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

Whistleblower update

2»

Comments

  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Pitchfork51
    Pitchfork51 Member Posts: 27,662
    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    No






    No
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GrundleStiltzkin
    GrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    If those people are willing to testify on their own merits, no. I’m guessing you’re really asking about hearsay thought.

    If there are legal consequences for the accused that rely substantially on the whistleblower, no.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    If those people are willing to testify on their own merits, no. I’m guessing you’re really asking about hearsay thought.

    If there are legal consequences for the accused that rely substantially on the whistleblower, no.
    In other words, we agree. That if people around Trump corroborate the whistleblower story, then the whistleblowers testimony is irrelevant.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GrundleStiltzkin
    GrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    If those people are willing to testify on their own merits, no. I’m guessing you’re really asking about hearsay thought.

    If there are legal consequences for the accused that rely substantially on the whistleblower, no.
    In other words, we agree. That if people around Trump corroborate the whistleblower story, then the whistleblowers testimony is irrelevant.
    I’d like to change me answers
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    If those people are willing to testify on their own merits, no. I’m guessing you’re really asking about hearsay thought.

    If there are legal consequences for the accused that rely substantially on the whistleblower, no.
    In other words, we agree. That if people around Trump corroborate the whistleblower story, then the whistleblowers testimony is irrelevant.
    I’d like to change me answers
    Me thinks you know what you are saying.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,728 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    The whistleblower is not the complainant. You need to read the constitution.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    They had private hearings to corroborate what the whistleblower said. Now it's becoming public. Keep up.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,728 Standard Supporter
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    The whistleblower is not the complainant. You need to read the constitution.
    Yes he is. Impeachment isn't by anonymous complaint. HTH
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    The whistleblower is not the complainant. You need to read the constitution.
    Yes he is. Impeachment isn't by anonymous complaint. HTH
    So you have no idea about article 2 section 4, among thousands of other things. He’s not the complainant.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    The whistleblower is not the complainant. You need to read the constitution.
    Yes he is. Impeachment isn't by anonymous complaint. HTH
    Have you missed all the relevant testimony? Google is your friend.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,834 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    The whistleblower is not the complainant. You need to read the constitution.
    Yes he is. Impeachment isn't by anonymous complaint. HTH
    Have you missed all the relevant testimony? Google is your friend.
    The chick who exonerated Trump? Yeah we all read it

    Case closed
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    The whistleblower is not the complainant. You need to read the constitution.
    Yes he is. Impeachment isn't by anonymous complaint. HTH
    Have you missed all the relevant testimony? Google is your friend.
    The chick who exonerated Trump? Yeah we all read it

    Case closed
    And you wonder why they call you a simple mind Race.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,728 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    The whistleblower is not the complainant. You need to read the constitution.
    Yes he is. Impeachment isn't by anonymous complaint. HTH
    Have you missed all the relevant testimony? Google is your friend.
    The chick who exonerated Trump? Yeah we all read it

    Case closed
    And you wonder why they call you a simple mind Race.
    Nothing impeachable. Absolutely nothing. But we already knew that.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,834 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    The whistleblower is not the complainant. You need to read the constitution.
    Yes he is. Impeachment isn't by anonymous complaint. HTH
    Have you missed all the relevant testimony? Google is your friend.
    The chick who exonerated Trump? Yeah we all read it

    Case closed
    And you wonder why they call you a simple mind Race.
    Trump was exonerated

    Not surprising that you missed it
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    The whistleblower is not the complainant. You need to read the constitution.
    Yes he is. Impeachment isn't by anonymous complaint. HTH
    Have you missed all the relevant testimony? Google is your friend.
    The chick who exonerated Trump? Yeah we all read it

    Case closed
    And you wonder why they call you a simple mind Race.
    Nothing impeachable. Absolutely nothing. But we already knew that.
    That remains to be seen.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    The whistleblower is not the complainant. You need to read the constitution.
    Yes he is. Impeachment isn't by anonymous complaint. HTH
    Have you missed all the relevant testimony? Google is your friend.
    The chick who exonerated Trump? Yeah we all read it

    Case closed
    And you wonder why they call you a simple mind Race.
    Trump was exonerated

    Not surprising that you missed it
    Lil lyin Race lying as always.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,834 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    Sledog said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    2001400ex said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.

    Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.
    I don't know the evidentiary rules of impeachment proceedings or whatever the fuck phase this is in, and doubt you do either. Between that, Schiff apparently reneging on bringing the blower in to testify, and general principles of American due process, is why I called your trap thin.
    Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?

    Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
    Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.
    The whistleblower is not the complainant. You need to read the constitution.
    Yes he is. Impeachment isn't by anonymous complaint. HTH
    Have you missed all the relevant testimony? Google is your friend.
    The chick who exonerated Trump? Yeah we all read it

    Case closed
    And you wonder why they call you a simple mind Race.
    Trump was exonerated

    Not surprising that you missed it
    Lil lyin Race lying as always.
    Hondo the pathological liar

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Just shitpost that over every thread. Whatever makes you feel better Race.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,834 Founders Club



    Exonerated
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Lol
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,728 Standard Supporter
    I don't know with this kind of damming testimony how can trump escape impeachment?

    “Taylor indicated that he had talked to Tim Morrison … and Tim had indicated he had talked to Gordon, and Gordon told … Tim, and Tim told Bill Taylor that he, Gordon, had talked to the president. … And POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go [on] microphone and say investigations, ­Biden and Clinton.”

    And these are the "star" witnesses!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    PurpleThrobber said:

    Sledog said:

    I don't know with this kind of damming testimony how can trump escape impeachment?

    “Taylor indicated that he had talked to Tim Morrison … and Tim had indicated he had talked to Gordon, and Gordon told … Tim, and Tim told Bill Taylor that he, Gordon, had talked to the president. … And POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go [on] microphone and say investigations, ­Biden and Clinton.”

    And these are the "star" witnesses!




    Wasn't this the basic plot of Mean Girls?

    Wood, wood, craves it, wood
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter