JimL's Case for the Impeachment of Trump

[JimL]

Still waiting for some actual evidence, Jim.

Of course you are, because you don't know the difference between evidence and proof which means that you will continue to deny the existence of any evidence no matter how many times it is presented to you. Put it this way, if the situation were reversed, and this was Hillary Clinton instead of Trump, oh boy would you see clearly the evidence then!

[MaxVel]

I have said numerous times that it is my opinion that Trump is guilty.

Oh, so basically worthless windy whining, then?

Everyone has an opinion, JimL. Are you saying that your opinion is based on nothing more than your TDS* and your inability to deal with Hilary losing the election? That's the obvious conclusion given your reluctance to present actual evidence.



* Trump Derangement Syndrome

[Meh Gerbil]

I have said numerous times that it is my opinion that Trump is guilty, so you, rodent, along with CP and MM, are full of it.

Is that so?

Trump himself was not a specific target in the investigation of his campaign and its possible collusion with Russia's hacking of the election, but he is now under investigation for obstruction of justice for firing Comey. Its always the cover-up that gets them. Source: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450463

C'mon, admit it seer, deep down you know why Trump fired Comey, deep down, you all know!
Source: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450496

^--- That was just in one recent thread.
I'll leave it to someone else to put together the dozens of times you've claimed over the past 6 months that this was more than opinion.

You bought fake news - hook, line, and sinker.
Maybe instead of being angry at CP, MM, and seer you should be angry with the people who lied to you.

[One Bad Pig]

Of course you are, because you don't know the difference between evidence and proof which means that you will continue to deny the existence of any evidence no matter how many times it is presented to you. Put it this way, if the situation were reversed, and this was Hillary Clinton instead of Trump, oh boy would you see clearly the evidence then!

You need to actually provide the evidence before I can putatively deny it. Fantasizing about what I'll do with it is entirely beside the point.

[Mountain Man]

You need to actually provide the evidence before I can putatively deny it. Fantasizing about what I'll do with it is entirely beside the point.

Jimmy's problem is that he mistakes assumption and insinuation for evidence.

[Sparko]

Given Agent Mulder Special Counsel Mueller is investigating a number of issues ranging from obstruction of justice, to collusion with Russia, to money laundering, it's hardly stretching it to think he might well find something awry.

Given about half a dozen court cases are currently being launched against Trump for his ongoing and blatant violations of the Emoluments clause, with Attorneys General from various states signing on to those cases, it's hardly stretching it to think something may well come of them.

I have a counter-question for you conservatives here that keep mocking the idea of impeachment: Is there a point at which we could get to where you embarrassedly apologize, hat in hand, for mocking JimL and say "well, I guess you were right all along JimL, sorry for mocking you, you called it right"? Would that point come when (a) the Special Counsel, or a federal court Emoluments clause proceedings, announces findings that in their opinion Trump did commit a federal crime? (b) when official impeachment proceedings begin against Trump? (c) when Trump resigns from office due to facing impeachment, or impeachment proceedings actually remove him from office? (d) never because you have no shame?

I tend to assume you're all (d), but let me know now if one of the others applies, so we can have it in writing, and I can link you back to this thread when it occurs.

show me what law Trump would be breaking if he did collude with the Russians? Let's say he went to Putin and said, "Hey Vlad, whatever help you can give me to support my run for President would be greatly appreciated."

What law did he break? According to Alan Dershowitz, none.

---
On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dershowitz, a legal scholar and Harvard University Law School professor, said he doesn't see a crime that necessitated the appointment of a special counsel.

He explained that it would not be criminal, even if it happened, for the Trump campaign to have collaborated with the Russians in an effort to get their candidate elected.

"That's political wrongdoing, but it's just not a crime," Dershowitz said. "Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated. And a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/1...heres-no-crime


and regarding Obstruction of Justice on firing Comey:

[Zymologist]

Trump didn't need to break any laws to be a traitor.

[JimL]

You need to actually provide the evidence before I can putatively deny it. Fantasizing about what I'll do with it is entirely beside the point.

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!

[JimL]

The old "just throw a bunch of stuff against the wall and see what sticks" philosophy.

Why don't you suggest to JimL that he come here and answer for himself.

This is a pattern - he makes incredibly irresponsible statements, then when asked to defend them, he's a no-show.

Here's an example...



So, I'm asking him to man up.

You were wrong then CP, and you are wrong now. Nothing new! Those people who were and did impede the federal officers from carrying out their responsibilities should have and would have been arrested for it under different circumstances. The officers didn't want to start a war and get people killed. And by all of those people, thats what I meant, and I'm sure you knew that. Doesn't matter if their guns were not pointed at the officers, they were there with guns and with the intent to impede law enforcement.

[Sparko]

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!

OK now I am starting to suspect you are actually a Poe and are a conservative who is just posting stuff to make liberals look stupid. How would people praising Trump (even though that was not what happened) be evidence for him colluding with the Russians?

[JimL]

OK now I am starting to suspect you are actually a Poe and are a conservative who is just posting stuff to make liberals look stupid. How would people praising Trump (even though that was not what happened) be evidence for him colluding with the Russians?

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

[Cow Poke]

You were wrong then CP, and you are wrong now. Nothing new! Those people who were and did impede the federal officers from carrying out their responsibilities should have and would have been arrested for it under different circumstances. The officers didn't want to start a war and get people killed. And by all of those people, thats what I meant, and I'm sure you knew that. Doesn't matter if their guns were not pointed at the officers, they were there with guns and with the intent to impede law enforcement.

No, Jim - you are very quick to judge and condemn, and you are clueless about how the law actually works. IF you ever got to be in charge of anything, you'd be a ruthless tyrant. OFF With 'is 'ead!!!!

[JimL]

No, Jim - you are very quick to judge and condemn, and you are clueless about how the law actually works. IF you ever got to be in charge of anything, you'd be a ruthless tyrant. OFF With 'is 'ead!!!!

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

[Cow Poke]

OK now I am starting to suspect you are actually a Poe and are a conservative who is just posting stuff to make liberals look stupid. How would people praising Trump (even though that was not what happened) be evidence for him colluding with the Russians?

When you are as full of malice as Jim is, even a hint of impropriety is enough to condemn your opponent to prison.

[Mountain Man]

Trump didn't need to break any laws to be a traitor.

Sarcasm? I'm going with sarcasm.