click on picture.
The plot thickens.
It's one thing to refuse a polygraph. It's quite another to refuse to go under oath.
What in the world would keep her from testifying? Republicans with knowledge would also be expected to testify under OATH.
Something's wrong.
*8(Pelosi refuses to testify under oath over Foley communications**
Hmmmm. Anyone smell something stinky here?
It's called a subpoena. Works every time.
Here's the thread and article..
Pelosi won't go under oath.
click on picture.
That says it all right there. Unlike polygraphs, sworn affidavits are accepted in court proceedings, IIRC.
Won't go under oath = demands to be able to lie with impunity
Hey, it's just another entitlement for liberals
Back when Nance started in with her "culture of corruption" nonsense, the first thing that popped into my mind was "time to look in Nancy's closet." Democrats project. It's what they do. They can't help it.
Something smells in Botoxville, Bump.
Ping to this thread...it may answer both of our questions.
Typical liberal Dimocrap, all talk, no action. Holier than thou Pelosi quakes in her booties when threatened with testifying under oath.
All the Foley stuff is over 3 days old and starting to smell.
pelosi and her friends won't tetsify under oath, submit to a polygraph and they don't want a former head of the FBI under Conton to lead an investigation onto the page prgram and Congressional involvement.
Yep. I'm convinced. Hastert's the one with something to hide. lol
Bump.
Thank God for people like Rep McHenry. He's a chip off the old block of another famous Patrick Henry, sans the Mc.
He said that Pelosi had nominated and supported Rep Gerry Studds to a Committee Chairmanship FIVE TIMES even after he was censured for essentially raping a 17 year old boy.
Studds got the kid drunk and then sodomized him orally and anally.
The Democratic controlled House was going to let him off with even less than a wrist slap until then back bencher Gingrich and other Republicans of courage forced a censure vote.
Former Rep Dornan testified that Studds turned around, bent over, and pointed to his rear end repeatedly as the charges were read on the House floor.
The Democrats responded by giving him THREE standing ovations.
Look at the way Wikipedia tries to downplay the rape of the boy:
"Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent, according to state law at the time. The relationship was consensual, but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates. "
It is a lie that the sex was "consensual." Don't believe that cover up. The kid said he was raped while drunk.
Pelosi stood behind and promoted this piece of evil cow dung.
Now she sits there and spews forth her hypocrisy?
Take a good look gang - the next Third in Line to the Presidency.
Don and Roma (WLS-AM 890, Chicago) asked Stephie today to asked Rahm what he knew and when he knew it. We'll see.
Stephie missed the point about the sequence and content - another media-maniac who doesn't understand the difference between emails and IM's, or admit that once the original emails were discovered, House leaders immediately called the FBI. The emails were innocuous and the FBI walked away from it. Then came the October surprise IM's, then all hell broke loose.
What is she hiding in regards to this?