoot. The investigators will want to know who those witnesses are and interview them. What the witnesses have to say will not be hearsay. You gals watched just enough Matlock episodes to confuse yourselves.
    That doesn't make it admissible in court. It would supply an investigator with possible witnesses nothing more. You are one shitty attorney! Neither the report or whistleblower would matter in a trial. The Close Cover Before Striking School of Law and Heavy Machinery has failed you!
    Boy I’d be pretty insulted if I was arguing that the whistleblower was a witness and that the complaint was evidence. In light of the fact I just said the opposite, one has to wonder how fucking stupid you actually are.
    You are sorry. This whole thing is a set up. The convenient change in reporting requirements and the knows nothing first hand complaint. Dems went with impeachment immediately before having details. But of course they already knew the content because they made it up themselves.
    Stand down order says hello.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 38,878 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    DJDuck said:

    That is a stupid question. You know I think your lawyer claim is just a gag. Lawyers aren’t that bright. They sure don’t have the broad liberal education most of the rest of us have.......but you seem too much of a cretin to reach that bar.

    I sure can point to many leftist Dems that accept an anonymous accusers iterations of evidence that he is not directly knowledgeable of is grounds for impeachment and if he is impeached there will be a trial moron and that bogus “evidence WILL TRY TO BE INTRODUCED BY THE DEMOCRATS

    The whistleblower complaint refers to things said by the very witnesses Daddy wants to shoot. The investigators will want to know who those witnesses are and interview them. What the witnesses have to say will not be hearsay. You gals watched just enough Matlock episodes to confuse yourselves.
    That doesn't make it admissible in court. It would supply an investigator with possible witnesses nothing more. You are one shitty attorney! Neither the report or whistleblower would matter in a trial. The Close Cover Before Striking School of Law and Heavy Machinery has failed you!
    Boy I’d be pretty insulted if I was arguing that the whistleblower was a witness and that the complaint was evidence. In light of the fact I just said the opposite, one has to wonder how fucking stupid you actually are.
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    DJDuck said:

    That is a stupid question. You know I think your lawyer claim is just a gag. Lawyers aren’t that bright. They sure don’t have the broad liberal education most of the rest of us have.......but you seem too much of a cretin to reach that bar.

    I sure can point to many leftist Dems that accept an anonymous accusers iterations of evidence that he is not directly knowledgeable of is grounds for impeachment and if he is impeached there will be a trial moron and that bogus “evidence WILL TRY TO BE INTRODUCED BY THE DEMOCRATS

    The whistleblower complaint refers to things said by the very witnesses Daddy wants to shoot. The investigators will want to know who those witnesses are and interview them. What the witnesses have to say will not be hearsay. You gals watched just enough Matlock episodes to confuse yourselves.
    That doesn't make it admissible in court. It would supply an investigator with possible witnesses nothing more. You are one shitty attorney! Neither the report or whistleblower would matter in a trial. The Close Cover Before Striking School of Law and Heavy Machinery has failed you!
    Boy I’d be pretty insulted if I was arguing that the whistleblower was a witness and that the complaint was evidence. In light of the fact I just said the opposite, one has to wonder how fucking stupid you actually are.
    Only read the first sentence I hate wasting time on your posts.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter