10 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

The cretins here will not believe the truth. They only hope.  If I found out that Trump did something patently illegal, I wouldn't have a problem going after him for it.  But the lefties will support anything so long as it fits their dogma and hope.  Bill Clinton likely raped a few women but they ignore that and tell you to only pay attention to locker room talk from Trump.  Talk is worse than rape so long as it is the opposition talking.  

 

I am sure that these people are mentally ill.  They surely have no moral compass nor do play fair.  For them, all is ok so long as the objective is met.

 

These people deserve more pity than scorn.

You should try dishing out pitty, your attempts at scorn are risible.

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Though ,I guess you must must apply different definitions of what is considered wrong to trump than you do to Clinton

 

Diddling the intern with a cigar is worse than talking about grabbing hoy.  The Dems would try to impeach him for purposely sending mail without a stamp.  They said they wanted to impeach him before he took office.  

 

Here is a fact for all of you who don't like truth or fact: you can't impeach someone for things they did prior to taking office.

 

You have my pity.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You should try dishing out pitty, your attempts at scorn are risible.

Tough to dish out Bull Terrier.  You try and let me know how it works out for you.

 

And that is laughable.

2 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Diddling the intern with a cigar is worse than talking about grabbing hoy.  The Dems would try to impeach him for purposely sending mail without a stamp.  They said they wanted to impeach him before he took office.  

 

Here is a fact for all of you who don't like truth or fact: you can't impeach someone for things they did prior to taking office.

 

You have my pity.

Thank you for the pity, I could use some, but please dont waste it all on me , leave some for the country.

Please read the OP, this impeachment inquiry (no impeachment yet) is for what he did in office.

Just now, sirineou said:

Thank you for the pity, I could use some, but please dont waste it all on me , leave some for the country.

Please read the OP, this impeachment inquiry (no impeachment yet) is for what he did in office.

Enumerate here:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right HERE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

Exactly what he did that was against the law.

 

And if you can do the above, quote the US Code that defines the offense.  I'm guessing that you won't be able to do number 1.  

 

Pity.

4 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Diddling the intern with a cigar is worse than talking about grabbing hoy.  The Dems would try to impeach him for purposely sending mail without a stamp.  They said they wanted to impeach him before he took office.  

 

Here is a fact for all of you who don't like truth or fact: you can't impeach someone for things they did prior to taking office.

 

You have my pity.

Monica was no victim she was putting a notch in her garter belt to use a John waneisem lol now roger stone on the other hand has been a shady clown around dc for decades a definite bottom of the swamp feeder just the type trump would gravitate towards kinda the national inquire type it’s all theater to him 

3 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Enumerate here:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right HERE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

Exactly what he did that was against the law.

 

And if you can do the above, quote the US Code that defines the offense.  I'm guessing that you won't be able to do number 1.  

 

Pity.

Because you think Impeachment is something to do with having broken the law.

2 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Enumerate here:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right HERE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

Exactly what he did that was against the law.

 

And if you can do the above, quote the US Code that defines the offense.  I'm guessing that you won't be able to do number 1.  

 

Pity.

I can not "enumerate right there" because it would be against forum policy to alter your post.

but i could right here, is that ok by you?  

25 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Diddling the intern with a cigar is worse than talking about grabbing hoy.  The Dems would try to impeach him for purposely sending mail without a stamp.  They said they wanted to impeach him before he took office.  

 

Here is a fact for all of you who don't like truth or fact: you can't impeach someone for things they did prior to taking office.

 

You have my pity.

Re your first sentence: You really don't get the very important distinction between consent and no consent?  You should save your pity for yourself.

 

The rest isn't worthy of response.

Impeachment is the constitutionally specified means by which an official of the executive or judicial branch may be removed from office for misconduct. There has been considerable controversy about what constitutes an impeachable offense. At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates early on voted for "mal-practice and neglect of duty" as grounds for impeachment, but the Committee of Detail narrowed the basis to treason, bribery, and corruption, then deleting the last point. George Mason, who wanted the grounds much broader and similar to the earlier formulation, suggested "maladministration," but James Madison pointed out that this would destroy the President's independence and make him dependent on the Senate. Mason then suggested "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," which the Convention accepted.

Because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty. That interpretation is disputed, but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device.

3 minutes ago, Slip said:

Re your first sentence: You really don't get the very important distinction between consent and no consent?  You should save your pity for yourself.

All things being equal, I would advise Clinton to poke poke with his cigar.  

 

All things weren't equal. 

 

Consent from a subordinate is viewed by law as under duress.  Read some SC cases but I doubt you will.  

 

That you think Lewinsky could have consented freely says much about you.  

4 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

All things being equal, I would advise Clinton to poke poke with his cigar.  

 

All things weren't equal. 

 

Consent from a subordinate is viewed by law as under duress.  Read some SC cases but I doubt you will.  

 

That you think Lewinsky could have consented freely says much about you.  

Cite your claim. 

1 minute ago, Slip said:

Cite your claim. 

You'll have to be more specific. 

43 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

You'll have to be more specific. 

You only make 2 claims.  The first is clearly the one I would like you to cite as the second is entirely nonsensical and a personal attack.

21 minutes ago, Slip said:

You only make 2 claims.  The first is clearly the one I would like you to cite as the second is entirely nonsensical and a personal attack.

I find you lack of specificity difficult to deal with.  Please state your case.

Surprises me that Congress would recognize or understand a lie. That is their business.

2 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

I find you lack of specificity difficult to deal with.  Please state your case.

Your first claim runs from "all things weren't" to "doubt you will".  Stop playing dumb and cite it.  I am more than willing to accept the point if you can show some evidence.  So far you are simply being evasive unless English is not your first language.

It's a shame that most here seem incapable of answering a direct question.  

 

1. Name a statute that Trump violated and

2. How he violated. 

 

For those of you that need remedial help, I am asking you to give me an example, like this:

 

Danny violated USC 3 Subsection ...... because he punched a policeman in the face. 

 

Please don't quote hurt feelings, as that isn't a violation of law.  Try not to be emotional as hard as that may be.

 

 

1 minute ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

It's a shame that most here seem incapable of answering a direct question.  

 

1. Name a statute that Trump violated and

2. How he violated. 

 

For those of you that need remedial help, I am asking you to give me an example, like this:

 

Danny violated USC 3 Subsection ...... because he punched a policeman in the face. 

 

Please don't quote hurt feelings, as that isn't a violation of law.  Try not to be emotional as hard as that may be.

 

 

Trump doesn’t have to violate a statute to be impeached.

 

The bit about ‘violated statutes’ will come into

play the moment he leaves office.

2 minutes ago, Slip said:

Your first claim runs from "all things weren't" to "doubt you will".  Stop playing dumb and cite it.  I am more than willing to accept the point if you can show some evidence.  So far you are simply being evasive unless English is not your first language.

We haven't established which claim is the first.  Are you purposely being obtuse?  I was the one who asked the question.  How can that be evasive?

 

Please stop obfuscating the issue and answer my original question.  Failure to answer will be construed as an inability to answer said question due to ignorance or plain stonewalling.  Either way, it doesn't make you shine.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump doesn’t have to violate a statute to be impeached.

 

The bit about ‘violated statutes’ will come into

play the moment he leaves office.

I understand you.  I don't agree with you, but I have some empathy for someone when they get TRUMPED by someone with a superior argument.

1 minute ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

I understand you.  I don't agree with you, but I have some empathy for someone when they get TRUMPED by someone with a superior argument.

‘Trumped’ you say?!

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘Trumped’ you say?!

Do you fancy yourself a Constitutional Scholar?

Just now, 4675636b596f75 said:

Do you fancy yourself a Constitutional Scholar?

I fancy the Constitution ‘trumps ‘ your trolling.

 

11 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

We haven't established which claim is the first.  Are you purposely being obtuse?  I was the one who asked the question.  How can that be evasive?

 

Please stop obfuscating the issue and answer my original question.  Failure to answer will be construed as an inability to answer said question due to ignorance or plain stonewalling.  Either way, it doesn't make you shine.

I literally just told you which claim was the 1st.  How typical of the alt-right to employ this tactic of muddying the waters then pointing fingers at those who are not.  You can construe what you wish, but those with an ounce of sense will not.  I am done with your nonsense, and will just happily watch others rip your moonshine to shreds.  

 

By the way- I just tracked back through the exchange.  At no point do you ask a question. 

13 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Rogers' weave looks more convincing than the case against Trump. The more you read, the more convoluted and confusing it all seems. The only real corruption I still see is the Biden - son of a bleep he got fired - epic video. Other than that...?

Yawn.

5 hours ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Believe me when I invite you to my ignore list.  Bye Becker.

Please invite me as well. I'd regard it as a badge of honor.

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I fancy the Constitution ‘trumps ‘ your trolling.

 

Nonresponsive.  Please answer the question.

13 minutes ago, Slip said:

You can construe what you wish, but those with an ounce of sense will not.

I parsed this sentence more than once.  I don't understand your meaning.  Perhaps, you would share some of that ounce and shed some meaning to what you wrote.

The distress felt by Trump's supporters makes them even more pathetic than before...