JimL's Case for the Impeachment of Trump

[Cow Poke]

Hi, JimL

I'm thinking you don't really understand impeachment, but maybe I'm wrong, so I'd like you to make your case.

You DO realize you can't impeach a president simply because you hate him, or he sends out too many stupid tweets, or he has a very "colored" past, right?
And you DO realize that impeachment is, essentially, comparable to a grand jury indictment, yes? (Oversimplified, of course, but it's not a conviction, it's merely a process of leveling official charges)

The reason I don't think you understand impeachment is that you seem to be using that word, and concluding that Trump's presidency would suddenly end if he were, indeed, impeached.
That's why I brought up Bill Clinton, who was, in fact, impeached, but served out his term, because the Senate did not convict.

So....

Would you please lay out your case against Trump for impeachment?

What are the specific charges for which he would be impeached?

[seer]

What are the specific charges for which he would be impeached?

Bad hair! His old lady is better looking than mine! He is rich! What else do we need?

[One Bad Pig]

2017-06-26-d399f6af_large.jpg

[One Bad Pig]

2017-06-21-47bf07f3_large.jpeg

[Meh Gerbil]

BirdPaths-FamilyCircus.jpg

[Sparko]

[Starlight]

Given Agent Mulder Special Counsel Mueller is investigating a number of issues ranging from obstruction of justice, to collusion with Russia, to money laundering, it's hardly stretching it to think he might well find something awry.

Given about half a dozen court cases are currently being launched against Trump for his ongoing and blatant violations of the Emoluments clause, with Attorneys General from various states signing on to those cases, it's hardly stretching it to think something may well come of them.

I have a counter-question for you conservatives here that keep mocking the idea of impeachment: Is there a point at which we could get to where you embarrassedly apologize, hat in hand, for mocking JimL and say "well, I guess you were right all along JimL, sorry for mocking you, you called it right"? Would that point come when (a) the Special Counsel, or a federal court Emoluments clause proceedings, announces findings that in their opinion Trump did commit a federal crime? (b) when official impeachment proceedings begin against Trump? (c) when Trump resigns from office due to facing impeachment, or impeachment proceedings actually remove him from office? (d) never because you have no shame?

I tend to assume you're all (d), but let me know now if one of the others applies, so we can have it in writing, and I can link you back to this thread when it occurs.

[Meh Gerbil]

I have a counter-question for you conservatives here that keep mocking the idea of impeachment: Is there a point at which we could get to where you embarrassedly apologize, hat in hand, for mocking JimL and say "well, I guess you were right all along JimL, sorry for mocking you, you called it right"? Would that point come when (a) the Special Counsel, or a federal court Emoluments clause proceedings, announces findings that in their opinion Trump did commit a federal crime? (b) when official impeachment proceedings begin against Trump? (c) when Trump resigns from office due to facing impeachment, or impeachment proceedings actually remove him from office? (d) never because you have no shame?

Everyone here acknowledges:
1: That Trump could be guilty.
2: That evidence could be discovered that proves he is guilty.

If evidence were to be presented that proved Trump's guilt there would be no reason for anyone here to be ashamed or to back-pedal since proof (discovered in the future) wouldn't run contrary to the conservative position of rule of law.

JimL isn't being mocked for thinking Trump may be guilty, he's being mocked for:
1: For maintaining Trump is guilty, not as an opinion but as a fact, while having no evidence.
2: For repeatedly allowing himself to be duped by the mainstream media.
3: For the hypocrisy of having two different standards of evidence when dealing with Christianity vs. dealing with Trump's guilt.

In short, proof of Trump's guilt doesn't absolve JimL of his foolishness nor does it change the validity of the rational, evidence based approach of those who are supporting Trump.
Supporting the rule of law is a consistent position that isn't going to be refuted by new evidence.

Because the conservatives here support the rule of law (unlike the liberals who are emotion based) in the event Trump is shown to be guilty those same conservatives will call for him to be punished.

[Cow Poke]

Given Agent Mulder Special Counsel Mueller is investigating a number of issues ranging from obstruction of justice, to collusion with Russia, to money laundering, it's hardly stretching it to think he might well find something awry.

Given about half a dozen court cases are currently being launched against Trump for his ongoing and blatant violations of the Emoluments clause, with Attorneys General from various states signing on to those cases, it's hardly stretching it to think something may well come of them.

So, what's the specific charge for which Trump would be tried?

I have a counter-question for you conservatives here that keep mocking the idea of impeachment: Is there a point at which we could get to where you embarrassedly apologize, hat in hand, for mocking JimL and say "well, I guess you were right all along JimL, sorry for mocking you, you called it right"?

Jim has been so wrong so consistently often that it would be really hard to apologize. He is so very quick to declare "throw them all in jail" without understanding that there is "due process". In the case of impeachment, he obviously assumes it would not only be the "grand jury equivalent" (the impeachment itself) but the actual conviction and removal from office. We are nowhere NEAR that.

Would that point come when (a) the Special Counsel, or a federal court Emoluments clause proceedings, announces findings that in their opinion Trump did commit a federal crime? (b) when official impeachment proceedings begin against Trump? (c) when Trump resigns from office due to facing impeachment, or impeachment proceedings actually remove him from office? (d) never because you have no shame?

All of that goes in the face of the very sacred "presumption of innocence". There have been rumors and allegations galore, and many of them have fizzled.

I tend to assume you're all (d), but let me know now if one of the others applies, so we can have it in writing, and I can link you back to this thread when it occurs.

If, eventually, Trump is actually charged with something, impeached, and removed from office, that does not justify Jim's total ignorance of the process, or his flagrant rush to judgment.

[Mountain Man]

Given Agent Mulder Special Counsel Mueller is investigating a number of issues ranging from obstruction of justice, to collusion with Russia, to money laundering, it's hardly stretching it to think he might well find something awry.

Liberal "logic" at its finest. "They're investigating, so it must mean he's at least a little guilty! And I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys that nearly a year of investigations have yielded precisely zero evidence!"

The only thing "awry" is that Hillary lost the election, and the Democrats are desperate to blame anybody but their own candidate and party.

[JimL]

Everyone here acknowledges:
1: That Trump could be guilty.
2: That evidence could be discovered that proves he is guilty.

If evidence were to be presented that proved Trump's guilt there would be no reason for anyone here to be ashamed or to back-pedal since proof (discovered in the future) wouldn't run contrary to the conservative position of rule of law.

JimL isn't being mocked for thinking Trump may be guilty, he's being mocked for:
1: For maintaining Trump is guilty, not as an opinion but as a fact, while having no evidence.
2: For repeatedly allowing himself to be duped by the mainstream media.
3: For the hypocrisy of having two different standards of evidence when dealing with Christianity vs. dealing with Trump's guilt.

In short, proof of Trump's guilt doesn't absolve JimL of his foolishness nor does it change the validity of the rational, evidence based approach of those who are supporting Trump.
Supporting the rule of law is a consistent position that isn't going to be refuted by new evidence.

Because the conservatives here support the rule of law (unlike the liberals who are emotion based) in the event Trump is shown to be guilty those same conservatives will call for him to be punished.

I have said numerous times that it is my opinion that Trump is guilty, so you, rodent, along with CP and MM, are full of it.

[Cow Poke]

Given Agent Mulder Special Counsel Mueller is investigating a number of issues ranging from obstruction of justice, to collusion with Russia, to money laundering, it's hardly stretching it to think he might well find something awry....

The old "just throw a bunch of stuff against the wall and see what sticks" philosophy.

Why don't you suggest to JimL that he come here and answer for himself.

This is a pattern - he makes incredibly irresponsible statements, then when asked to defend them, he's a no-show.

Here's an example...

Jimmy has no understanding whatsoever of how the law actually works. During the Clive Bundy thing, he was insisting that ALL of the people who showed up should go straight to jail. I begged him to name the offense for which they would be arrested, and he came up with stupid stuff like "they pointed guns at law enforcement" and stuff like that. In the pictures, you can see many of them sitting on their horses, rifle in their lap, not pointing at anybody. And he horribly botched the whole Ferguson thing and the Zimmeran thing in Florida.

He wants to use the letter of the law to the fullest possible extent (even if he has to make it up) against people he disagrees with, but I doubledog guarantee if he were in trouble, he'd want every possible consideration of mercy and understanding.

So, I'm asking him to man up.

[One Bad Pig]

I have said numerous times that it is my opinion that Trump is guilty, so you, rodent, along with CP and MM, are full of it.

Still waiting for some actual evidence, Jim.

[Cow Poke]

I have said numerous times that it is my opinion that Trump is guilty, so you, rodent, along with CP and MM, are full of it.

Well, here are some examples of your drumbeat for impeachment without any real basis.....

Very unlikely, as it is with the ACA, the republicans are mostly all talk, but I think there is a very good chance that Trump himself will eventually be prosecuted, probably even impeached.

And yes, the President does have the legal authority to force an end to an investigation, but that would cause him even more problems politically, and he can still be impeached for it.

Thats your opinion. The president has all kinds of power, but he doesn't have the power to abuse that power. You get impeached for abuse of power!

In other words, the president has the power to fire the head of the FBI, but if Congress determines it to be an abuse of power he can be impeached by them.

And they would be right of course, but they can also be impeached for it, a subtlety you can't seem to grasp seer.

Now i'll ask you to answer the same question, If Mueller does find evidence that Trump should be indicted or impeached, will you admit that you've been conned and that the MSM is not fake news?

Dershowitz is wrong, and I think he knows he's wrong. The POTUS does have the legal authority to do those things, But the Congress also has the authority to impeach him over it if they determine that the act was an abuse of power. Two different things. The Special prosecutor can't indict the POTUS , while he is President, but he can be impeached based on evidence supplied by the special prosecutor. If Congress decides not to impeach, then the president is safe until he is out of office, but then, once he is out of office, he could then be indicted.

And here's where you actually make the assumption that Trump WILL be impeached...

Well, lets hope he doesn't step down until Trump is impeached.

[Mountain Man]

I have said numerous times that it is my opinion that Trump is guilty, so you, rodent, along with CP and MM, are full of it.

An opinion that is based on nothing more than your own delusions.