JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
What gets me about charging someone with perjury while testifying to Congress, is that Congress is just chuck full of liars who habitually lie to get into office and to remain in office.
This is the crux of the situation, and why I asked the above question of why we allow a sitting congress critter to attempt to influence a justice, basically sitting them down in private and asking them what they will do or not do, or any other political shenanigan's attempting to influence the court!

How DARE Susan Collins insert her personal politics, agenda, and wishes into those proceedings and attempt to influence a justice or withhold their confirmation!
 
And, can you cite the High Crime or Misdemeanor each appointee is alleged to have committed?
Remember, a High Crime, or equally Egregious Misdemeanor only applies here!


Impeachments are a rare thing, reserved for only the worst of offences! The "Alleged" Lies have been proved false, so there is literally nothing!
o_O Perjury relating to their statements on Roe V Wade

Not sure where you saw that the issue had been adjudicated
 


Here's the article I got the quote from. Seems "misleading and evasive statement" is not enough to be perjury 🤷‍♂️🤔
 
Here's the thing.

" Perjury must be knowingly committed and influence a proceeding's outcome to be punished "


From what I could find of the transcripts, I do not believe it has occurred?
I'm not in a position to make that evaluation :s0092:

But I have noticed that some people have trouble distinguishing between between trying to accurately report or explain another persons position and agreeing with or supporting another persons position ;)
 
Vinnie is correct regarding the oath.

While they all took an oath to defend the Constitution when they were sworn in, what AOC (and Vinnie) is referring to is the oath they took to tell the truth during their confirmations hearings. AOC is claiming they they said during those hearings that they would not overturn Roe v Wade, but the transcripts show that they said they would respect precedents.

Keep in mind that the court did not just willy-nilly reopen Roe V Wade. A pro abortion group forced the case to SCOTUS attempting to find that the Texas 15 week law was un Constitutional. This led to the decision that it is not a Constitutional right and so therefore properly is up to each state UNLESS Congress amends the Constitution otherwise.

It was an incredibly bad move on the part of the plaintiffs as it was no secret that even Justice Ginsberg had warned that Roe V Wade did not have a solid foundation within the Constitution. It was basically a "hold my beer" moment by them considering the majority of Originalists on the bench.

Sadly, the decision is being further used to further divide us through lies and gaslighting.

This article has a political bias (they ALL do) but does contain portions of the confirmation hearing transcripts so you can judge for yourself.
Yet again the overreach. They just could not stand ANY restrictions. So they pushed and pushed, and pushed. Now they finally lost and are screaming. :s0140:
 
Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
That has zero bearing on the words and behavior of Supreme Court appointees during Confirmation hearing. None whatsoever. Even if an appointee lied through her teeth the whole time, that does NOT constitute a "high crime." The clause is very specific and constrained to existing OFFICE HOLDERS. Indeed, one of the beauties of the Constitution is its very specificity. The Founding Fathers were incredibly smart. They knew that pathological liars like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton would emerge, gain power, and try to subvert the democratic process. Honestly, no offense, but (in my view) your interpretation of the Constitution is a little like Harry Blackmun's in crafting the original Roe v Wade doctrine. Support just isn't there.
 
That has zero bearing on the words and behavior of Supreme Court appointees during Confirmation hearing. None whatsoever. Even if an appointee lied through her teeth the whole time, that does NOT constitute a "high crime." The clause is very specific and constrained to existing OFFICE HOLDERS. Indeed, one of the beauties of the Constitution is its very specificity. The Founding Fathers were incredibly smart. They knew that pathological liars like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton would emerge, gain power, and try to subvert the democratic process. Honestly, no offense, but (in my view) your interpretation of the Constitution is a little like Harry Blackmun's in crafting the original Roe v Wade doctrine. Support just isn't there.

Just say'n . . . :rolleyes:

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
 
Just say'n . . . :rolleyes:

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Definitions for those terms as they relate to the UC Constitution here for those who are curious:
 
Just say'n . . . :rolleyes:

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Irrelevant, as it applies to existing office holders. By definition, candidates for an office do not yet hold that office. I do respect your opinion and don't want to push this any further. Thanks for bringing it up. One of the great things about NW Firearms is its members' willingness to share thoughts, debate ideas, and keep the light of free speech brightly burning.
 

The U.S. is not a democracy.

Joe
I was on farcebook when Trump was elected. How many of my "friends" howled when I reminded them that we were a Republic, not a democracy. Easily a dozen unfriended me. I was crushed. :D:rolleyes:

My ex father-in-law grew up in the Soviet union and I was speaking to him the other day when he was asking about his grandson and he says that this division is most likely going to cause the United States to break up into smaller little separate republics just like the Soviet union when it fell apart.
Cool. Maybe we get to be a part of the union of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Utah that invades the left coast to establish commerce routes to open ports.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My ex father-in-law grew up in the Soviet union and I was speaking to him the other day when he was asking about his grandson and he says that this division is most likely going to cause the United States to break up into smaller little separate republics just like the Soviet union when it fell apart.
He's saying that because that is what his experience has shown. The difference between then and now is that there are a few "superpowers" that would likely use that opportunity for conquest and I don't believe the US could survive, divided into smaller separate republics, and I hope that those of political and social influence understand that as well.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top