Fox Will Not Cover 1-6 Hearings Live
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
IMHO, wackadoodles love to join religious or political groups as a socially-acceptable means to express their extremist views. In short, Neither religions nor political parties make people crazy. Crazy people join religions and political parties...then take it to an extreme.
These people are noted for being LOUD, in your face and to wear funny hats and carry signs. Some like to get violent. While this is mostly those on the Right, those on the Left aren't innocent as the assassination attempt on Bart O'Kavanaugh proves and the Republican baseball massacre attempt.
Remember Squeaky Fromme taking a potshot at President Ford? She chose a good gun; a Colt 1911 .45 but wasn't a very good shot. She was also crazy. LOL
To misquote Forrest Gump; Crazy is as crazy does. These people are insane and could have been saved years before it became a problem had our nation provided the resources to help them.
Yeah. Too bad they chose a fucking moron who bested Bill Clinton among "Presidents who are lying, draft-dodging sexual predators". Trump beats Clinton in scumbaggery because he got two impeachments while Clinton bests Trump in not being such a douchebag that he lost reelection.
Last edited:
the democrats made their bed here
in real and fair legal proceedings both sides in a disputed event get a seat at the table. Pelosi made sure this was a kangaroo court that represents one side - and the other is outside looking in
so no - networks should not cover it - it is partisan theatre, not a real proceeding that America should involve itself with
in real and fair legal proceedings both sides in a disputed event get a seat at the table. Pelosi made sure this was a kangaroo court that represents one side - and the other is outside looking in
so no - networks should not cover it - it is partisan theatre, not a real proceeding that America should involve itself with
evince
Truthmatters
Dear fucking idiot
The republicans were offered all kinds of involvement in this investigation by congress
They refused to join them
That is undesputible FACT
The Republican Party trashed the republicans who voted for an investigation
And trashed the republicans who are on the panel heading the investigation
Your shits refused to investigate idiot
Fuck you very much
evince
Truthmatters
Yeah. Too bad they chose a fucking moron who bested Bill Clinton among "Presidents who are lying, draft-dodging sexual predators". Trump beats Clinton in scumbaggery because he got two impeachments while Clinton bests Trump in not being such a douchebag that he lost reelection.
Having a legal involvement with a consenting adult is legal dude
Clinton didn’t do anything illegal remember
Oh.. here's another one. Hi! My name's Lurch. Will YOU be my friend. I don't recall seeing you before but I like you and look forward to many lively discussions.
I am so taking you down, bitch. LOL
I'd like to tell you to "settle down" but I fear you are correct. I saw a news story - a state pol in Idaho was having a rally and one of his crowd stood up and asked, "so when do we get to start using the guns?". The prick was serious! He's not the only one, c'mon these guys are some evil Nazi fucks, my friend.
We do need to remain vigilant!!!
only a kangaroo court picks the defense team for the defense
so fuck off you shit stain liar. nobody but die hard progressive retards are gonna watch this bullshit
evince
Truthmatters
Dear fucking idiot
They are not a court you dumb bastard
It’s an investigation
The DOJ will do the indicting
The courts will do the convicting
Fuck you very much
it's not an investigation, it's political theatre because everyone hates you guys and you are panicking
Perjury is not legal anywhere in the US.
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
evince
Truthmatters
It was not perjury
Perjury has to be pertain to the case
The case was about non consensual sex remember
The second they asked him about a legal relationship it disqualified that question from perjury consideration
It was a fake trial to get to ask him about an affair that was legal in every way
It would be the same as asking him about his sex with his wife
It was meaningless to the case
I did not have sex with that woman was a factual statement anyway
He fingered her not copulated her anyway
All he has to do is testify that in his belief it wasn’t sex but for play
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/perjury
Sections 1621 and 1623 of title 18, variously amended, of the U.S. Code define perjury before a Federal tribunal. The elements of perjury are (1) that the declarant tool an oath to testify truthfully, (2) that he willfully made a false statement contrary to that oath (3) that the declarant believed the statement to be untrue, and (4) that the statement related to a material fact. It is easy to prove that a declarant took an oath. To prove that the witness gave a willfully false statement, however, the question asked must have been unambiguous. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a perjury conviction cannot be based on merely unresponsive or evasive testimony calculated to mislead but containing the literal truth. Testimony is material if it can impede the proceeding or influence the decision of tribunal or investigating body and may pertain to the main issue, collateral issues, or even the credibility of witnesses
evince
Truthmatters
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a perjury conviction cannot be based on merely unresponsive or evasive testimony calculated to mislead but containing the literal truth
He didn’t have intercourse
That was how he interpreted the word sex
Perfectly logical
If you fingered a guys daughter and he accused you of having sex with her
I bet you would say
I did not have sex with her
He didn’t have intercourse
That was how he interpreted the word sex
Perfectly logical
If you fingered a guys daughter and he accused you of having sex with her
I bet you would say
I did not have sex with her