Not sure to whom this is addressed--you do not have a referenced attachment.Why are you so obsessed with politics and liberal political figures?
Not sure to whom this is addressed--you do not have a referenced attachment.Why are you so obsessed with politics and liberal political figures?
Not sure to whom this is addressed--you do not have a referenced attachment.
You may be right, but I find it difficult to comprehend that they have read AND understand while swearing an oath to SUPPORT the document as a qualification for the office they plan to occupy. Maybe there is need for legislation that makes the above scenario a felony punishable by removal from the office they currently hold. Call it 'making a false oath to a Government official' --similar to lying tot he FBI and with similar punishment
Very likely.You probably have that person on ignore.
NO on obstruction. Yes on the other one.He just said the opposite. Take your dementia meds.
Very likely.
There are several whom I refuse to waste time reading their worthless trash.
Mitt...preach it brother. Only Repub w/a spine.
Mitt...preach it brother. Only Repub w/a spine.
That’s reasonable. Pretty much the way an impartial jury would have gone.He will vote guilty on the Abuse of Power Article.....and not guilty on the Obstruction of Congress Article.
He can now run as a RINO or a Dem/Socialist......think about thatGreat, libs are now into moral victories of having the far right leaning Romney vote with them, as they lose.
Mitt is jealous...
Allot are jealous
3 tough days for Moe. Poor guy can't sleep.
That’s reasonable. Pretty much the way an impartial jury would have gone.
You’re on crack if you think A. They proved this beyond a reasonable doubt and B. The conduct rose to the level of an impeachable offense. There was literally zero direct evidence and zero first hand knowledge.That’s reasonable. Pretty much the way an impartial jury would have gone.
But Bolton never had a chance to testify. NextAn impartial jury would have asked where the direct evidence is that proved that Trump sought the investigations solely for personal political gain.
Why else would he target his political rival for investigations with no proof that the Bidens were guilty of any wrongdoing? Do you expect that there's some tweet or email from the POTUS stating that "today I will seek investigations of the Bidens in hope of tarnishing my potential political rival and getting re-elected"? get serious. Sometimes jurors (or senators) have to use their common sense because everything won't be spelled out in black and white when, for ex. the POTUS is trying to run a shady deal in the Ukraine. Also the POTUS was accused of obstruction of congress which means that he had done everything possible to hide this direct evidence that you speak of therefore a tweet or email stating same may not be available. I don't believe there are many honest senators or Americans who don't believe that the POTUS was guilty of what he was accused of. Ask Mitt Romney or just read/listen to his statement yesterday.An impartial jury would have asked where the direct evidence is that proved that Trump sought the investigations solely for personal political gain.
He didnt want to testify.But Bolton never had a chance to testify. Next
POTUS was acquitted forever of all of that, by America.Why else would he target his political rival for investigations with no proof that the Bidens were guilty of any wrongdoing? Do you expect that there's some tweet or email from the POTUS stating that "today I will seek investigations of the Bidens in hope of tarnishing my potential political rival and getting re-elected"? get serious. Sometimes jurors (or senators) have to use their common sense because everything won't be spelled out in black and white when, for ex. the POTUS is trying to run a shady deal in the Ukraine. Also the P{OTUS was accused of obstruction of congress which means that he had done everything possible to hide this direct evidence that you speak of therefore a tweet or email stating same may not be available. I don't believe there are many honest senators or Americans who don't believe that the POTUS was guilty of what he was accused of. Ask Mitt Romney or just read/listen to his statement yesterday.
That’s the fault of the House, bets to you.But Bolton never had a chance to testify. Next
You’re on crack if you think A. They proved this beyond a reasonable doubt and B. The conduct rose to the level of an impeachable offense. There was literally zero direct evidence and zero first hand knowledge.
You all just really really want him to be gone, by any means necessary because you know you won’t win in Nov. As the President laid out in the SOTU, he’s kicking *** for America.
You left out Kansas.Lol, It's what winning looks like in the GOP, you know all of Donnies dimwits voted for the Mormon heretic before the stable genius conquered him, we are doomed and all Democrats will be vanquished! Personally I'd love to elect Donnie but take over the Senate and keep the House, my as well give this racist populism from the right all the hard light it deserves and get it over with, Demographics gonna kill ya.
Sure sounds very close to a coup attempt by the libtards....and add in Muelller....An impartial jury would have asked where the direct evidence is that proved that Trump sought the investigations solely for personal political gain.
But Bolton never had a chance to testify. Next
Why else would he target his political rival for investigations with no proof that the Bidens were guilty of any wrongdoing? Do you expect that there's some tweet or email from the POTUS stating that "today I will seek investigations of the Bidens in hope of tarnishing my potential political rival and getting re-elected"?
Rumor has it that after the senate voted to not call witnesses Shiff asked Bolton to give a sworn affadavit about what happened and Bolton turned them down. Bolton sold a lorThat's Shiftforbrains fault. Blame the House for that.
But do you believe Bolton would have testified that Trump wanted the investigation done for personal reasons?
You don't think the possibility exists that he targeted Biden because Biden was bragging about threatening and strong arming the Ukrainians? That he had reason to believe that the Biden's were potentially in violation of the law because of Hunter's work with Burisma?
To answer your last question. 1) No, I don't, because I don't believe he did it to help him get re-elected. 2) We'll never know because the House didn't do their job properly.
No, I don't think there is any possibility. What law did any Biden potentially violate?You don't think the possibility exists that he targeted Biden because Biden was bragging about threatening and strong arming the Ukrainians? That he had reason to believe that the Biden's were potentially in violation of the law because of Hunter's work with Burisma?
No, I don't think there is any possibility. What law did any Biden potentially violate?
He said as much already.But do you believe Bolton would have testified that Trump wanted the investigation done for personal reasons?
Rumor has it that after the senate voted to not call witnesses Shiff asked Bolton to give a sworn affadavit about what happened and Bolton turned them down. Bolton sold a lor
R of books in the past 2 weeks and that was his only plan because he knew he would never testify ubtil after his book is released.