Should Biden be questioned under oath?

Yes, and the first question Jim Jordan should ask him is, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Which would be an absurd question (but look who's asking it), since Old Joe couldn't beat his way out of a paper bag.

 

Because of what the fake whistle blower -- who was actually a foreign agent -- said? LOL. I thought this whole thing blew up your faces a few weeks ago. Sad to see this all you got to cling on to, like rats on a sinking ship ... while the SS Biden powers along to a second term.

 

I agree that Biden should be questioned under oath, provided it's under the same conditions that Trump was questioned under oath during the hearings leading up to the Articles of Impeachment both of the times that he was impeached by the House and during his Senate trials following both impeachments.

 

Biden would likely do his best “Clinton” if under oath. The question is can he replicate the stealthiness of Bill Clinton under oath. Big shoes to fill. Biden might be in trouble though. Clinton understands the art of bridling thy tongue.

 

Jim Jordan should be placed under oath and asked if he has continued to be a groomer since he stopped coaching at Ohio State

 

If we put the OP under oath and asked one simple question I think we all know what the answer would be…

 

Okay, I'll bite: what would that question be?

 

Are you a Lawyer. I suppose it depends how you ask it though. Like what if you use air quotes?

 

Why would anyone dislike your question? Must not be a lawyer.

But to your question, I've long doubted he's a lawyer, though I've known a few who were waaay out there, proving that education is wasted on some.

 

Biden should be institutionalized - and kept away from Jill - for his safety and for the sake of some shred of dignity.

 

If you are, in fact, an attorney you should know better that the crime of perjury is more than simply lying under oath. These are the elements of perjury:

• A person took an oath to truthfully testify, declare, depose, or certify, verbally or in writing;
• The person made a statement that was not true;
• The person knew the statement to be untrue;
• The person made the false statement willfully; and
• The subject matter of the statement was material to the proceeding in which it was made.

A criminal prosecution against Clinton would have failed based on the last element. The proceeding concerned allegations against Clinton regarding sexual harassment of Paula Jones, not whether or not had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. By the way at the time of political theater/impeachment of Clinton, a number former US Attorneys/Assistant US Attorneys acting as expert commentators for various television networks and print publications indicated that they would have never bothered charging Clinton based on the facts of the case.

 

Another really bad trolling thread. Clown shoes.

 

That would be a pretty hefty sentence for having lied under oath more than 20 years ago.

 

Is there an alleged crime? Is their probable cause?