JimL's Case for the Impeachment of Trump

[Mountain Man]

If he liked tacos they'd accuse him of being a white supremacist Nazi who wants to profit off the backs of the poor, oppressed Mexicans, or some such.

Say, I like tacos....

The politically correct term is "cultural appropriation".

[Sparko]

False, and Trump has more to worry about than just collusion now.

Well thats just cognative dissonance on your part, but tell me something, would you even care if Trump did collude with the Russians? You keep saying that it isn't a crime. Is that good enough for you?


Wrong again dufus. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal trial, it takes only a simple majority of the House to begin the impeachment process, then a trial takes place in the Senate where all that is needed is a two thirds majority vote to impeach. If the law then decides to indict the ousted president criminally after he is impeached, then he could be indicted, but he can't be criminally indicted while President. Congress could have all the proof in the world, and decide not to impeach, and they can also impeach without such definite proof. So, being that Republicans have majorities in both the House and the Senate, the impeachment process is unlikely to occur without overwhelming proof, it is unlikely that you could get a simple majority in the House to vote to initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump unless they come under extraordinary pressure to do so by the public.

er. what? So you think the Senate can have a trial and convict him without proving he committed a crime? and if they could, that would be fine with you?

JimL, wake up. Please. You can't be that stupid. How do you remember to breathe?

[Mountain Man]

dang there go all the irony meters on the interwebz again. boom.

Jim your insane conclusions about Trump are the very definition of cognitive dissonance. You can't reconcile you firmly held believe (and the DNC talking points) that Trump is guilty with the facts that there is no evidence at all, so you ignore the facts and make up your own standards of evidence. And it gets sillier and sillier with every round.

He seems to be slowly conceding that there is no evidence of criminal activity. Notice his new line of questioning:. "So even it's not a crime, do you care that Trump maybe possibility could have colluded with Russia?" He seems to be pivoting to a new position where he can still call the President guilty even if no crime was committed, and he's under the delusion that this would be enough to call for impeachment, a process which he is still inexcusably ignorant of.

[Zymologist]

I think I'm most disappointed that the left and the media (redundant, I know) have pretty consistently stuck with the phrasing "Trump colluded with the Russians" when they could have run with the much cooler "Trump is in cahoots with the Russians."

Fake news? More like sub-par wordsmithing.

[JimL]

He seems to be slowly conceding that there is no evidence of criminal activity. Notice his new line of questioning:. "So even it's not a crime, do you care that Trump maybe possibility could have colluded with Russia?" He seems to be pivoting to a new position where he can still call the President guilty even if no crime was committed, and he's under the delusion that this would be enough to call for impeachment, a process which he is still inexcusably ignorant of.

I noticed that you failed to answer the question MM, so I will put it to you again. If Trump did collude with Russia, being that collusion according to you is not illegal, would that be okay with you? The new defense of Trump coming from the right is that collusion isn't illegal therefore, "so what if Trump colluded with our adversary." Is that your point of view as well?

[JimL]

er. what? So you think the Senate can have a trial and convict him without proving he committed a crime? and if they could, that would be fine with you?

Ah, actually yes they can Sparko. It isn't a criminal trial, its political, and all they need do is garner 2 thirds vote in the Senate to impeach. They don't have to prove it, its not a court of law.

JimL, wake up. Please. You can't be that stupid. How do you remember to breathe?

Well, I wouldn't say that you were stupid, just a bit ignorant of the facts.

[Sparko]

Ah, actually yes they can Sparko. It isn't a criminal trial, its political, and all they need do is garner 2 thirds vote in the Senate to impeach. They don't have to prove it, its not a court of law.

Where did I put that good fellas laughing gif again?

Oh yeah here it is.

NUeVFnL.gif

JimL they can only impeach the President IF he is GUILTY of "Crimes and Misdemeanors" - not SUSPECTED of them

Think about it.

[Zymologist]

Where did I put that good fellas laughing gif again?

Oh yeah here it is.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23116[/ATTACH]

JimL they can only impeach the President IF he is GUILTY of "Crimes and Misdemeanors" - not SUSPECTED of them

Think about it.

He doesn't even seem to believe the president needs to be suspected of crimes and misdemeanors (let alone guilty of them), but that he can be impeached if they just decide they want to impeach him. No crimes required, according to JimL (as I understand him).

[Sea of red]

I think it all depends on what is revealed about the nature of Michael Flynn's part in coordinating with Russian hackers. If the WSJ article is true and Russian hackers were trying to get stolen emails to Flynn, then Trump is finished. It will put into context why Trump was trying to get Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn, and his NBC news interview and Tweets will come back to haunt him. Nobody is going to buy the idea that his firing of Comey and interference was anything other than obstruction - not that some of us couldn't connect the dots before.

[Meh Gerbil]

I think it all depends on what is revealed about the nature of Michael Flynn's part in coordinating with Russian hackers. If the WSJ article is true and Russian hackers were trying to get stolen emails to Flynn, then Trump is finished. It will put into context why Trump was trying to get Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn, and his NBC news interview and Tweets will come back to haunt him. Nobody is going to buy the idea that his firing of Comey and interference was anything other than obstruction - not that some of us couldn't connect the dots before.

So all the Russians have to do to destroy a politician is send that politician stolen emails?

[Sea of red]

So all the Russians have to do to destroy a politician is send that politician stolen emails?

If a politician conspires with a foreign nation to cyber attack a political adversary, they can be charged with corruption - among other things.

[Meh Gerbil]

If a politician conspires with a foreign nation to cyber attack a political adversary, they can be charged with corruption - among other things.

Sending stolen emails to someone doesn't necessitate any sort of conspiracy to steal them.
Just like me buying a high end watch for $15 from a guy in an alley doesn't necessitate that I conspired with him to steal the watch.
I think you fell for a media hoax.

[Mountain Man]

I noticed that you failed to answer the question MM, so I will put it to you again. If Trump did collude with Russia, being that collusion according to you is not illegal, would that be okay with you? The new defense of Trump coming from the right is that collusion isn't illegal therefore, "so what if Trump colluded with our adversary." Is that your point of view as well?

My point of view is that there is no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, period, so your question is moot.

[JimL]

My point of view is that there is no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, period, so your question is moot.

Its a hypothetical MM, and the investigation is ongoing so you don't know any such thing. But your evasion is answer enough for me. Thanks.

[JimL]

Where did I put that good fellas laughing gif again?

Oh yeah here it is.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]23116[/ATTACH]

JimL they can only impeach the President IF he is GUILTY of "Crimes and Misdemeanors" - not SUSPECTED of them

Think about it.

Its not criminal law Sparko, its political. A simple majority of the House is needed to initiate impeachment hearings, and two thirds of the Senate are needed to impeach. Thats all there is to it. Whether or not there was an actual crime committed is a judgement determined by the Senate. If two thirds of the Senate want him impeached, then he's impeached!