Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Reminder to far right fringe revisionists
Comments
-
Dude STFU. Idiot.SFGbob said:
And I said:2001400ex said:
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?SFGbob said:
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.GrundleStiltzkin said:
This needs to be framed2001400ex 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.
Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr.
Mr. Shitty reading comprehension. -
There were no "prosecutors" you fucking moron it was a civil suit. You're such dumb fuck Hondo.2001400ex said:
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.GrundleStiltzkin said:
This needs to be framed2001400ex 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.
Of which I haven't found what they containing.
You're a barely coherent retard with a really big mouth. -
If you're talking about "prosecutors" you're talking about the Starr investigation and Starr already had the blue dress before he ever put Clinton under oath. But you're stupid and you're a liar so now you're going to try and claim that you were talking about the Paula Jones suit all long despite the fact that there were no "prosecutors" in the Paula Jones case.
And I clearly said put under oath by Starr. So not only wasn't I wrong, you had your fucking head up your ass all along Hondo.
-
Wake up to find Hondo arguing with a pretty black woman from Alabama. Gonna be a great day.
-
What's the fuck's wrong Mr. Reading Comprehension? And why the fuck are you talking about "prosecutors" in the Paula Jones case?2001400ex said:
Dude STFU. Idiot.SFGbob said:
And I said:2001400ex said:
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?SFGbob said:
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.GrundleStiltzkin said:
This needs to be framed2001400ex 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.
Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr.
Mr. Shitty reading comprehension. -
May be?HHusky said:
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.Sledog said:
Not urgent. Hearsay is never urgent. Keep trying.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
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! -
While I generally find you hilarious.... You are better than that. You know I was right and understand the intent of my comment, even if you don't like it.GrundleStiltzkin said:Wake up to find Hondo arguing with a pretty black woman from Alabama. Gonna be a great day.
-
In this instance first hand knowledge is required. It's been pointed out to you. You think you get to impeach the president on made up bullshit? Of course you do. Try and get a search warrant on little Johnny with that line counsuelo! I heard you are a member of NAMBLA and molest children. I think I'll go talk to a judge about a warrant for your home, office and all electronic devices.HHusky said:
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.Sledog said:
Not urgent. Hearsay is never urgent. Keep trying.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
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!
You are definitely the dumbest attorney I have ever interacted with and that is saying something! -
Shocking, Hondo is dodging the questions like a Kunt. Hondo what was the name of the "prosecutor" when Clinton was deposed in January 2018? Dance dumbfuck, dance!!!2001400ex said:
While I generally find you hilarious.... You are better than that. You know I was right and understand the intent of my comment, even if you don't like it.GrundleStiltzkin said:Wake up to find Hondo arguing with a pretty black woman from Alabama. Gonna be a great day.
-
