JimL's Case for the Impeachment of Trump

[Mountain Man]

I don't think anyone is merely assuming that.

Of course they are. How do you prove intent?

[Meh Gerbil]

None of this had anything directly to do with Comey's testimony, and even if every single point was true, it detracts from the point at hand.

The point is that Comey was part of a hoax wherein he selectively released information damaging to the President while retaining data that would exonerate the President.
Given that behavior, his testimony should be viewed through the same partisan lens as his actions.
To pretend his testimony has value while his actions reveal a partisan hack would be ridiculous.

Furthermore, Comey admitted to being the source of a leak in his testimony - in violation of federal law.
Source: https://jonathanturley.org/2017/06/0...-leaking-memo/

You may disagree with that; which is fine, but what it points to is a solid set of reasons for viewing his dismissal as nothing more than a necessary part of retiring a partisan tool.

In the view of many Republicans (whether the view is correct or not) the firing of Comey is hopefully the first step in many steps designed to drain the swamp.
That view is more rational than any 'conflict of interest conspiracy'.

[Cow Poke]

The legality of it is dependent upon intent...

The same "intent" that Comey claimed he couldn't prove in Clinton's case? Yeah, proving intent is a piece of cake!

[Cow Poke]

Yes "fake news" applies to Fox and it applies even more to 'liar-in-Chief', Trump himself.

You're becoming quite accomplished at it yourself!

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, first Starlight tried to steal the phrase 'snowflake' and apply it to conservatives and now you're trying to use Fake News against Fox News.
Is the left so bereft of creativity that they cannot come up with their own terms?

I'm going to guess you haven't been paying much attention. The left as been calling it "Faux News" for years. They think it's a clever dig.

[Mountain Man]

I'm going to guess you haven't been paying much attention. The left as been calling it "Faux News" for years. They think it's a clever dig.

And despite the fact that "faux" and "fox" are pronounced differently.

[JimL]

The same "intent" that Comey claimed he couldn't prove in Clinton's case? Yeah, proving intent is a piece of cake!

Trump not only tried to get Comey to shut down the investigation into Gen. Flynn, he also tried to get Dan Coates and Admiral Rogers to intervene. That fits a pattern, and I don't believe that Congress has to to prove intent for impeachment, they merely have to vote for it according to their judgement of the evidence.

[Mountain Man]

Trump not only tried to get Comey to shut down the investigation into Gen. Flynn...

Not according to Comey's testimony. He explicitly conceded that Trump never ordered him to end the investigation.

...he also tried to get Dan Coates and Admiral Rogers to intervene.

Wrong again. Both men said under oath that they never felt pressured to do anything improper. Rogers said, "In the three-plus years that I have been director of the National Security Agency, I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate, and to the best of my recollection during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so."

I don't believe that Congress has to to prove intent for impeachment...

No, but they have to prove a crime, and to date, there is zero evidence that any crimes were committed either by the President or anybody on his staff. As I keep telling you, assumptions and idle speculation by braindead liberals are not evidence

[JimL]

Not according to Comey's testimony. He explicitly conceded that Trump never ordered him to end the investigation.

Yes, we all know the order was not explicit, and that Comey conceded to that, but he also said that he took it to be a directive as any employee would take such a comment coming from their boss.

Wrong again. Both men said under oath that they never felt pressured to do anything improper. Rogers said, "In the three-plus years that I have been director of the National Security Agency, I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate, and to the best of my recollection during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so."

They weren't asked about their feelings, or what they believed. How they felt or what they believed has nothing to do with it, the question was were they asked to intervene. Their answers in the open hearing were an obvious attempt at answering without actually answering. All that was required was a simple yes or no.

No, but they have to prove a crime, and to date, there is zero evidence that any crimes were committed either by the President or anybody on his staff. As I keep telling you, assumptions and idle speculation by braindead liberals are not evidence

No, they don't have to prove a crime, its not a court of law. Congress makes the judgement to impeach based on the evidence, they don't have to prove it. Now, if they should decide to impeach Trump, then, and only then, could he be indicted, and then a crime would need be proven.

What I find interesting though, is that you and your ilk only seem to be concerned about whether or not his behavior is criminal by law. You don't seem to care, or want to find out if Trump and or his staff colluded with Russia, or whether he used the power of his office to impede an investigation into Russian cyber attacking the U.S. elections or that those attacks were possibly tied to members of his staff. You don't care about all the lies, both Trumps own and those of his staff. All you seem to care about is if it was actually illegal or not. Sad!

[Cow Poke]

Trump not only tried to get Comey to shut down the investigation into Gen. Flynn, he also tried to get Dan Coates and Admiral Rogers to intervene. That fits a pattern, and I don't believe that Congress has to to prove intent for impeachment, they merely have to vote for it according to their judgement of the evidence.

You still have NO CLUE what the impeachment process entails.

[Charles]

It's only because I'm almost always right.

Yep. If Trump is the standard by which we define truth, then you are always right.

[Tassman]

And despite the fact that "faux" and "fox" are pronounced differently.

Oh wow! You must be a Trump University graduate to know that.

It's a visual joke moron and very apt.

[Meh Gerbil]

Ya'll bought into a media hoax.

You've two choices at this point:
1: Demand accountability from the media that manufactured, packaged, and sold you the hoax. (1)
2: Blame conservatives, propagate conspiracy theories, become a spokesperson for Kool-Aid. (2)



NOTES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: This would be good for the entire country.
2: This sells newspapers and keeps CNN's stock prices in the black.

[Meh Gerbil]

kool-aid-man.jpg

[Sparko]

Trump not only tried to get Comey to shut down the investigation into Gen. Flynn, he also tried to get Dan Coates and Admiral Rogers to intervene. That fits a pattern, and I don't believe that Congress has to to prove intent for impeachment, they merely have to vote for it according to their judgement of the evidence.

yet there IS no evidence of a crime.

Here is what is likely to be what the democrats try next.

Get Trump to testify under oath
Ask him some unrelated questions to try to get him to mis-state or exaggerate something (which he seems to do regularly)
Call that a lie and then impeach him for perjury (what Clinton was impeached on)

They would still end up with him finishing his term like Clinton did.