Sure she did.... she maybe didn't answer it completely, but she wasn't untruthful.... in the least... Non story....
I'm sure you believe that. Her misrepresentation adds fuel to the fire this was a Swamp set up. This is the same Obama holdover who refused visas to Ukrainians who wanted to come to the US to expose Democrat corruption. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...s-why-dont-you-want-our-evidence-on-democrats "Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington. “We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. “However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”
If you don't expect the House to issue articles of impeachment, the Senate to refuse to convict, and the American electorate to issue its verdict on Fake Don in November, 2020, that's fine with me.
Transcript proves she answered the question asked and answered honestly. I think you mean to say Bush holdover.
And what does this mean...? I mean your illogical and unsupported claim aside, what does it mean that someone concerned about what the president of the US did that resulted in them sending an e-mail to a staff level worker for a democrat from her personal account?
I have a better chance of getting on the cover of GQ than the Democrats have of an impeachment conviction.
Well, to be fair, she could have been more specific and say she also answered the FIRST EMAIL, but it doesn't matter... there was no information being passed... Q - Was that person responded to by you or someone else? A - I believe, yes, by [redacted] in the Legislative Affairs office. 3 simple polite EMAILS, and suddenly it's Hillary 2.0. At least with Strzok and Page, you had legit hatred of Trump in their texts...
I believe the Courts have ruled that "treason" has to be committed in conjunction with a declared enemy (i.e. as in a declared war in conjunction with a declaration of war).
We like the theory but we have no tree's! So we improvise. Shoot um and lay them out in the lonely prairie and let the wolves, coyote, red ants, badgers, prairie dogs, crows, hawks and eagles pick them clean
When you state under oath that you did not reply to an email and you did that is perjury.. Now one can blame faulty memory as no one can remember everything however it is still perjury.
Debunked... read my post #28... She didn't respond to THAT Email, not she didn't respond to ALL or ANY Emails.... Not that complicated....
Your signature is a hoot.. you should have your own show on the strip in Vegas... Opening for Donny and Marie...
No, I find that clearly amusing.... if that wasn't your intent, you might want to consider rethinking it...
The phrase "enemy, domestic or foreign" doesn't ring a bell with you? "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." Don't badger me because I didn't get the quote exactly right.