The Impeachment Report Does Not Cite One Law Violated

[HappyJoy]

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

Not what I said at all but I wouldn't expect you to be honest.

 

[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.

 

[HappyJoy]

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....

Only dumbasses know that. The show trial convinced the public that he didn't.

There hasn't been a trial yet, you should point that stubby nub of a finger at yourself.

 

[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.

Rational Americans won't be satisfied until Hysterical House Dems go on the record as supporting the Adam Schiffty/Fat J-Nads kangaroo court, and the Senate trial exposes the crimes and conspiracies of Jackass Dems, the swamp, and our MSM.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Rational Americans won't be satisfied until Hysterical House Dems go on the record as supporting the Adam Schiffty/Fat J-Nads kangaroo court, and the Senate trial exposes the crimes and conspiracies of Jackass Dems, the swamp, and our MSM.

don't hold your breath, I'd miss seeing you post here!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I just spent 50 minuets reading the dim wits try and defend their position

No you didn't.

 

[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.

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

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

Wrong.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And the majority of the public supports impeachment.

Entirely false. But it wouldn't matter anyways because Democrats are not smart enough to see the writting on the wall. If they want to sign their own pink slips fuckem

It ain't false.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Trump Impeachment and Removal From Office: Support/Oppose

It's false bruh

 

[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.

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

Wrong.

List the page # then.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Only if you accept the idea that congress doesn't need a legit excuse to do so but convicting a POTUS in a Senate trial is virtually impossible without proving high crimes and misdemeanors and no matter how badly you want to believe it, "Trump is a poopy-head" is not a high crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4b3f80-442d-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html
"...impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

Face it, Pelosi - like every Democrat - is a liar and a traitor to this country. Dividing this country is what they are all about.

 

[Weatherman2020]

And the majority of the public supports impeachment.

Entirely false. But it wouldn't matter anyways because Democrats are not smart enough to see the writting on the wall. If they want to sign their own pink slips fuckem

It ain't false.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Trump Impeachment and Removal From Office: Support/Oppose

Hilarious.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Only if you accept the idea that congress doesn't need a legit excuse to do so but convicting a POTUS in a Senate trial is virtually impossible without proving high crimes and misdemeanors and no matter how badly you want to believe it, "Trump is a poopy-head" is not a high crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4b3f80-442d-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html
"...impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

Face it, Pelosi - like every Democrat - is a liar and a traitor to this country. Dividing this country is what they are all about.

Impeachment is divisive yet there is only one more thing more divisive and that is committing an impeachable offense. Trump held up financial aid and dangled a white house visit in order to get the president of Ukraine to publicly state they were opening investigations into Biden and his kid.

Sure, the senate won't convict, after all we haven't reached the all mighty threshold of shooting someone on 5th Ave.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

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

Wrong.

List the page # then.

Read it yourself. I'm not your mommy. No liar, you didn't read it.

 

[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.

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

Wrong.

List the page # then.

Read it yourself. I'm not your mommy. No liar, you didn't read it.

Yeah, I cant find anything listed either.

 

[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.

 

[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

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, I cant find anything listed either

Yeah, that will happen, when you have never read the report.

 

[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

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.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yeah, I cant find anything listed either

Yeah, that will happen, when you have never read the report.

Your claim, I’ve read it. Nada. So why do you lie?