JimL's Case for the Impeachment of Trump

[Sea of red]

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

Riiight, because if Clinton had benefited from a foreign enemies interference in an election, and had multiple people in her campaign with business relationships/discussions with that same country surrounding her that they lied about, you'd think absolutely nothing of it at all.

[Sea of red]

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.

I find it funny that 'amens' get to guys like you that high-five aboard the conservative bandwagon on here all the time.

[Cow Poke]

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.

EGGzackly --- "we're not claiming he's guilty, but... somebody get a rope".

[Cow Poke]

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.

Jim, these are all problematic, no doubt, to whatever extent they're true, and to whatever depth they go. But still, a case has to be made connecting the dots. All you have is splatter.

[One Bad Pig]

I find it funny that 'amens' get to guys like you that high-five aboard the conservative bandwagon on here all the time.

Your psychoanalysis skills are sadly lacking, I'm afraid. I was doing no more than including those who 'amen'ed the post in my response.

[One Bad Pig]

Riiight, because if Clinton had benefited from a foreign enemies interference in an election, and had multiple people in her campaign with business relationships/discussions with that same country surrounding her that they lied about, you'd think absolutely nothing of it at all.

Reduced to sarcasm eh? Nice.

[Darth Executor]

Riiight, because if Clinton had benefited from a foreign enemies interference in an election

Foreign enemies routinely interfere in in elections on behalf of democrats. It's so common nobody even blinks at it anymore.

Also, you guys still talk in vague terms. "Interfered in elections". That's because mentioning the SPECIFIC interference (exposing Democrat corruption) sounds too dumb for anyone to take the complaint seriously.

[Sea of red]

Reduced to sarcasm eh? Nice.

Don't dish it out it if you can't take it.

[Sea of red]

Foreign enemies routinely interfere in in elections on behalf of democrats. It's so common nobody even blinks at it anymore.

Also, you guys still talkin vague terms. "Interfered in elections". That's because mentioning the SPECIFIC interference (exposing Democrat corruption) sounds too dumb for anyone to take the complaint seriously.

I don't know how things are done in Kazakhstan, but here in the US we consider using foreign spies to hack into private government servers to gain intel on your opponents to win an election to be criminal. We also consider hacking into local government districts to obtain voter registration information to be a national security issue. Any US citizens involved could charged with any multitude of crimes, as such actions are frankly treasonous.

[Darth Executor]

I don't know how things are done in Kazakhstan, but here in the US we consider using foreign spies to hack into private government servers to gain intel on your opponents to win an election to be criminal.

Never happened. Nice goalpost moving too.

We also consider hacking into local government districts to obtain voter registration information to be a national security issue.

There have been far, far bigger hacking scandals that produced no outrage during the Obama era. The only reason why this was seen as an issue is because the Democrat establishment needed to spin their disastrous push to make Hillary president into someone else's failure. It's why most people don't even know about this even though it's a far bigger issue than the Russians allegedly hacking Podesta's email and revealing that the democratic party tried to cheat Bernie out of the nomination. There certainly were no sactions levied against China over it.

Any US citizens involved could charged with any multitude of crimes, as such actions are frankly treasonous.

That word no longer has any useful meaning considering both parties have an immigration policy that is de facto treasonous with no consequence.

[Sea of red]

Never happened. Nice goalpost moving too.

*cough* Micheal Flynn *cough*

http://www.businessinsider.com/russi...-emails-2017-6

Let's see where the investigation goes.

There have been far, far bigger hacking scandals that produced no outrage during the Obama era. The only reason why this was seen as an issue is because the Democrat establishment needed to spin their disastrous push to make Hillary president into someone else's failure. It's why most people don't even know about this even though it's a far bigger issue than the Russians allegedly hacking Podesta's email and revealing that the democratic party tried to cheat Bernie out of the nomination. There certainly were no sactions levied against China over it.

You don't have to keep up the deflections, I hear you loud clear. You don't give a crap if the Trump campaign did or didn't collude with the Russian government in their efforts to win the election, and you'd rather people not look into it.

Some of us are used to conservatives dirty tricks and criminal behavior going unpunished in this country. We saw it with Nixon being pardoned after his involvement in the Watergate break-in and cover-up. We saw it with the absolutely outrageous and blatant cover-up by Oliver North, in shredding government documents related to the Iran-Contra operation to hide Ronald Reagan's involvement when prosecutors began their investigation -- succeeding where Nixon had failed in destruction of evidence. We saw it again when CIA interrogation tapes at Gitmo where destroyed before the Congress could see if the methods imposed by the Bush administration fell under torture.

So don't go driving down memory lane. It's covered with GOP crimes that went unpunished.

[Cow Poke]

Some of us are used to conservatives dirty tricks and criminal behavior going unpunished in this country.

*cough* The Clintons *cough*

[Mountain Man]

Foreign enemies routinely interfere in in elections on behalf of democrats. It's so common nobody even blinks at it anymore.

Also, you guys still talk in vague terms. "Interfered in elections". That's because mentioning the SPECIFIC interference (exposing Democrat corruption) sounds too dumb for anyone to take the complaint seriously.

And that probably wasn't even the Russians. Every indication points to someone inside the Democrat party.

[One Bad Pig]

Don't dish it out it if you can't take it.

Indubitably. You should try following your own advice sometime.

[JimL]

Jim, these are all problematic, no doubt, to whatever extent they're true, and to whatever depth they go. But still, a case has to be made connecting the dots. All you have is splatter.

You contradict yourself CP. On the one hand you admit that the evidence thus far is problematic, then you wave it all away as naught but splatter. Connecting the dots is what an investigation is all about, and there are a whole lot of dots in this case that need connecting.