JimL's Case for the Impeachment of Trump

[Cow Poke]

No CP, you just happen to have been wrong as usual and can't man up.

So, AGAIN, I ask....

what specific charge would you use to start impeachment proceedings against Trump?

[One Bad Pig]

I provided evidence in that thread dummy, post #60 if you really care to see it.

This? That's not evidence, that's a list of unsupported assertions.

[Mountain Man]

I did provide evidence, in starlights "Trump holds a public praise the dear leader cabinet meeting" and you all ignored or denied that evidence, and then you just keep on asking for my evidence. It gets boring!

No you didn't, you posted a series of unsubstantiated assertions and unwarranted conclusions. Like I keep telling you, Jimmy, assumption and insinuation isn't evidence!

[Cow Poke]

This? That's not evidence, that's a list of unsupported assertions.

It's simply opposition research blather.

[Sparko]

But Trump TOLD Russia to hack Hillary on TV!!!

[Mountain Man]

But Trump TOLD Russia to hack Hillary on TV!!!

He even told them they would be rewarded for it!

[Charles]

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

Do you acknowledge this, Mountain Man?

[Cow Poke]

Do you acknowledge this, Mountain Man?

Hi Charles - don't believe we've met.

What would be the impeachable offense of which you might expect Trump to be found guilty?

[Sparko]

Do you acknowledge this, Mountain Man?

I do. anything is possible. But I want to see evidence FIRST, not after he is "convicted" by the public. But again, even if he did collude with the Russians, unless he conspired and helped them do the hacking he didn't commit a crime. But anything is possible. If the evidence proves he committed an actual federal crime, then I will believe he is guilty.

[Meh Gerbil]

Do you acknowledge this, Mountain Man?

Are you doubting my word?
You are in a dangerous place, my friend.

[Cow Poke]

I do. anything is possible. But I want to see evidence FIRST, not after he is "convicted" by the public. But again, even if he did collude with the Russians, unless he conspired and helped them do the hacking he didn't commit a crime. But anything is possible. If the evidence proves he committed an actual federal crime, then I will believe he is guilty.

Unless, of course, they do like Comey did with Hillary --- lay out a solid case for prosecution, then declare "no reasonable prosecutor....."

But, then again, this is Trump -- he's guilty because he's hated.

[Sparko]

Unless, of course, they do like Comey did with Hillary --- lay out a solid case for prosecution, then declare "no reasonable prosecutor....."

But, then again, this is Trump -- he's guilty because he's hated.

pretty much the opposite is going on: "There is no solid case for prosecution, but let's impeach him anyway!"

[Zymologist]

pretty much the opposite is going on: "There is no solid case for prosecution, but let's impeach him anyway!"

I think--in politics--the antonym of "just peachy" should be "impeachy." You know, because things haven't been looking too peachy for the Democrats....

[Mountain Man]

pretty much the opposite is going on: "There is no solid case for prosecution, but let's impeach him anyway!"

That's basically Maxine Water's position.

[Charles]

Are you doubting my word?
You are in a dangerous place, my friend.

I only doubt it a little bit. MM has actually been here since i posted my question but he has not answered yet. It could be that he found that the question was too stupid.