The Impeachment Report Does Not Cite One Law Violated

[Deplorable Yankee]

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

 

[Care4all]

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

they are accusing him of breaking his oath of office, the Constitution, the public trust.... not criminal statutes.... and since they are NOT law enforcement or the FBI working with special prosecutors like a Ken Starr, they CAN NOT use statutes of crimes committed... since there is no special prosecutor in this impeachment, that is up to future prosecutors, after he leaves office, if criminal statutes were broken.... to bring charges...

This is not a criminal proceeding that needs any criminal statutes...

It's a review on whether he has honored his oath of office and not abused his power... and whether he should or should not be fired for breaking his oath, under God, that he took.

Wait ... not collusion or extortion or QPQ or bribery or extortion? Now it's "we hate Trump?" Yeah ... that outta fly in a Senate trial.

There is no point having goalposts if you have 'em on wheels.

How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.

Anyone named Trump is guilty by supposition, assumption, interpretation, association or speculation. It's in our constitution.

so what is YOUR VERSION of what happened?

It so obvious only a brain-dead moron would fail to see it. Trump was conducting the business of America, requiring the recipient of hard-working Americans' tax dollars to turn over any and all evidence they have - including obstruction of Ukrainian justice or corruption by a US official - before releasing the foreign aid. That's not just his job, it's a duty of his office.

okie dokie!

 

[SAYIT]

Their main argument will be Obstruction...

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

Trump opponents - myself included - will be content with (a) Impeachment and (b) forcing Republicans to go on-record to defend your POS.

You know it is hard not to melt on this site with nonsense like this because I did not vote for Trump, I believe he obstructed and I believe the Senate will not Convict...

So what is so ******* hard for individuals like you to understand this?

Also Republicans are on record and their voting base do not give a damn what you think...

What you need to worry more about is how the swing and independent voter will react and will they care in November of 2020 that Trump obstructed the House Impeachment Inquiry or will they be more focused on matters like trade deals, so economy and stuff like infrastructure?

But hyper-partisans like Kondor don't care about the 2020 elections - or so they say - and definitely don't care about this country or its people. They only care that their butts hurt and that they hate. Yeah, Independents will get caught up on what they are missing now and 2020 will be payback time.

 

[SAYIT]

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

they are accusing him of breaking his oath of office, the Constitution, the public trust.... not criminal statutes.... and since they are NOT law enforcement or the FBI working with special prosecutors like a Ken Starr, they CAN NOT use statutes of crimes committed... since there is no special prosecutor in this impeachment, that is up to future prosecutors, after he leaves office, if criminal statutes were broken.... to bring charges...

This is not a criminal proceeding that needs any criminal statutes...

It's a review on whether he has honored his oath of office and not abused his power... and whether he should or should not be fired for breaking his oath, under God, that he took.

Wait ... not collusion or extortion or QPQ or bribery or extortion? Now it's "we hate Trump?" Yeah ... that outta fly in a Senate trial.

There is no point having goalposts if you have 'em on wheels.

How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.

Anyone named Trump is guilty by supposition, assumption, interpretation, association or speculation. It's in our constitution.

so what is YOUR VERSION of what happened?

It so obvious only a brain-dead moron would fail to see it. Trump was conducting the business of America, requiring the recipient of hard-working Americans' tax dollars to turn over any and all evidence they have - including obstruction of Ukrainian justice or corruption by a US official - before releasing the foreign aid. That's not just his job, it's a duty of his office.

okie dokie!

Yeah ... I figured that would be your brain-dead response. You're so predictable.

 

[SAYIT]

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

Whoever told you that impeachment requires a criminal indictment lied to you.

The ****** obstructed justice and abused his power. Among other impeachable offenses.

Get his fat ass under oath and he'll commit perjury as well.

He's going to be impeached. Rightly so.

Obstruction of justice is a violation of the law, Dufus. And no where in the report is that cited. So stop watching CNN and grow a brain.

it's not a criminal trial, no one goes to jail, even if found guilty.... do you not understand that...?

It will be conducted employing US law ... not the rules used by Schiffty or Fat J-Nads. Hearsay, speculation, innuendo, and opinions of biased leftards, for instance, will not be admissible. That pretty much wipes out the entire Hysterical House Dem's case.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LoneLaugher]

Their main argument will be Obstruction...

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

Trump opponents - myself included - will be content with (a) Impeachment and (b) forcing Republicans to go on-record to defend your POS.

You know it is hard not to melt on this site with nonsense like this because I did not vote for Trump, I believe he obstructed and I believe the Senate will not Convict...

So what is so ******* hard for individuals like you to understand this?

Also Republicans are on record and their voting base do not give a damn what you think...

What you need to worry more about is how the swing and independent voter will react and will they care in November of 2020 that Trump obstructed the House Impeachment Inquiry or will they be more focused on matters like trade deals, so economy and stuff like infrastructure?

If they are, they'd never vote for Trump. He's made no trade deals and he's done nothing on infrastructure. Case closed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

they are accusing him of breaking his oath of office, the Constitution, the public trust.... not criminal statutes.... and since they are NOT law enforcement or the FBI working with special prosecutors like a Ken Starr, they CAN NOT use statutes of crimes committed... since there is no special prosecutor in this impeachment, that is up to future prosecutors, after he leaves office, if criminal statutes were broken.... to bring charges...

This is not a criminal proceeding that needs any criminal statutes...

It's a review on whether he has honored his oath of office and not abused his power... and whether he should or should not be fired for breaking his oath, under God, that he took.

Wait ... not collusion or extortion or QPQ or bribery or extortion? Now it's "we hate Trump?" Yeah ... that outta fly in a Senate trial.

There is no point having goalposts if you have 'em on wheels.

How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.

Anyone named Trump is guilty by supposition, assumption, interpretation, association or speculation. It's in our constitution.

so what is YOUR VERSION of what happened?

It so obvious only a brain-dead moron would fail to see it. Trump was conducting the business of America, requiring the recipient of hard-working Americans' tax dollars to turn over any and all evidence they have - including obstruction of Ukrainian justice or corruption by a US official - before releasing the foreign aid. That's not just his job, it's a duty of his office.

Are you one of the people who actually believes that horse shit or are you one of the people who just says it because you hope it fools enough morons?

 

[Lesh]

Criminal acts are not required for Impeachment

Keep up

 

[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

they are accusing him of breaking his oath of office, the Constitution, the public trust.... not criminal statutes.... and since they are NOT law enforcement or the FBI working with special prosecutors like a Ken Starr, they CAN NOT use statutes of crimes committed... since there is no special prosecutor in this impeachment, that is up to future prosecutors, after he leaves office, if criminal statutes were broken.... to bring charges...

This is not a criminal proceeding that needs any criminal statutes...

It's a review on whether he has honored his oath of office and not abused his power... and whether he should or should not be fired for breaking his oath, under God, that he took.

Wait ... not collusion or extortion or QPQ or bribery or extortion? Now it's "we hate Trump?" Yeah ... that outta fly in a Senate trial.

There is no point having goalposts if you have 'em on wheels.

How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.

Anyone named Trump is guilty by supposition, assumption, interpretation, association or speculation. It's in our constitution.

so what is YOUR VERSION of what happened?

It so obvious only a brain-dead moron would fail to see it. Trump was conducting the business of America, requiring the recipient of hard-working Americans' tax dollars to turn over any and all evidence they have - including obstruction of Ukrainian justice or corruption by a US official - before releasing the foreign aid. That's not just his job, it's a duty of his office.

Are you one of the people who actually believes that horse shit or are you one of the people who just says it because you hope it fools enough morons?

Are you one of the people who actually believes that horse shit or are you one of the people who just says it because you hope it fools enough morons?

Ironic.

 

[captkaos]

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

Which is exactly why none of them will ever be appointed to a Federal Judgeship! The Benches are filling up and not with Liberal Law Professors from the East and West Coast. That's gotta Hurt!

 

[SaxxyBlues]

SCHIFF'S HEARING:
- No crime
- No evidence of a crime committed
- No witness, no one who witnessed anything
- Schiff's 'witnesses' could not name 1 crime or 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed by the President
- Schiff's State Dept 'Witness' stated he found no crime / abuse of power by the President but the Bidens need to be investigated

NADLER'S HEARING:
- 3 Democratic Party-donating, professed past Trump-hating Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrat Extremist University Professors who gave their OPINION that the President should be Impeached

- 1 DEMOCRAT / Democrat Party-Supporting/Voting Constitutional Scholar who testified there is no crime, no crime committed by the President,. no crime and no abuse of Constitutional power by the President, no evidence of any abuse of Constitutional power by the President, the fastest rushed weakest Impeachment case in US history, a Democrat-created process that goes against the Constitution and Rule of law - not an American process but rather one seen in socialist / soviet-style governments...who testified what the Democrats are doing is 'DANGROUS' to our Republic and that the only ones who have abused their power in all of this is the DEMOCRATS!

Pelosi declares they have no option but to proceed with Impeachment....

Democrats - 4 years of proving they are a criminal organization and an enemy of the state, not a political party!

Considering how the 2016 election was won I think R are getting a taste of their own medicine. It's like kids playing, I can do this to you, but you can't do it to me.

 

[SAYIT]

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

they are accusing him of breaking his oath of office, the Constitution, the public trust.... not criminal statutes.... and since they are NOT law enforcement or the FBI working with special prosecutors like a Ken Starr, they CAN NOT use statutes of crimes committed... since there is no special prosecutor in this impeachment, that is up to future prosecutors, after he leaves office, if criminal statutes were broken.... to bring charges...

This is not a criminal proceeding that needs any criminal statutes...

It's a review on whether he has honored his oath of office and not abused his power... and whether he should or should not be fired for breaking his oath, under God, that he took.

Wait ... not collusion or extortion or QPQ or bribery or extortion? Now it's "we hate Trump?" Yeah ... that outta fly in a Senate trial.

There is no point having goalposts if you have 'em on wheels.

How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.

Anyone named Trump is guilty by supposition, assumption, interpretation, association or speculation. It's in our constitution.

so what is YOUR VERSION of what happened?

It so obvious only a brain-dead moron would fail to see it. Trump was conducting the business of America, requiring the recipient of hard-working Americans' tax dollars to turn over any and all evidence they have - including obstruction of Ukrainian justice or corruption by a US official - before releasing the foreign aid. That's not just his job, it's a duty of his office.

Are you one of the people who actually believes that horse shit or are you one of the people who just says it because you hope it fools enough morons?

So you say you drank too much of the bright blue Kool-aid again? Have you ever heard of the presumption of innocence? Dems will have to prove in a Senate trail that which you believe to be the truth - emphasis on prove - and they couldn't even do that during their one-sided, KGB-style inquisition.

 

[SAYIT]

Criminal acts are not required for Impeachment

Keep up

Dems can impeach or elect "a glass of water" (Pelosi) but high crimes and misdemeanors are required for conviction in a Senate trial. After yesterday's Dem FUBAR I have no illusion that any bitter leftard can keep up. What we learned (again) is that not only our Hysterical House Dems are unhinged but that 3 of 4 of the left's most learned legal scholars are bat-shit crazy. The one who had the audacity to think, act, and speak reasonably, rationally, and thoughtfully quickly became the target of the seething hatred of his comrades. Hate is the glue that binds our leftards:

Impeachment Witness Turley Claims Home, Professorship Threatened during Testimony

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Stalinist democrats tried to impeach Trump before the Coup plotters were outed.

Too

*******

Bad

 

[Terri4Trump]

Republican National Lawyers Association vice president Harmeet Dhillon discusses President Trump's positive rhetoric at a White House event she attended on Thursday and emphasizes the need for the GOP to win in 2020

 

[LoneLaugher]

they are accusing him of breaking his oath of office, the Constitution, the public trust.... not criminal statutes.... and since they are NOT law enforcement or the FBI working with special prosecutors like a Ken Starr, they CAN NOT use statutes of crimes committed... since there is no special prosecutor in this impeachment, that is up to future prosecutors, after he leaves office, if criminal statutes were broken.... to bring charges...

This is not a criminal proceeding that needs any criminal statutes...

It's a review on whether he has honored his oath of office and not abused his power... and whether he should or should not be fired for breaking his oath, under God, that he took.

Wait ... not collusion or extortion or QPQ or bribery or extortion? Now it's "we hate Trump?" Yeah ... that outta fly in a Senate trial.

There is no point having goalposts if you have 'em on wheels.

How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.

Anyone named Trump is guilty by supposition, assumption, interpretation, association or speculation. It's in our constitution.

so what is YOUR VERSION of what happened?

It so obvious only a brain-dead moron would fail to see it. Trump was conducting the business of America, requiring the recipient of hard-working Americans' tax dollars to turn over any and all evidence they have - including obstruction of Ukrainian justice or corruption by a US official - before releasing the foreign aid. That's not just his job, it's a duty of his office.

Are you one of the people who actually believes that horse shit or are you one of the people who just says it because you hope it fools enough morons?

Are you one of the people who actually believes that horse shit or are you one of the people who just says it because you hope it fools enough morons?

Ironic.

No. Sorry. You'll not be able to cite an instance where I pushed a line of bull like that. I'm batting .999 and my single misstep was a long time ago. I know before I post. Period.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Wait ... not collusion or extortion or QPQ or bribery or extortion? Now it's "we hate Trump?" Yeah ... that outta fly in a Senate trial.

There is no point having goalposts if you have 'em on wheels.Anyone named Trump is guilty by supposition, assumption, interpretation, association or speculation. It's in our constitution.

so what is YOUR VERSION of what happened?

It so obvious only a brain-dead moron would fail to see it. Trump was conducting the business of America, requiring the recipient of hard-working Americans' tax dollars to turn over any and all evidence they have - including obstruction of Ukrainian justice or corruption by a US official - before releasing the foreign aid. That's not just his job, it's a duty of his office.

Are you one of the people who actually believes that horse shit or are you one of the people who just says it because you hope it fools enough morons?

Are you one of the people who actually believes that horse shit or are you one of the people who just says it because you hope it fools enough morons?

Ironic.

No. Sorry. You'll Nit be able to cite an instance where I pushed a line of bull like that. I'm batting .999 and my single misstep was a long time ago. I know before I post. Period.

You are sorry. And you’re batting .000

 

[LoneLaugher]

they are accusing him of breaking his oath of office, the Constitution, the public trust.... not criminal statutes.... and since they are NOT law enforcement or the FBI working with special prosecutors like a Ken Starr, they CAN NOT use statutes of crimes committed... since there is no special prosecutor in this impeachment, that is up to future prosecutors, after he leaves office, if criminal statutes were broken.... to bring charges...

This is not a criminal proceeding that needs any criminal statutes...

It's a review on whether he has honored his oath of office and not abused his power... and whether he should or should not be fired for breaking his oath, under God, that he took.

Wait ... not collusion or extortion or QPQ or bribery or extortion? Now it's "we hate Trump?" Yeah ... that outta fly in a Senate trial.

There is no point having goalposts if you have 'em on wheels.

How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.

Anyone named Trump is guilty by supposition, assumption, interpretation, association or speculation. It's in our constitution.

so what is YOUR VERSION of what happened?

It so obvious only a brain-dead moron would fail to see it. Trump was conducting the business of America, requiring the recipient of hard-working Americans' tax dollars to turn over any and all evidence they have - including obstruction of Ukrainian justice or corruption by a US official - before releasing the foreign aid. That's not just his job, it's a duty of his office.

Are you one of the people who actually believes that horse shit or are you one of the people who just says it because you hope it fools enough morons?

So you say you drank too much of the bright blue Kool-aid again? Have you ever heard of the presumption of innocence? Dems will have to prove in a Senate trail that which you believe to be the truth - emphasis on prove - and they couldn't even do that during their one-sided, KGB-style inquisition.

I guess I've got my answer. You're a moron who believes that Trump was ever concerned with corruption in Ukraine.

Ignorance is bliss. So why are you so upset?

 

[LoneLaugher]

so what is YOUR VERSION of what happened?

It so obvious only a brain-dead moron would fail to see it. Trump was conducting the business of America, requiring the recipient of hard-working Americans' tax dollars to turn over any and all evidence they have - including obstruction of Ukrainian justice or corruption by a US official - before releasing the foreign aid. That's not just his job, it's a duty of his office.

Are you one of the people who actually believes that horse shit or are you one of the people who just says it because you hope it fools enough morons?

Are you one of the people who actually believes that horse shit or are you one of the people who just says it because you hope it fools enough morons?

Ironic.

No. Sorry. You'll Nit be able to cite an instance where I pushed a line of bull like that. I'm batting .999 and my single misstep was a long time ago. I know before I post. Period.

You are sorry. And you’re batting .000

Did you say something tubby?