Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you're not willing to provide them healthcare but you're willing to have the gov't pay for all their expenses until they are adopted? What about the children with medical problems and won't be adopted because their medical bills would be astronomical? As wards of the gov't you'll pay for all their care. I'm not sure you've thought this through.The government would take them away, and then a private charity would put them up for adoption.Taken away and provided for by who? You? The gov't?They should be taken away from you if you can't take care of them.And if I can't do my job you're OK with children suffering? Nice guy.I don't care whether your children get decent healthcare. Providing that is your job, not mine.You may want to live in a country where children don't get decent healthcare but I don't.
Contempt of Congress - WikipediaNo link. I want to know the source and to read the whole thing.You need to read more:According to the material I've read on it, yes they are.Is the entire Congress required to vote on all subpoenas?Issuing subpoenas that the entire Congress hasn't voted on.
Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. ... As announced in Wilkinson v. United States, a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient."
We don't base public policy on a handful of extreme cases. We already have numerous charities for children with serious diseases. I said they would be handed over to a charity that would put them up for adoption.So you're not willing to provide them healthcare but you're willing to have the gov't pay for all their expenses until they are adopted? What about the children with medical problems and won't be adopted because their medical bills would be astronomical? As wards of the gov't you'll pay for all their care. I'm not sure you've thought this through.The government would take them away, and then a private charity would put them up for adoption.Taken away and provided for by who? You? The gov't?They should be taken away from you if you can't take care of them.And if I can't do my job you're OK with children suffering? Nice guy.I don't care whether your children get decent healthcare. Providing that is your job, not mine.
Contempt of Congress - WikipediaNo link. I want to know the source and to read the whole thing.You need to read more:According to the material I've read on it, yes they are.Is the entire Congress required to vote on all subpoenas?Issuing subpoenas that the entire Congress hasn't voted on.
Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. ... As announced in Wilkinson v. United States, a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient."
Google impaired?
You should meet some Africans they are SupremacistMuch better than adoption by racists.Adoption to Africans lol
Like someone who defends his actions by asking "Who told you that?" the Democrats are defending Biden's Corruption by blaming Trump for pointing it out. What could be more ludicrous? If the MSM had the slightest amount of journalistic integrity, the current impeachment trial would be laughed off the front pages as a transparent political stunt by the Democrats to avoid criminal investigation of many of their leaders.
Instead, the MSM is conspiring in the greatest criminal coverup in our nation's history. Billions of laundered public dollars have passed under their dirty noses without notice or comment. Why? Because they are in, directly or indirectly, on the take. Just follow the money.
Wow, so many allegations and so little proof, as in none.
Q. Why hasn't the Dept. of Justice requested The Court to issue an arrest warrant for the former VP and/or his son?
A. Because the agent who signs the arrest warrant signs it under penalty of perjury, that the allegations are true; and the the criminal act violated a specific crime, & where and when the crime occurred.
Clearly your post cannot be seen as perjury, and you have no worry about incurring a felony; all you risk is your credibility.
Wow, trying to appear intelligent? Try again.
P.S. No arrest warrant has been issued because a criminal investigation hasn't been completed, nor an indictment issued. But things may change unless you Democrooks can get rid of Trump.
Then you shouldn't have a problem with Biden testifying, right?I have yet to see any evidence of Biden's misconduct but I've seen plenty of evidence of Trump's crimes.whether you like or dislike Trump or Biden is irrelevant. the issue is the constitution and Biden's misconduct as well as Trump's crimes
There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.You have the transcript go ahead use them I didNo lie. Clinton's impeachment included excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony given by Clinton. Shouldn't Trump have to do the same?No he didn't, turd. He testified in the Paula Jones lawsuit under oath, not in his impeachment.I don't have a problem but I don't know what he might know about the impeachment issues.
You don't have a problem with Trump testifying under oath, right? Clinton did for his impeachment.
Once again the leftwinger lies about the facts.
You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.
Omg where!!???There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.You have the transcript go ahead use them I didNo lie. Clinton's impeachment included excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony given by Clinton. Shouldn't Trump have to do the same?No he didn't, turd. He testified in the Paula Jones lawsuit under oath, not in his impeachment.
Once again the leftwinger lies about the facts.
You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.
Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.
Your impeaching a president with no crime being broken lol hello mcflyWhat has been done that isn't legal?If you don't want to follow the legal process, then just admit it and stop all this fooling around.We both know that if the Dems went through the courts to compel witnesses Trump would fight them and the cases would drag on for years. Trump would die of old age before anything was decided. Is that justice or obstruction of justice?There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.
You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.
They witnessed nothing, and there is no evidence that Trump committed any crime. Dim mind reading doesn't constitute evidence.There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.You have the transcript go ahead use them I didNo lie. Clinton's impeachment included excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony given by Clinton. Shouldn't Trump have to do the same?No he didn't, turd. He testified in the Paula Jones lawsuit under oath, not in his impeachment.
Once again the leftwinger lies about the facts.
You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.
Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.
I’m not answering hypothetical questions Trump did nothing wrong you all have gone insaneAre you saying there is a law against impeaching a president with no crime being broken? Which law is that?Your impeaching a president with no crime being broken lol hello mcflyWhat has been done that isn't legal?If you don't want to follow the legal process, then just admit it and stop all this fooling around.We both know that if the Dems went through the courts to compel witnesses Trump would fight them and the cases would drag on for years. Trump would die of old age before anything was decided. Is that justice or obstruction of justice?
Let me ask, is there any form of abuse of power that would make you want to see Trump impeached and removed from office?
I'm not saying Trump did any of these, just asking what is your criteria for a Presidents removal.
- Trump provides classified information to a foreign power
- Trump accepts a bag of cash from a foreign power to have the US military do something
- Trump has the FBI arrest one of his political opponents on faked evidence
- Trump encourages a Right-wing militia to attack people protesting and action by Trump
So you're not willing to provide them healthcare but you're willing to have the gov't pay for all their expenses until they are adopted? What about the children with medical problems and won't be adopted because their medical bills would be astronomical? As wards of the gov't you'll pay for all their care. I'm not sure you've thought this through.
"Orange man bad" isn't sufficient grounds for impeachment, douchebag.Your impeaching a president with no crime being broken lol hello mcflyWhat has been done that isn't legal?If you don't want to follow the legal process, then just admit it and stop all this fooling around.We both know that if the Dems went through the courts to compel witnesses Trump would fight them and the cases would drag on for years. Trump would die of old age before anything was decided. Is that justice or obstruction of justice?There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.
Impeachment does not require a violation of a criminal statute. Even Republican witness Jonathan Turley agrees with that.
Oh because your stomping your feet? LolYour impeaching a president with no crime being broken lol hello mcflyWhat has been done that isn't legal?If you don't want to follow the legal process, then just admit it and stop all this fooling around.We both know that if the Dems went through the courts to compel witnesses Trump would fight them and the cases would drag on for years. Trump would die of old age before anything was decided. Is that justice or obstruction of justice?There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.
Impeachment does not require a violation of a criminal statute. Even Republican witness Jonathan Turley agrees with that.
Omg where!!???There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.You have the transcript go ahead use them I didNo lie. Clinton's impeachment included excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony given by Clinton. Shouldn't Trump have to do the same?
You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.
Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.
There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.You have the transcript go ahead use them I didNo lie. Clinton's impeachment included excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony given by Clinton. Shouldn't Trump have to do the same?No he didn't, turd. He testified in the Paula Jones lawsuit under oath, not in his impeachment.
Once again the leftwinger lies about the facts.
You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.
Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.
They witnessed nothing, and there is no evidence that Trump committed any crime. Dim mind reading doesn't constitute evidence.There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.You have the transcript go ahead use them I didNo lie. Clinton's impeachment included excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony given by Clinton. Shouldn't Trump have to do the same?
You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.
Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.
Did what? Win in 2016?They witnessed nothing, and there is no evidence that Trump committed any crime. Dim mind reading doesn't constitute evidence.There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.You have the transcript go ahead use them I did
You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.
Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.
You would not admit it if everybody in Washington DC testified. A majority of voters also agree that Trump did it.
