Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Whistleblower update
Comments
-
I have reread this three times and I cannot stop laffing. I see Hondo sitting in a basement thinking as hard as he can on how to set up his clever trap, only for it to be easily navigated by a typical four year old from a trailer park in Mississippi when he's all done crafting his elaborate lure.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.GrundleStiltzkin said:It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
-
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.2001400ex said:
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.GrundleStiltzkin said:It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
-
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?GrundleStiltzkin said:
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.2001400ex said:
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.GrundleStiltzkin said:It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections? -
No2001400ex said:
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?GrundleStiltzkin said:
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.2001400ex said:
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.GrundleStiltzkin said:It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
No -
If those people are willing to testify on their own merits, no. I’m guessing you’re really asking about hearsay thought.2001400ex said:
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?GrundleStiltzkin said:
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.2001400ex said:
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.GrundleStiltzkin said:It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
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.GrundleStiltzkin said:
If those people are willing to testify on their own merits, no. I’m guessing you’re really asking about hearsay thought.2001400ex said:
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?GrundleStiltzkin said:
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.2001400ex said:
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.GrundleStiltzkin said:It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
If there are legal consequences for the accused that rely substantially on the whistleblower, no. -
I’d like to change me answers2001400ex said:
In other words, we agree. That if people around Trump corroborate the whistleblower story, then the whistleblowers testimony is irrelevant.GrundleStiltzkin said:
If those people are willing to testify on their own merits, no. I’m guessing you’re really asking about hearsay thought.2001400ex said:
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?GrundleStiltzkin said:
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.2001400ex said:
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.GrundleStiltzkin said:It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
If there are legal consequences for the accused that rely substantially on the whistleblower, no. -
Me thinks you know what you are saying.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I’d like to change me answers2001400ex said:
In other words, we agree. That if people around Trump corroborate the whistleblower story, then the whistleblowers testimony is irrelevant.GrundleStiltzkin said:
If those people are willing to testify on their own merits, no. I’m guessing you’re really asking about hearsay thought.2001400ex said:
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?GrundleStiltzkin said:
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.2001400ex said:
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.GrundleStiltzkin said:It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
If there are legal consequences for the accused that rely substantially on the whistleblower, no. -
Because he the whistleblower is the complainant. It's all that legal Shit.2001400ex said:
Serious question. If everyone around Trump corroborates the whistleblower. Is the whistleblower testimony relevant?GrundleStiltzkin said:
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.2001400ex said:
Except I'm right. And sadly you know it.GrundleStiltzkin said:It was fun watching a Hondo laying his trap over a couple posts, only to have the snare made of dental floss.
Second question, do you believe in whistleblower protections?
