Mitt....

Gunny46

All-Conference
Jul 2, 2018
61,349
4,120
113
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

You may find your answer under US Code 18 Chapter 115.
 
Last edited:

Mntneer

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2001
10,192
196
0
That’s reasonable. Pretty much the way an impartial jury would have gone.

An impartial jury would have asked where the direct evidence is that proved that Trump sought the investigations solely for personal political gain.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,251
3,327
113
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.

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.
 

roadtrasheer

All-Conference
Sep 9, 2016
18,355
2,447
113
Dvldog they want him impeached for stealing the Democrats platform ,minus extreme socialism, & blue collarsupport .he is mixing both platforms up, in my opinion taken good from both platforms & running with it.
 
Last edited:

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,863
284
83
An 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.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,602
820
113
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.
POTUS was acquitted forever of all of that, by America.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
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.

LOL!
 

Keyser76

Freshman
Apr 7, 2010
11,912
58
0
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.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,602
820
113
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.
You left out Kansas.
 

Spocker

Redshirt
Jan 26, 2004
3,496
8
0
An impartial jury would have asked where the direct evidence is that proved that Trump sought the investigations solely for personal political gain.
Sure sounds very close to a coup attempt by the libtards....and add in Muelller....
 

Mntneer

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2001
10,192
196
0
But Bolton never had a chance to testify. Next

That'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?

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"?

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.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,602
820
113
That'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.
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.
 

moe

Junior
May 29, 2001
32,863
284
83
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?
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
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.

Bolton will be served with a subpoena.