JimL's Case for the Impeachment of Trump

[One Bad Pig]

Here's what my intuition tells me happened.

For years Trump has wanted to stick his finger in Russian pie, looking for ways to get into real estate in Russia -- that's no secret. He built relationships in Russia through the Bayrock Group in his dealings with Russian oligarchs thanks to Felix Sater and Tevfik Arif. We know Ivanka and Trump Jr both looked into real estate in Russia, but nothing ever could materialize because of Trumps horrible credit. I think when he ran for president he saw it as an opportunity to build business connections in Russia for after his presidency, so he sucked up to Putin. Naturally, this attracted crooks and criminals with their own interests in Russia, and people like Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, JD Gordon, etc, were recruited into his campaign -- they saw it as easy money for their own business interest. The Russian government saw these people as useful idiots that would do their dirty work and be compromised, so they sent Kislyak to wave some carrots in front of them.

Any collusion was done by either Flynn or Manafort. The rest can barely find their way out of a room.

I always sorta assumed that you'd be a science fiction kinda guy, but this is straight up fantasy.

[One Bad Pig]

Sparko, you know as well as I do that you are only repeating the newly devised republican talking points in defense of Trump. Collusion is a crime, a federal crime, for which there are at least 4 criminal laws into which collusion is defined. The word itself needn't be used in the statute in order that it be illegal. That collusion isn't illegal is an example of "fake news."

Just because all you're capable of is repeating MSM talking points doesn't mean that your opposition is doing that too. If you'd been paying attention for the last year, you'd know that Sparko is hardly a Trump fanboi. He also happens to work in the field of law, so he might just possibly be able to figure this sort of thing out on his own.

Proof in this case is determined by two thirds of the Senate, and there is no recourse to the courts. Its political.

In the case of impeachment, the Senate IS the court.

[Sea of red]

I always sorta assumed that you'd be a science fiction kinda guy, but this is straight up fantasy.

Aside from my speculation about Flynn, what is fantasy? What is SO HARD for you to believe?

[Cow Poke]

Proof in this case is determined by two thirds of the Senate, and there is no recourse to the courts. Its political.

I think you must be schooling yourself on impeachment, Jim. And, you are quite correct - conviction requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate, which has never happened in an impeachment process, and very rarely happens (especially of late) in ANY Senate procedures.

[Mountain Man]

Proof in this case is determined by two thirds of the Senate, and there is no recourse to the courts. Its political.

That's because the Senate IS the court in this case, but they can't just arbitrarily vote to impeach. There has to be evidence that a crime was actually committed. And, no, your assumptions, insinuations, and wild-eyed conspiracy theories are not evidence.

[Tassman]

You're using "you lot" because you're a hate-filled bigot who doesn't have a problem lumping people into categories just because you don't like them.

It's idiotic.

Well you Evangelicals all look the same to me.

[Starlight]

Here's what my intuition tells me happened.

For years Trump has wanted to stick his finger in Russian pie, looking for ways to get into real estate in Russia -- that's no secret. He built relationships in Russia through the Bayrock Group in his dealings with Russian oligarchs thanks to Felix Sater and Tevfik Arif. We know Ivanka and Trump Jr both looked into real estate in Russia, but nothing ever could materialize because of Trumps horrible credit. I think when he ran for president he saw it as an opportunity to build business connections in Russia for after his presidency, so he sucked up to Putin. Naturally, this attracted crooks and criminals with their own interests in Russia, and people like Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, JD Gordon, etc, were recruited into his campaign -- they saw it as easy money for their own business interest. The Russian government saw these people as useful idiots that would do their dirty work and be compromised, so they sent Kislyak to wave some carrots in front of them.

Any collusion was done by either Flynn or Manafort. The rest can barely find their way out of a room.

I think Trump himself is a lot more involved with that. He and his family have bragged about Russian buy-in to his golf-courses in the past.

With Nixon everyone initially assumed that he must be innocent, and it was those around him who were the baddies. But almost always in politics, the people at the top like to be kept very well informed of the misdeeds their underlings are doing and are the ones who order them.

[Tassman]

because UNTIL he is proven guilty he is innocent. You seem to assume the opposite.

No I don't, which is why I and several others have been saying all along to await the final outcome of the enquiry(s) before either claiming Trump is guilty OR exonerating him...the latter being the position you and MM seem to have adopted.

so far there is no evidence. just accusations, speculation,

There are Intelligence reports re Russian interference into US elections favouring Trump. An unusual number of the Trump team with associations to Russia. The firing of Comey and Flynn and the recusal of Jeff Sessions from the Enquiry. One could go on. In short there's a great deal of smoke and Trump seems totally disinterested in getting to the bottom of the interference of the US's major enemy in US affairs.

and fake news.

[Mountain Man]

You mean like how Obama openly threatened any journalist who displeased him?

[rogue06]

You mean like how Obama openly threatened any journalist who displeased him?

From a few months back...

Liberals for the most part ignored how poorly Obama treated the press and the press itself largely smiled and masochistically took what he handed out because he was the Obamessiah and most of it was directed toward conservatives.

Source: WHY IT'LL BE HARD FOR TRUMP TO SURPASS OBAMA'S RECORD OF CHILLING PRESS FREEDOM

Many in the mainstream media are reacting with righteous indignation over comments from a senior Trump adviser suggesting the administration views the traditional media as an opponent. But if we're to take these apostles of press freedom seriously, they should first explain why the Trump Administration is worse than the Obama Administration.

After all, the Obama Administration literally tried imprisoning an uncooperative journalist, monitored journalists' every digital move, and "hammered" at least one challenging reporter with IRS audits.

Let's rewind the tape.

The Obama Administration began with lofty promises of being "the most transparent administration in history." Instead it ended up setting a record, by the Associated Press's count, for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests.

As the administration's popularity began tumbling early into its first year, the Obama White House declared war on Fox News. The White House director of communications, Anita Dunn, warned they would henceforth treat Fox News "like an opponentthe administration sought to deny Fox News' participation in executive branch news-making events -- which only failed after other networks admirably refused to participate if Fox News were excluded.

As you'll see in the montage above, President Obama blamed Fox News and talk radio for virtually every problem his administration encountered, warning in his waning days that these "domestic propagandists" were far more damaging to America than any interference from hostile powers like Russia.

When Fox News's State Department correspondent, James Rosen, reported accurate information about North Korea leaked by a member of the Obama State Department, Eric Holder ordered his movements to be tracked, his phone records seized, and went "judge shoppingthe Washington Post wrotethe Freedom of the Press Foundation reported. After the Supreme Court rejected Risen's appeal of an earlier order mandating he testify about the source of information he reported, Risen faced jail time.

After an outcry, Holder finally backed down.

The Associated Press experienced similar surveillance. For two months, the Department of Justice tracked 20 AP reporters' calls, ostensibly over their reporting into a Libyan terrorist's failed plot. Why was reporting on a failed plot so threatening? The AP said it was because the administration wanted to announce the news itself.

Obama himself was notorious for granting interviews with journalists whom he knew would treat him gently -- like Steve Kroft. When Obama accidentally exposed himself to a mildly challenging interview with a local reporter in Saint Louis, that reporter was later "hammered" with IRS audits.

With the Obama Administration, the message to the media was always clear: Report negatively about us, and we'll use the powers at our disposal to make you suffer consequences.

If those journalists currently complaining about the Trump Administration found no such fault with the Obama Administration, perhaps it's because they were all too willing to toe the line.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Now imagine if Trump started tracking a bunch of reporters phone calls, not because they were publishing classified information, but merely because they had published a story that Trump wanted to be the first to release. Or sicced the IRS after reporters who asked tough questions. The howls of outrage would be heard far and wide and those would be the lead stories for days on end as scowling left-wing pundits and politicians would be calling for impeachment.

[Cow Poke]

Well you Evangelicals all look the same to me.

Yes, because of your extreme prejudice.

[One Bad Pig]

Aside from my speculation about Flynn, what is fantasy? What is SO HARD for you to believe?

The whole shebang? The whole thing is pure speculation. It's rather unfitting for a proponent of hard science, IMO.

[One Bad Pig]

No I don't, which is why I and several others have been saying all along to await the final outcome of the enquiry(s) before either claiming Trump is guilty OR exonerating him...the latter being the position you and MM seem to have adopted.

It is hilarious that you pretend to take this position. The only time you (and your coterie of "Amen"ers) do not assume Trump's guilt is when you're vigorously protesting that you don't do that. Your protest rings exceedingly hollow.

[JimL]

It is hilarious that you pretend to take this position. The only time you (and your coterie of "Amen"ers) do not assume Trump's guilt is when you're vigorously protesting that you don't do that. Your protest rings exceedingly hollow.

Your skull rings exeedingly hollow. Assuming Trumps guilt is not claiming, or proving, his guilt. For instance, I think Trump is guilty because of his obstruction, because of his firings, because of his obvious finacial connections to Russia, because of his campaign associates obvious connections to Russia, because it was Putin's intent to help him get elected, because of his obvious lying, because of his inability to admit to Russian interference, and because of his lack of doing anything to defend against their doing it again in 2018.

[Mountain Man]

Your skull rings exeedingly hollow. Assuming Trumps guilt is not claiming, or proving, his guilt. For instance, I think Trump is guilty because of his obstruction, because of his firings, because of his obvious finacial connections to Russia, because of his campaign associates obvious connections to Russia, because it was Putin's intent to help him get elected, because of his obvious lying, because of his inability to admit to Russian interference, and because of his lack of doing anything to defend against their doing it again in 2018.

In other words, assumptions, insinuations, and wild-eyed conspiracy theories.