The Impeachment Report Does Not Cite One Law Violated

[Weatherman2020]

When you’re accusing someone of violating the law, you cite the law (Section blah blah of Code blah blah) and then detail the evidence of such violation.

300+ page report can’t even state one law. It’s just a bunch of innuendos and lists actions that are not against the law.

Democrats moving forward with this sham have destroyed their own party.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

 

[kyzr]

According to the democrat law professors:
You do not need a high crime to impeach, and a high crime does not necessarily justify impeachment?!

 

[william the wie]

The original party of Genocide (trail of tears) and the big lie (Jackson claiming to have won a second war of independence) Claims to not be the original NAZI party. I find that claim dubious.

 

[theHawk]

Yup, I keep asking that question, no regressive can answer it. What is the actual law broken?

I can’t wait for the next “whitelash” after this farce.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Law? Trump won and broke many Democrats hearts. Breaking hearts is against the law. He must be impeached.

 

[bodecea]

When you’re accusing someone of violating the law, you cite the law (Section blah blah of Code blah blah) and then detail the evidence of such violation.

300+ page report can’t even state one law. It’s just a bunch of innuendos and lists actions that are not against the law.

Democrats moving forward with this sham have destroyed their own party.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

And?

 

[william the wie]

My bet is that the Rosenstein report will lead to a special counsel and Nancy will see one D member after another indicted for sedition.

 

[HappyJoy]

According to the democrat law professors:
You do not need a high crime to impeach, and a high crime does not necessarily justify impeachment?!

A 'high' crime is merely an act committed by someone in power such as a president. You need a high crime in order to impeach. Since this is a political process and since it's not possible to indict a sitting president by normal powers such as the DOJ and impeachment is not based on actual criminal law. Benjamin Franklin once said that impeachment was to be considered when the president "rendered himself obnoxious".

I wouldn't look to this report to draw out specific laws, I think this report is a summary of the presidents actions only. If you're looking for actual crimes to be listed whether they are in the criminal code or not then I'd look at the soon to be drawn articles of impeachment.

 

[Penelope]

When you’re accusing someone of violating the law, you cite the law (Section blah blah of Code blah blah) and then detail the evidence of such violation.

300+ page report can’t even state one law. It’s just a bunch of innuendos and lists actions that are not against the law.

Democrats moving forward with this sham have destroyed their own party.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

That is because its not a court.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Their main argument will be Obstruction...

The question for the House is will they convict Trump on this and my answer is no...

 

[Claudette]

Their main argument will be Obstruction...

The question for the House is will they convict Trump on this and my answer is no...

I wonder just how many Dems will vote to impeach. Its a lose, lose and they all know it.

They are politicians and they take care of number one. Themselves. They know this a lose, lose and you can bet they don't want their names associated with it.

Should be interesting. LOL

 

[Harpy Eagle]

According to the democrat law professors:
You do not need a high crime to impeach, and a high crime does not necessarily justify impeachment?!

Lindsey Graham said the same thing.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

My bet is that the Rosenstein report will lead to a special counsel and Nancy will see one D member after another indicted for sedition.

How much are you willing to bet on that?

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

When you’re accusing someone of violating the law, you cite the law (Section blah blah of Code blah blah) and then detail the evidence of such violation.

300+ page report can’t even state one law. It’s just a bunch of innuendos and lists actions that are not against the law.

Democrats moving forward with this sham have destroyed their own party.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

The corruption rampant throughout the ameican economic/political/"legal" system is intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers and the so called president is a laughing stock on the world stage.

 

[toobfreak]

When you’re accusing someone of violating the law, you cite the law (Section blah blah of Code blah blah) and then detail the evidence of such violation.
300+ page report can’t even state one law. It’s just a bunch of innuendos and lists actions that are not against the law.
Democrats moving forward with this sham have destroyed their own party.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

The Constitution does not define or limit that to a crime but deliberately leaves the matter open to interpretation as basically, "misbehaving" in a way damaging to the office and the nation so much as to lose the confidence of the country. But that does not mean just anything, and the bar is very high that impeachment is seen as a last resort to reign in a president who is terribly out of control to the point of no choice. The problem is that most reasonable people agree that nothing Trump has done reaches that bar, and at worst, if he sought to make Biden look bad by capitalizing on his crimes in Ukraine, that still doesn't lessen or change what Biden did and Biden needs to answer for that at least as much as Trump! Especially if he could end up the next president.

The charge of Bribery is preposterous: at best, it is but one of 10,000 examples of what presidents do all the time between nations bartering deals, and the charge of Obstruction is almost equally as bad considering how little impact anything Trump did affected Ukraine or the aid, the fact that aid is being delayed and withheld all over the world, and that if it was a ploy to harm a guy that is not even nominated as a candidate yet, THE POLLS SURE DON'T SHOW THE EFFECT. Biden is still the front-runner.

This was both bad timing and a bad show for the Democrats, for not only will it almost certainly not remove him from office, but it has widened the divisions between people and further clouded an already over-hyped political process to where Impeachment has been reduced from being an extraordinary solution for egregious acts to now a choice we will consider any time one party simply doesn't like the policies or style of any given president, especially one which is soon going to have to rerun for office again anyway.

And that has simply made the Democrats look cheap and dirty with faux outrage and indignation over a president they have fiercely opposed from the start.

 

[Weatherman2020]

When you’re accusing someone of violating the law, you cite the law (Section blah blah of Code blah blah) and then detail the evidence of such violation.
300+ page report can’t even state one law. It’s just a bunch of innuendos and lists actions that are not against the law.
Democrats moving forward with this sham have destroyed their own party.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

The Constitution does not define or limit that to a crime but leaves the matter open as basically, "misbehaving" in a way damaging to the office and the nation so much as to lose the confidence of the country. But that does not mean just anything, and the bar is very high that impeachment is seen as a last resort to reign in a president who is terribly out of control to the point of no choice. The problem is that most reasonable people agree that nothing Trump has done reaches that bar, and at worst, if he sought to make Biden look bad by capitalizing on his crimes in Ukraine, that still doesn't lessen or change what Biden did and Biden needs to answer for that at least as much as Trump! ESpecially if he could end up the next president.

The charge of Bribery is preposterous: at best, it is but one of 10,000 examples of what presidents do all the time between nations bartering deals, and the charge of Obstruction is almost equally as bad considering how little impact anything Trump did affected Ukraine or the aid, the fact that aid is being delayed and withheld all over the world, and that if it was a ploy to harm a guy that is not even nominated as a candidate yet, THE POLLS SURE DON'T SHOW THE EFFECT. Biden is still the front-runner.

This was both bad timing and a bad show for the Democrats, for not only will it almost certainly not remove him from office, but it has widened the divisions between people and further clouded an already over-hyped political process to where Impeachment has been reduced from being an extraordinary solution for egregious acts to now a choice we will consider any time one party simply doesn't like the policies or style of any given president, especially one which is soon going to have to rerun for office again anyway.

And that has simply made the Democrats look cheap and dirty with faux outrage and indignation over a president they have fiercely opposed from the start.

I disagree, but the Left can proceed because they look childish to everyone.

 

[Care4all]

According to the democrat law professors:
You do not need a high crime to impeach, and a high crime does not necessarily justify impeachment?!

read Federalist papers #65
what's a HIGH misdemeanor?

a high, crime and misdemeanor, is a breach of the public's trust, an abuse of power.... it does not require a codified statute.... in fact we had no legal statutes until 60 plus years after the constitution was written.... what did we do for impeachment before then?

Not all crimes with legal statutes that are broken, are impeachable offenses...

As example, A govt official in high power would not be impeached for not getting their dog, dog tags that were required by law.... or for not paying the IRS all the taxes due, or for releasing floating balloons in to the sky, if that was illegal....

 

[Weatherman2020]

When you’re accusing someone of violating the law, you cite the law (Section blah blah of Code blah blah) and then detail the evidence of such violation.

300+ page report can’t even state one law. It’s just a bunch of innuendos and lists actions that are not against the law.

Democrats moving forward with this sham have destroyed their own party.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

That is because its not a court.

That is because its not a court.

Correct, it’s a kangaroo court sham.

 

[Weatherman2020]

According to the democrat law professors:
You do not need a high crime to impeach, and a high crime does not necessarily justify impeachment?!

read Federalist papers #65
what's a HIGH misdemeanor?

a high, crime and misdemeanor, is a breach of the public's trust, an abuse of power.... it does not require a codified statute.... in fact we had no legal statutes until 60 plus years after the constitution was written.... what did we do for impeachment then?

Not all crimes with legal statutes that are broken, are impeachable offenses...

As example, A govt official in high power would not be impeached for not getting their dog, dog tags that were required by law.... or for not paying the IRS all the taxes due, or for releasing floating balloons in to the sky, if that was illegal....

Loss of public trust??? Is that why Democrats are terrified to wait 11 months for the election?

 

[berg80]

You mean besides the illegal solicitation of foreign assistance in our election, the illegal withholding of military aid, and obstruction of a congressional inquiry? Besides those things?

Do you folks have collective amnesia? Cuz you can't seem to keep these simple facts in your heads.