Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Reminder to far right fringe revisionists
Comments
-
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. -
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 -
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. -
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 -
What. Thee. Unbelievable. Fuck. ?!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.
The pathology of your lies knows no bounds when it comes tim to defend the Clinton machine.
#aclockworkshill #rightontim #lapdog #cumstainonabluedress -
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.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.
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...
-
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. -
w.jw.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. -
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.pawz said:
What. Thee. Unbelievable. Fuck. ?!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.
The pathology of your lies knows no bounds when it comes tim to defend the Clinton machine.
#aclockworkshill #rightontim #lapdog #cumstainonabluedress
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 -
Hardcore Huskie Law School
