You should Google some of this yourself. Here's Clinton's oath of office: By violating the Espionage Act (and that's not an opinion, that was Comey's finding) she did not bear true faith and allegiance, nor did she faithfully discharge the duties of her office as she was sworn to do. The only reason Clinton wasn't charged was because Comey said he could not find "intent". Well, funny thing, "intent" is not a requirement for a crime. And the idiot left in this country let her off the hook...
The idiot left? Who’s DOJ is still refusing to charge her? Which idiot leftist hired Sessions and now Barr?
I simply provided the oath of office you were confused about.. Constantly putting words in posters mouths is against forum rules.
Corroboration is not the same as confirmation, but none the less are you trying to prove confirmation because others believe it? Is proof of something now determined by vote?
Not what I said. I said Congress has virtually no purview or oversight of the president over foreign relations.
That is really nobody's purview. One can have opinions and think the president was wrong. But this has as much to do with impeachment as my 2001 Buick Century has.
And the javelin missiles were not a part of the aid package that was temporarily held up … so so much for that.
The mention of the need to desire to purchase those javelins was immediately preceded by trumps request for a favor. And given that trump could unilaterally stop their sale, just as he unilaterally paused the hundreds of millions in military aid, that makes those missiles a point of leverage.
*LOL* OK, so if you attempt to enlist a foreign power to help you win an election through extortion, but you don't succeed, it's a "no harm, no foul" type of situation which is just fine? Hokay. Jesus.
This post makes no sense. If you're addressing an alleged crime that hasn't been adjudicated as a crime, isn't it always an opinion as to whether a crime has taken place? Re-think your post, fella.
It makes perfect sense to anyone not Hell bent on hating Trump. The comment was made about there being "illegal schemes". I asked what those were, in the hopes that you might provide something factual and real as opposed to some op/ed piece you found on the internet...
No, not if the opinion is about something that doesn't even resemble a crime or there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime.
Hokay, Rod. You see, the Trumpers aren't offering "opinions" here. Just unassailable facts. Of something that is open to debate. And that has not happened yet.
Boy that's a stretch. Seems like this whole impeachment process is not based upon any concrete evidence but on perceived possible motivations.
Not sure what any of that has to do with what I said. Perhaps you're talking to yourself or something.
If you don't want to get caught in corruption scandal, don't get involved in corruption. Biden's candidacy doesn't protect him.