Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Impeachment Report Does Not Cite One Law Violated
- Thread starter Weatherman2020
- Start date
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...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 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
Platinum Member
- Apr 15, 2015
- 32,056
- 5,943
- 1,140
- Banned
- #143
Only dumbasses know that. The show trial convinced the public that he didn't.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.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?No one said it did. I simply noted the historical record. Dims can be as sleazy and despicable as they want to be.That a crime doesn't actually have to be committed in order to be impeached, weasel dick.
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 have nothing on Trump, and the whole country knows it.
your side KNOWS he did this as well, you just don't care about our constitution and future of our Nation....
There hasn't been a trial yet, you should point that stubby nub of a finger at yourself.
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.Trump opponents - myself included - will be content with (a) Impeachment and (b) forcing Republicans to go on-record to defend your POS.Their main argument will be Obstruction... The question for the House is will they convict Trump on this and my answer is no...
don't hold your breath, I'd miss seeing you post here!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.Trump opponents - myself included - will be content with (a) Impeachment and (b) forcing Republicans to go on-record to defend your POS.Their main argument will be Obstruction... The question for the House is will they convict Trump on this and my answer is no...
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 101,876
- 82,898
- 3,645
I just spent 50 minuets reading the dim wits try and defend their position
No you didn't.
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #147
How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.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...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 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.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 101,876
- 82,898
- 3,645
Wrong.How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.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...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 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.
Remodeling Maidiac
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #149
It's false bruhIt ain't false.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
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Trump Impeachment and Removal From Office: Support/Oppose
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #150
List the page # then.Wrong.How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.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...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 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.
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.The Starr report listed actual crimes, and the impeachment referal listed actual crimes.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.
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.
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
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #152
Hilarious.It ain't false.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
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Trump Impeachment and Removal From Office: Support/Oppose
HappyJoy
Platinum Member
- Apr 15, 2015
- 32,056
- 5,943
- 1,140
- Banned
- #153
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.The Starr report listed actual crimes, and the impeachment referal listed actual crimes.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.
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.
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
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 101,876
- 82,898
- 3,645
Read it yourself. I'm not your mommy. No liar, you didn't read it.List the page # then.Wrong.How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.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...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 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.
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #155
Yeah, I cant find anything listed either.Read it yourself. I'm not your mommy. No liar, you didn't read it.List the page # then.Wrong.How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.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...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 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.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...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 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.
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.How do you know that? The 300 page report cites nothing of the sort.
Last edited:
LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
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 fucker 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
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 101,876
- 82,898
- 3,645
Yeah, that will happen, when you have never read the report.Yeah, I cant find anything listed either
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #159
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.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 fucker 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.
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #160
Your claim, I’ve read it. Nada. So why do you lie?Yeah, that will happen, when you have never read the report.Yeah, I cant find anything listed either
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 178
- Replies
- 108
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 66
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 132
- Views
- 17K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 90
- Views
- 432
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 14
- Replies
- 90
- Views
- 529
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8813
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 491
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-