Reminder to far right fringe revisionists

2001400ex said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

ApostleofGrief said:

HoustonHusky said:

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

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.

SFGbob said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

2001400ex said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

ApostleofGrief said:

HoustonHusky said:

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

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.

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

2001400ex said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

ApostleofGrief said:

HoustonHusky said:

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

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?