JimL's Case for the Impeachment of Trump

[Meh Gerbil]

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!

JimL,
The Russia/Email/Trump thing is a media hoax.
None of it is real.

Thank,
Meh Gerbil

[Sparko]

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!

uh no.

It is not just a senate vote. It is an actual trial with basically the Senate as the Jury. Lawyers and everything. It takes 2/3rds of the Senate to convict him. If the Senate decides to convict, the person is removed from office and then can face criminal charges and face actual jail time. But the impeachment is an actual trial that requires actual evidence of a crime.

The house basically indicts and the senate tries. It is indeed political but the constitution says he can't be impeached except for crimes and misdemeanors, so they have to PROVE they occurred before they can impeach him. They can't just go, "dang we don't like this guy so we voted him out."

[Cow Poke]

...then Trump is finished...

How many times, now, has Trump been "finished"? Wanting something badly does not make it more likely.

[Cow Poke]

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.

Meanwhile, have you come up with the specific charge for which Trump would be impeached?

[Sea of red]

How many times, now, has Trump been "finished"? Wanting something badly does not make it more likely.

He will be if Michael Flynn was a middle man in the DNC leaks as these reports indicate.

[Sea of red]

JimL,
The Russia/Email/Trump thing is a media hoax.
None of it is real.

Thank,
Meh Gerbil

I have a feeling that even if the FBI releases emails proving it you would still call it fake news.

You can't be reached.

[Meh Gerbil]

I have a feeling that even if the FBI releases emails proving it you would still call it fake news.
You can't be reached.

Sorry, but on this forum we insist on evidence.
Your postcards from fantasyland don't cut it.

[Sea of red]

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.

Ummm, yeah, it is a crime.

If Flynn was in any wayy encouraging the Russian cyberattacks to help Trumps election he will be guilty of public corruption of an election, pure and simple. It probably would fall under espionage if the hackers can be traced back to the Russian Federation. Given Flynn's DoD and intel background, he will have no excuse to any kind of ignorance.

[Sea of red]

Sorry, but on this forum we insist on evidence.
Your postcards from fantasyland don't cut it.

Right, so all the reports are just "fantasy land" despite Peter Smith confessing these things to the WSJ and others corroborating it anyways.

Maybe you should go back to your Seth Rich conspiracy.

[Meh Gerbil]

Ummm, yeah, it is a crime.

If Flynn was in any wayy encouraging the Russian cyberattacks to help Trumps election he will be guilty of public corruption of an election, pure and simple. It probably would fall under espionage if the hackers can be traced back to the Russian Federation. Given Flynn's DoD and intel background, he will have no excuse to any kind of ignorance.

Any proof that happened?

[Meh Gerbil]

Right, so all the reports are just "fantasy land" despite Peter Smith confessing these things to the WSJ and others corroborating it anyways.

Maybe you should go back to your Seth Rich conspiracy.

According to the WSJ Peter Smith was looking for the people who hacked Hillary's email account.
Why would he have to look for those people if the Trump campaign was working with them on the hack?

Before the 2016 presidential election, a longtime Republican opposition researcher mounted an independent campaign to obtain emails he believed were stolen from Hillary Clinton’s private server, likely by Russian hackers. - WSJ

^--- That isn't an illegal action - if anything, it proves that the Trump campaign didn't know for sure who hacked Hillary AND this one witness of yours is dead.

Pathetic.

[Mountain Man]

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.

I answered your question. It just wasn't the answer you wanted to your attempt at a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" dilemma.

[JimL]

uh no.

It is not just a senate vote. It is an actual trial with basically the Senate as the Jury. Lawyers and everything. It takes 2/3rds of the Senate to convict him. If the Senate decides to convict, the person is removed from office and then can face criminal charges and face actual jail time. But the impeachment is an actual trial that requires actual evidence of a crime.

The house basically indicts and the senate tries. It is indeed political but the constitution says he can't be impeached except for crimes and misdemeanors, so they have to PROVE they occurred before they can impeach him. They can't just go, "dang we don't like this guy so we voted him out."

What "other high crimes and misdemeaners" are, were never made explicit. If Trump is found guilty of collusion, its left to the Senate to decide whether collusion fits into that category.

[Sea of red]

According to the WSJ Peter Smith was looking for the people who hacked Hillary's email account.
Why would he have to look for those people if the Trump campaign was working with them on the hack?

Before the 2016 presidential election, a longtime Republican opposition researcher mounted an independent campaign to obtain emails he believed were stolen from Hillary Clinton’s private server, likely by Russian hackers. - WSJ

^--- That isn't an illegal action - if anything, it proves that the Trump campaign didn't know for sure who hacked Hillary AND this one witness of yours is dead.

Pathetic.

Everything that is critical of Trump or negatively involves conservatives in some way is dismissed as 'fake news' in your world. It doesn't matter what facts are established, if you don't want to believe something, or wish to believe something else without basis as an alternative, there's nothing I can do to snap you out it. This has been especially true as the Trump-Russia story has established more and more serious relationships and shady facts. You just go further and further into denial, ignoring the public evidence and taking refuge in no smoking gun having been made public. The suggestions in the WSJ suggest that may be about to change.

Observe.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ils-mike-flynn

"The Journal said investigators looking into Russian meddling in the election had examined intelligence agency reports about how hackers wanted to get emails from Clinton’s server to an intermediary and then to Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and senior adviser to Trump who went on to serve briefly as his national security adviser.

The newspaper said it was not clear whether Flynn had played any role in the quest of Smith. The Journal said Flynn did not respond to requests, the White House declined comment, and the campaign said Smith never worked for it and that any such action undertaken by Flynn, if true, was not on its behalf."

This explains why Flynn has not been granted immunity. It also explains why subpoenas have been flying concerning Flynn's company and financial records. The FBI suspects he was involved in the release of the DNC leaks, and if they have emails from hackers proving he was a middle man, he will be guilty of espionage. They may not have a smoking gun on Trump right now, but they may be close to one on Flynn, and that puts this right at the front door step of the WH.

Tick tock.

Maybe neocons can dig up Vince Foster and blame him for it.

[JimL]

I answered your question. It just wasn't the answer you wanted to your attempt at a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" dilemma.

No, you haven't answered the question, and we both know why that is, don't we.