The Impeachment Report Does Not Cite One Law Violated

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.

You do disagree with the constitution and most on your side do unless it solely benefits them.
 
The Starr report listed actual crimes, and the impeachment referal listed actual crimes.

You're full of shit, of course.

Neat. Let me know when Starr is a member of Congress.

How'd that work out anyway? I mean other than making Clinton more popular.

What part of "the impeachment referral listed actual crimes" didn't you understand, dumbass?

That a crime doesn't actually have to be committed in order to be impeached, weasel dick.
No one said it did. I simply noted the historical record. Dims can be as sleazy and despicable as they want to be.

in this case the House is following the Constitution to the letter making damn sure they protect themselves.

they have Trump by the shorthairs and that fat ass bastard knows it -
The Constitution doesn't say a thing about how an impeachment is supposed to be conducted, so your post is obvious bullshit. Why do the scumbags running the show trials need protection? From what, their own criminality? How is Schiff going protect himself for being called as a witness by the Senate?

The have nothing on Trump, and the whole country knows it.
 
What part of "the impeachment referral listed actual crimes" didn't you understand, dumbass?

That a crime doesn't actually have to be committed in order to be impeached, weasel dick.
I just told you that the referral from Clinton's impeachment listed actual crimes, shit for brains.

And?

Why are you gloating about Clinton being impeached?

I'm not gloating, I asked you a question.

Responding to the same post twice?
Yes, you were gloating.

BTW, dumbass, if Clinton wasn't hurt, what makes you believe Trump will be? He's raising a fortune off this impeachment scam.

Clinton's approval rating during the whole process was in the 60s and even hit 71 twice. And not just in one single poll
All your proving is that impeachment is meaningless.
 
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
Trump solicited foreign interference in the upcoming 2020 election; would you worry more if Barry did it?
 
That a crime doesn't actually have to be committed in order to be impeached, weasel dick.
I just told you that the referral from Clinton's impeachment listed actual crimes, shit for brains.

And?

Why are you gloating about Clinton being impeached?

I'm not gloating, I asked you a question.

Responding to the same post twice?
Yes, you were gloating.

BTW, dumbass, if Clinton wasn't hurt, what makes you believe Trump will be? He's raising a fortune off this impeachment scam.

Clinton's approval rating during the whole process was in the 60s and even hit 71 twice. And not just in one single poll
All your proving is that impeachment is meaningless.

While Clinton's followers were not a dedicated and zealous as you Trump followers, he had a much larger part of the country that liked him. He won by far larger margins than Trump did in the EC and actually won the popular vote as well.

What was true for him may not be true for Trump.
 
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.
The Starr report listed actual crimes, and the impeachment referal listed actual crimes.

You're full of shit, of course.

Neat. Let me know when Starr is a member of Congress.

How'd that work out anyway? I mean other than making Clinton more popular.

What part of "the impeachment referral listed actual crimes" didn't you understand, dumbass?

That a crime doesn't actually have to be committed in order to be impeached, weasel dick.
That a crime doesn't actually have to be committed in order to be impeached, weasel dick.

Thanks for admitting Dems have nothing, it’s just a sham. Remember this in 40 years when a Democrat gets elected again
 
Neat. Let me know when Starr is a member of Congress.

How'd that work out anyway? I mean other than making Clinton more popular.

What part of "the impeachment referral listed actual crimes" didn't you understand, dumbass?

That a crime doesn't actually have to be committed in order to be impeached, weasel dick.
No one said it did. I simply noted the historical record. Dims can be as sleazy and despicable as they want to be.

in this case the House is following the Constitution to the letter making damn sure they protect themselves.

they have Trump by the shorthairs and that fat ass bastard knows it -
The Constitution doesn't say a thing about how an impeachment is supposed to be conducted, so your post is obvious bullshit. Why do the scumbags running the show trials need protection? From what, their own criminality? How is Schiff going protect himself for being called as a witness by the Senate?

The have nothing on Trump, and the whole country knows it.

SURE IT DOES- YOURE JUST AN IDIOT.
 
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.

You do disagree with the constitution and most on your side do unless it solely benefits them.
Oh!? Please cite the section of the Constitution involved, because the 300 page report didn’t mention anything about it.
 
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
Trump solicited foreign interference in the upcoming 2020 election; would you worry more if Barry did it?
Cite the law, the 300 page report skipped it for some reason.
 
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
Trump solicited foreign interference in the upcoming 2020 election; would you worry more if Barry did it?
BINGO!
 
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
Trump solicited foreign interference in the upcoming 2020 election; would you worry more if Barry did it?
Cite the law, the 300 page report skipped it for some reason.

AN INQUIRY DOESNT DEMAND PROVING OR DISPROVING A LAW.

how f'n dumb are you .......
 
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
Trump solicited foreign interference in the upcoming 2020 election; would you worry more if Barry did it?
Cite the law, the 300 page report skipped it for some reason.

AN INQUIRY DOESNT DEMAND PROVING OR DISPROVING A LAW.

how f'n dumb are you .......
An inquiry into whether a law was violated doesn’t need to mention any laws?

Are you taking those stupid pills again?
 
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.

This is the 'Happy-Joy' chinese guide to high crimes. Ho-Lee-Fuk!
 
Neat. Let me know when Starr is a member of Congress.

How'd that work out anyway? I mean other than making Clinton more popular.

What part of "the impeachment referral listed actual crimes" didn't you understand, dumbass?

That a crime doesn't actually have to be committed in order to be impeached, weasel dick.
No one said it did. I simply noted the historical record. Dims can be as sleazy and despicable as they want to be.

in this case the House is following the Constitution to the letter making damn sure they protect themselves.

they have Trump by the shorthairs and that fat ass bastard knows it -
The Constitution doesn't say a thing about how an impeachment is supposed to be conducted, so your post is obvious bullshit. Why do the scumbags running the show trials need protection? From what, their own criminality? How is Schiff going protect himself for being called as a witness by the Senate?

The have nothing on Trump, and the whole country knows it.
the whole country knows they do have Trump, on several impeachable things like soliciting a foreign country to help him in his own 2020 election bid.

your side KNOWS he did this as well, you just don't care about our constitution and future of our Nation.... :rolleyes:
 
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
Trump solicited foreign interference in the upcoming 2020 election; would you worry more if Barry did it?
Cite the law, the 300 page report skipped it for some reason.

AN INQUIRY DOESNT DEMAND PROVING OR DISPROVING A LAW.

how f'n dumb are you .......
An inquiry into whether a law was violated doesn’t need to mention any laws?

Are you taking those stupid pills again?

not in an impeachment inquiry - idiot.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
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
This shows how ignorant some of us are about the government and constitution. trump has obstructed congress and I believe that was mentioned along with many other things. Your "they have no evidence" line is a lie. Period.
 
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.
Nancy herself will be facing charges from violating the Logan Act when she told people at the Paris Climate Accord we are not leaving a direct conflict of Trumps claim.
 
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
This shows how ignorant some of us are about the government and constitution. trump has obstructed congress and I believe that was mentioned along with many other things. Your "they have no evidence" line is a lie. Period.
Cite the law then, Dufus. The 300 page report skipped that for some reason. Let Schiff know too.
 
the president has been jury tampering for weeks, with the R senators, offering them weekends at camp David, where they can strategize....

since when is jury tampering ok?

the Senators ARE THE JURY, they do not present the trial, they are not the president's defense, contrary to his belief.... the president will have his own lawyers and defense team... the Senators are JURORS and he should not be trying to bribe them with niceties at camp David or be strategizing with the jury!

SHAME ON THOSE REPUBLICAN SENATORS!
 
the president has been jury tampering for weeks, with the R senators, offering them weekends at camp David, where they can strategize....

since when is jury tampering ok?

the Senators ARE THE JURY, they do not present the trial, they are not the president's defense, contrary to his belief.... the president will have his own lawyers and defense team... the Senators are JURORS and he should not be trying to bribe them with niceties at camp David or be strategizing with the jury!

SHAME ON THOSE REPUBLICAN SENATORS!
Cite the law then, the 300 page report skipped that for some strange reason.
 

Forum List

Back
Top