Will Trump be impeached?

[Keith&Co.]

won't happen until the House and Senate are no longer controlled by the President's party. .

Well, there's two ways for that to happen.
The GOP loses control of the House and Senate.
The GOP stops being the President's party.

At Lunch, the TV was saying that Trump's Superpac is 'going after' a GOP Senator who opposes his health care. Hopefully, they'll do enough damage to Heller's public image that the rest of the GOP will see that Trump is not a friend, but a threat. Absolute loyalty to bugknuckle attack dogs...

 

[braces_for_impact]

Good gawd Trump is thick.

 

[Elixir]

Good gawd Trump is thick.

Truly a moron. Lays claim to a four-letter word. Gawd forbid if Obama had said it was pusillanimous - "Pussy is MY word!"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Shit, did Trump trademark the word "mean"? I'll need to look for alternative words.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This convoluted response is why people think you're full of shit.

OP question was quite straightforward. Here it is again:

Do you think he will be impeached, or resign under threat of such? At anytime in his administration - even 7 years from now if he is re-elected. Or does he just go about and continue to rule for four or eight years and turn power over?

There is no requirement for any respondent to lay out explicitly with evidence the actual case for impeachment.
It is an opinion poll, not a trial, and it is not your place to hijack the thread with your own personal demands or requirements.

And as others have pointed out, impeachment is an inherently political process. The President is effectively immune from prosecution as a legal matter. That can only happen if he's removed from office, and that (in my opinion) won't happen until the House and Senate are no longer controlled by the President's party. If that were to happen, and if Trump continues to publicly admit to obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, and keeps firing people trying to investigate his shenanigans, then I'd say there's a good chance impeachment proceedings would begin.

I don't have to make the legal case in this thread, just offer my opinion...which I just did.

If you want, start your own thread with your own demands.

I have no demands; only observations My answer was as mentioned earlier, a definite don't know.

Of course there is no requirement for any respondent to lay out explicitly with evidence the actual case for impeachment because the investigation is still ongoing. Since I don't intend to speculate I can then confirm a definite don't know.

What I have seen to date is speculation based on claims which are insufficient to support the term collusion and interfering with the election outcome.

I did check the impeachment process in the USA a vote would have to be based on good reasoning and not wishful thinking. The Theory of Evolution went beyond wishful thinking and supplied facts.

The only clear evidence is the Democrats lost crucial areas to the Republicans.

So instead of leaking titbits to the press to try and create sensationalism, it would be better that they do their jobs and investigate fully then periodically produce something of worse.

Take leaf from the ICAC book in Hong Kong; how it wiped out major areas of corruption.

 

[Elixir]

This convoluted response is why people think you're full of shit.

OP question was quite straightforward. Here it is again:

Do you think he will be impeached, or resign under threat of such? At anytime in his administration - even 7 years from now if he is re-elected. Or does he just go about and continue to rule for four or eight years and turn power over?

There is no requirement for any respondent to lay out explicitly with evidence the actual case for impeachment.
It is an opinion poll, not a trial, and it is not your place to hijack the thread with your own personal demands or requirements.

And as others have pointed out, impeachment is an inherently political process. The President is effectively immune from prosecution as a legal matter. That can only happen if he's removed from office, and that (in my opinion) won't happen until the House and Senate are no longer controlled by the President's party. If that were to happen, and if Trump continues to publicly admit to obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, and keeps firing people trying to investigate his shenanigans, then I'd say there's a good chance impeachment proceedings would begin.

I don't have to make the legal case in this thread, just offer my opinion...which I just did.

If you want, start your own thread with your own demands.

I have no demands; only observations My answer was as mentioned earlier, a definite don't know.

Of course there is no requirement for any respondent to lay out explicitly with evidence the actual case for impeachment because the investigation is still ongoing. Since I don't intend to speculate I can then confirm a definite don't know.

What I have seen to date ...

Maybe you need to get out more, or visit some different websites.

The Theory of Evolution went beyond wishful thinking and supplied facts.

No, it didn't "supply facts", it explained observations. So does the collusion hypothesis.
Funny though, that so many of those who deny evolution (and other science) just happen to be trumpsuckers.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This convoluted response is why people think you're full of shit.

OP question was quite straightforward. Here it is again:

Do you think he will be impeached, or resign under threat of such? At anytime in his administration - even 7 years from now if he is re-elected. Or does he just go about and continue to rule for four or eight years and turn power over?

There is no requirement for any respondent to lay out explicitly with evidence the actual case for impeachment.
It is an opinion poll, not a trial, and it is not your place to hijack the thread with your own personal demands or requirements.

And as others have pointed out, impeachment is an inherently political process. The President is effectively immune from prosecution as a legal matter. That can only happen if he's removed from office, and that (in my opinion) won't happen until the House and Senate are no longer controlled by the President's party. If that were to happen, and if Trump continues to publicly admit to obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, and keeps firing people trying to investigate his shenanigans, then I'd say there's a good chance impeachment proceedings would begin.

I don't have to make the legal case in this thread, just offer my opinion...which I just did.

If you want, start your own thread with your own demands.

I have no demands; only observations My answer was as mentioned earlier, a definite don't know.

Of course there is no requirement for any respondent to lay out explicitly with evidence the actual case for impeachment because the investigation is still ongoing. Since I don't intend to speculate I can then confirm a definite don't know.

What I have seen to date ...

Maybe you need to get out more, or visit some different websites.

The Theory of Evolution went beyond wishful thinking and supplied facts.

No, it didn't "supply facts", it explained observations. So does the collusion hypothesis.
Funny though, that so many of those who deny evolution (and other science) just happen to be trumpsuckers.

Evolution certainly contains theory,and observation but also facts. It is an indisputable fact that organisms have changed or evolved during their history on earth.

Likewise that genetic variation is the result of two factors, mutation and recombination.
When the DNA isn't perfectly duplicated from parent to offspring a mutation occurs.
You could then argue that it is an observable fact that Trump is a mutation from Orangutan parents.

 

[Elixir]

This convoluted response is why people think you're full of shit.

OP question was quite straightforward. Here it is again:

Do you think he will be impeached, or resign under threat of such? At anytime in his administration - even 7 years from now if he is re-elected. Or does he just go about and continue to rule for four or eight years and turn power over?

There is no requirement for any respondent to lay out explicitly with evidence the actual case for impeachment.
It is an opinion poll, not a trial, and it is not your place to hijack the thread with your own personal demands or requirements.

And as others have pointed out, impeachment is an inherently political process. The President is effectively immune from prosecution as a legal matter. That can only happen if he's removed from office, and that (in my opinion) won't happen until the House and Senate are no longer controlled by the President's party. If that were to happen, and if Trump continues to publicly admit to obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, and keeps firing people trying to investigate his shenanigans, then I'd say there's a good chance impeachment proceedings would begin.

I don't have to make the legal case in this thread, just offer my opinion...which I just did.

If you want, start your own thread with your own demands.

I have no demands; only observations My answer was as mentioned earlier, a definite don't know.

Of course there is no requirement for any respondent to lay out explicitly with evidence the actual case for impeachment because the investigation is still ongoing. Since I don't intend to speculate I can then confirm a definite don't know.

What I have seen to date ...

Maybe you need to get out more, or visit some different websites.

The Theory of Evolution went beyond wishful thinking and supplied facts.

No, it didn't "supply facts", it explained observations. So does the collusion hypothesis.
Funny though, that so many of those who deny evolution (and other science) just happen to be trumpsuckers.

Evolution certainly contains theory,and observation but also facts. It is an indisputable fact that organisms have changed or evolved during their history on earth.

Likewise that genetic variation is the result of two factors, mutation and recombination.
When the DNA isn't perfectly duplicated from parent to offspring a mutation occurs.
You could then argue that it is an observable fact that Trump is a mutation from Orangutan parents.

View attachment 11614

You are as confused about science as you are about politics.
There is a theory of evolution, and there is the fact of evolution. They are not the same thing.

genetic variation is the result of two factors

Genetic variation can result from of a host of different factors - get an education!

When the DNA isn't perfectly duplicated from parent to offspring a mutation occurs.

DNA is rarely perfectly duplicated from generation to generation (and then, usually in asexually reproducing organisms). The average human sports around 150 "mutations" not present in either parent.

You could then argue that it is an observable fact that Trump is a mutation from Orangutan parents.

With about the same degree of validity as your "argument" that there is no evidence of collusion.

 

[Ford]

You are as confused about science as you are about politics.

Possibly, but the important part is that he's been trained in the L. Ron Hubbard School of Perpetuating Bullshit. Now, suddenly, we're talking about evolution rather than the OP question of whether or not Trump will be impeached. This is intentional, and a dodge meant to draw attention away from a previous (and easily exposed) attempt at perpetuating bullshit.

A little up the thread (before the appropriately hilarious DeForest Kelley meme) WP said this:

Let's see the Impeachers in the house (s) support their case instead letting the public grasp on new media titbits and inconclusive investigations, or facts which are established but confidential. What is required is evidence based conclusions to go forward.

A demand that people who said "yeah, he'll be impeached" provide evidence before the discussion can move forward.

WP subsequently said:

I have no demands

Goddammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an E-meter!

But there's more bullshit:

Whether he is or not is beside the point.

"He" being Trump and "is or not" referencing possible impeachment:

The only conclusion is that there is no way of telling if Trump is impeachable at this stage. Whether he is impeachable or not is another question.

This is actually a masterstroke of bullshit. L. Ron would be proud. Dr. McCoy's face aside, the fact is that any president is impeachable. Clinton's impeachment proved that impeachment can be had for the price of a stained blue dress. Trump is absolutely impeachable. That became an option the moment he took the oath of office. There is actually no question at all as to whether or not he's impeachable...he is...every president is...but WP wants to change the subject.

The OP is a simple question. WP is deliberately making it more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This convoluted response is why people think you're full of shit.

OP question was quite straightforward. Here it is again:

Do you think he will be impeached, or resign under threat of such? At anytime in his administration - even 7 years from now if he is re-elected. Or does he just go about and continue to rule for four or eight years and turn power over?

There is no requirement for any respondent to lay out explicitly with evidence the actual case for impeachment.
It is an opinion poll, not a trial, and it is not your place to hijack the thread with your own personal demands or requirements.

And as others have pointed out, impeachment is an inherently political process. The President is effectively immune from prosecution as a legal matter. That can only happen if he's removed from office, and that (in my opinion) won't happen until the House and Senate are no longer controlled by the President's party. If that were to happen, and if Trump continues to publicly admit to obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, and keeps firing people trying to investigate his shenanigans, then I'd say there's a good chance impeachment proceedings would begin.

I don't have to make the legal case in this thread, just offer my opinion...which I just did.

If you want, start your own thread with your own demands.

I have no demands; only observations My answer was as mentioned earlier, a definite don't know.

Of course there is no requirement for any respondent to lay out explicitly with evidence the actual case for impeachment because the investigation is still ongoing. Since I don't intend to speculate I can then confirm a definite don't know.

What I have seen to date ...

Maybe you need to get out more, or visit some different websites.

The Theory of Evolution went beyond wishful thinking and supplied facts.

No, it didn't "supply facts", it explained observations. So does the collusion hypothesis.
Funny though, that so many of those who deny evolution (and other science) just happen to be trumpsuckers.

Evolution certainly contains theory,and observation but also facts. It is an indisputable fact that organisms have changed or evolved during their history on earth.

Likewise that genetic variation is the result of two factors, mutation and recombination.
When the DNA isn't perfectly duplicated from parent to offspring a mutation occurs.
You could then argue that it is an observable fact that Trump is a mutation from Orangutan parents.

View attachment 11614

You are as confused about science as you are about politics.
There is a theory of evolution, and there is the fact of evolution. They are not the same thing.

genetic variation is the result of two factors

Genetic variation can result from of a host of different factors - get an education!

When the DNA isn't perfectly duplicated from parent to offspring a mutation occurs.

DNA is rarely perfectly duplicated from generation to generation (and then, usually in asexually reproducing organisms). The average human sports around 150 "mutations" not present in either parent.

You could then argue that it is an observable fact that Trump is a mutation from Orangutan parents.

With about the same degree of validity as your "argument" that there is no evidence of collusion.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.

Then Evidence in Genetics
The genetic similarity between species, which exists by virtue of evolution from the same ancestral form, is an essential fact that underlies biomedical research. This similarity allows us to begin to understand the effects of our own genes by conducting research on genes from other species. For example, genes that control the process of DNA repair in bacteria, flies, and mice have been discovered to influence certain cancers in humans. These findings also suggest strategies for intervention that can be explored in other species before testing on humans.

Conclusions
Evolutionary biology is a strong and vigorous field of science. A theoretical framework that encompasses several basic mechanisms is consistent with the patterns seen in nature; and there is abundant evidence demonstrating the action of these mechanisms as well as their contributions to nature. Hence, evolution is both a theory and a set of established facts that the theory explains.

To take up one point where you are not wrong but essentially we can quote here:

Genetic variation arises through two processes, mutation and recombination. Mutation occurs when DNA is imperfectly copied during replication, leading to a difference between a parent’s gene and that of its offspring. Some mutations affect only one bit in the DNA; others produce rearrangements of large blocks of DNA.

Regarding the last point. There is no need to disprove a charge of collusion unless there are specific conclusive statements.

This relates science and law

Dawkins here
https://richarddawkins.net/2015/11/is-it-a-theory-is-it-a-law-no-its-a-fact/
Is it a Theory? Is it a Law? No, it’s a fact.

Theory, Sense 1: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

Theory, Sense 2: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

The party line among scientists arguing for evolution is to promote Sense 1, and I have followed it until today. But now I want to depart from the party line. I now think that trying to clear up this terminological point about the meaning of “theory” is a losing battle. We should stop using “theory” altogether for the case of evolution and insist, instead, that evolution is a fact.

I may add there are some Evolutionists who would hold your view but I think that Evolution has long gone beyond theory.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Possibly, but the important part is that he's been trained in the L. Ron Hubbard School of Perpetuating Bullshit. Now, suddenly, we're talking about evolution rather than the OP question of whether or not Trump will be impeached. This is intentional, and a dodge meant to draw attention away from a previous (and easily exposed) attempt at perpetuating bullshit.

A little up the thread (before the appropriately hilarious DeForest Kelley meme) WP said this:

Let's see the Impeachers in the house (s) support their case instead letting the public grasp on new media titbits and inconclusive investigations, or facts which are established but confidential. What is required is evidence based conclusions to go forward.

A demand that people who said "yeah, he'll be impeached" provide evidence before the discussion can move forward.

WP subsequently said:

I have no demands

Goddammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an E-meter!

But there's more bullshit:

Whether he is or not is beside the point.

"He" being Trump and "is or not" referencing possible impeachment:

The only conclusion is that there is no way of telling if Trump is impeachable at this stage. Whether he is impeachable or not is another question.

This is actually a masterstroke of bullshit. L. Ron would be proud. Dr. McCoy's face aside, the fact is that any president is impeachable. Clinton's impeachment proved that impeachment can be had for the price of a stained blue dress. Trump is absolutely impeachable. That became an option the moment he took the oath of office. There is actually no question at all as to whether or not he's impeachable...he is...every president is...but WP wants to change the subject.

The OP is a simple question. WP is deliberately making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Evolution came up so I evolved my points regarding that.
Simply put, Impeachment requires more than saying impeach.

 

[LordKiran]

Possibly, but the important part is that he's been trained in the L. Ron Hubbard School of Perpetuating Bullshit. Now, suddenly, we're talking about evolution rather than the OP question of whether or not Trump will be impeached. This is intentional, and a dodge meant to draw attention away from a previous (and easily exposed) attempt at perpetuating bullshit.

A little up the thread (before the appropriately hilarious DeForest Kelley meme) WP said this:



A demand that people who said "yeah, he'll be impeached" provide evidence before the discussion can move forward.

WP subsequently said:

I have no demands

Goddammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an E-meter!

But there's more bullshit:

Whether he is or not is beside the point.

"He" being Trump and "is or not" referencing possible impeachment:

The only conclusion is that there is no way of telling if Trump is impeachable at this stage. Whether he is impeachable or not is another question.

This is actually a masterstroke of bullshit. L. Ron would be proud. Dr. McCoy's face aside, the fact is that any president is impeachable. Clinton's impeachment proved that impeachment can be had for the price of a stained blue dress. Trump is absolutely impeachable. That became an option the moment he took the oath of office. There is actually no question at all as to whether or not he's impeachable...he is...every president is...but WP wants to change the subject.

The OP is a simple question. WP is deliberately making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Evolution came up so I evolved my points regarding that.
Simply put, Impeachment requires more than saying impeach.

You keep saying that, and every single time someone tells you you're wrong and then proceeds to explain why. How has it not sunk in yet that our president can be impeached for any reason at any time?

 

[Keith&Co.]

president can be impeached for any reason at any time?

The first three people impeached, it was done exactly because they supported the wrong political party. The party in power wanted those benches.

IIRC, the very first judge impeached was mostly justified because he was an alcoholic.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Possibly, but the important part is that he's been trained in the L. Ron Hubbard School of Perpetuating Bullshit. Now, suddenly, we're talking about evolution rather than the OP question of whether or not Trump will be impeached. This is intentional, and a dodge meant to draw attention away from a previous (and easily exposed) attempt at perpetuating bullshit.

A little up the thread (before the appropriately hilarious DeForest Kelley meme) WP said this:



A demand that people who said "yeah, he'll be impeached" provide evidence before the discussion can move forward.

WP subsequently said:

I have no demands

Goddammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an E-meter!

But there's more bullshit:

Whether he is or not is beside the point.

"He" being Trump and "is or not" referencing possible impeachment:

The only conclusion is that there is no way of telling if Trump is impeachable at this stage. Whether he is impeachable or not is another question.

This is actually a masterstroke of bullshit. L. Ron would be proud. Dr. McCoy's face aside, the fact is that any president is impeachable. Clinton's impeachment proved that impeachment can be had for the price of a stained blue dress. Trump is absolutely impeachable. That became an option the moment he took the oath of office. There is actually no question at all as to whether or not he's impeachable...he is...every president is...but WP wants to change the subject.

The OP is a simple question. WP is deliberately making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Evolution came up so I evolved my points regarding that.
Simply put, Impeachment requires more than saying impeach.

YOU ARE FAILING AT WORDS. Everyone has told you this multiple times. One can be impeached at any time. There does not need to be a preponderance of evidence in any direction. There does not need to be illegal activity. Only the political will to do so,and the House to draft the articles of impeachment. THEN the Senate can remove them from office. This voting in the upper body is analogous to a trial, but it is not an actual court. In fact, The Supreme Court has no say in this process. Once the HOR drafts the articles, impeachment has taken place. The President or Vice President isn't even removed from office at this point, that doesn't happen unless the Senate passes it with a 2/3 majority. NO President has even been convicted at the Senate level.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Senate

 

[whichphilosophy]

Possibly, but the important part is that he's been trained in the L. Ron Hubbard School of Perpetuating Bullshit. Now, suddenly, we're talking about evolution rather than the OP question of whether or not Trump will be impeached. This is intentional, and a dodge meant to draw attention away from a previous (and easily exposed) attempt at perpetuating bullshit.

A little up the thread (before the appropriately hilarious DeForest Kelley meme) WP said this:



A demand that people who said "yeah, he'll be impeached" provide evidence before the discussion can move forward.

WP subsequently said:

I have no demands

Goddammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an E-meter!

But there's more bullshit:

Whether he is or not is beside the point.

"He" being Trump and "is or not" referencing possible impeachment:

The only conclusion is that there is no way of telling if Trump is impeachable at this stage. Whether he is impeachable or not is another question.

This is actually a masterstroke of bullshit. L. Ron would be proud. Dr. McCoy's face aside, the fact is that any president is impeachable. Clinton's impeachment proved that impeachment can be had for the price of a stained blue dress. Trump is absolutely impeachable. That became an option the moment he took the oath of office. There is actually no question at all as to whether or not he's impeachable...he is...every president is...but WP wants to change the subject.

The OP is a simple question. WP is deliberately making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Evolution came up so I evolved my points regarding that.
Simply put, Impeachment requires more than saying impeach.

You keep saying that, and every single time someone tells you you're wrong and then proceeds to explain why. How has it not sunk in yet that our president can be impeached for any reason at any time?

No
There must be specific reasons under
High Crimes
Treason
Bribery
Misdemeanors

Under Article II the US Constitution Section IV the President can be removed from office if convicted of any of the above listed items

Furthermore and for avoidance of doubt the Lower House must vote for any of the above charges in order that the Impeachment can proceed in the Senate. This is akin to an indictment in a court.

The Senate will then conduct the Impeachment like a court; but 2/3 must vote for a conviction. The procedure is akin to a court trial with a judge and jury.

So there have to be reasons not just any reason(s)

 

[whichphilosophy]

Possibly, but the important part is that he's been trained in the L. Ron Hubbard School of Perpetuating Bullshit. Now, suddenly, we're talking about evolution rather than the OP question of whether or not Trump will be impeached. This is intentional, and a dodge meant to draw attention away from a previous (and easily exposed) attempt at perpetuating bullshit.

A little up the thread (before the appropriately hilarious DeForest Kelley meme) WP said this:



A demand that people who said "yeah, he'll be impeached" provide evidence before the discussion can move forward.

WP subsequently said:

I have no demands

Goddammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an E-meter!

But there's more bullshit:

Whether he is or not is beside the point.

"He" being Trump and "is or not" referencing possible impeachment:

The only conclusion is that there is no way of telling if Trump is impeachable at this stage. Whether he is impeachable or not is another question.

This is actually a masterstroke of bullshit. L. Ron would be proud. Dr. McCoy's face aside, the fact is that any president is impeachable. Clinton's impeachment proved that impeachment can be had for the price of a stained blue dress. Trump is absolutely impeachable. That became an option the moment he took the oath of office. There is actually no question at all as to whether or not he's impeachable...he is...every president is...but WP wants to change the subject.

The OP is a simple question. WP is deliberately making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Evolution came up so I evolved my points regarding that.
Simply put, Impeachment requires more than saying impeach.

YOU ARE FAILING AT WORDS. Everyone has told you this multiple times. One can be impeached at any time. There does not need to be a preponderance of evidence in any direction. There does not need to be illegal activity. Only the political will to do so,and the House to draft the articles of impeachment. THEN the Senate can remove them from office. This voting in the upper body is analogous to a trial, but it is not an actual court. In fact, The Supreme Court has no say in this process. Once the HOR drafts the articles, impeachment has taken place. The President or Vice President isn't even removed from office at this point, that doesn't happen unless the Senate passes it with a 2/3 majority. NO President has even been convicted at the Senate level.

View attachment 11626

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Senate

Impeachments are not just willy nilly. See my earlier post. In fact it is run as a trial but not in a court room as it is in the Senate.

The Lower House will vote on on impeachment, but Congressmen are not known to be buffoons and will expect to see something that would provide a reason for them to vote for or against regardless of individual bias.

This is taken from WIKI which you quoted

Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings; trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature impeaches the official and the upper house conducts the trial.


Further when looking out analogous best fits and taking the court like structure we can say that ANALOGOUS means 'comparable, parallel, matching or equivalent.

It follows that evidence must be weighed. If you want to know whether it's weight of evidence or beyond a shadow of doubt you can check further. I already quoted references for this.
Captain Obvious.

 

[Malintent]

Well, sure... none of us KNOW what will happen in the future. this is an opinion thread.. I only point this out because Whichphilosophy often seems to get facts and opinions confused with one another. Facts (indisputable) are the foundation for (disputable) opinions. If your information is wrong or distorted, then your opinions have no value. If your opinions are based on facts, then they may have merit.

No one has the full information but based on what has happened different people give different views. I've merely stated that the investigation hasn't produced anything of worth yet. One can also base an opinion iinasmuch that there are insufficient facts from the evidence to form an indefeasible viewpoint.

There are loads of facts but insufficient to complete the big picture.

Again, that is false. You DO NOT KNOW what the investigation has revealed. Not knowing what exists is not grounds for holding an opinion on what exists. Just because some information has allegedly "leaked", or wild (or even educated) guesses are being made that you like to hear, or from a person you would like to trust, does not make any undisclosed information non-existent.

Facebook / twitter post, or it didn't happen? That's not how anything actually works.

 

[Malintent]

Let's see the Impeachers in the house (s) support their case instead letting the public grasp on new media titbits and inconclusive investigations, or facts which are established but confidential. What is required is evidence based conclusions to go forward.

Yes. Exactly. Try to actually DO THIS.

Look at what is known to be true. Ignore what is not known to be true. If sufficient data is available, form an opinion.

Two factually known pieces of information are (correctly) driving the "impeachers":

1) Russian state-sponsored hacking has been, is, and continues to occur around the world, attempting to disrupt elections. Publically disclosed reports from all intelligence communities (both US and non-US) clearly confirm this was aggressively done in our last election.
2) Multiple instances of Trump-appointed cabinet members have had unprecedentedly consistent and illegal omissions of disclosure of Russian agent contact
3) Trump publically "egged-on" threat actors to continue hacking his political enemies
4) Trump has, is, and continues to be unprecedentedly silent, and even supportive, of Russia... also is the only person left on Earth that has access to intelligence data that continues to deny Russian interference with elections
5) Trump is publically decrying investigations into our national security, but only in regard to Russia.

Those are the reasons to be concerned... and the justification for an investigation... and the reason to hold the opinion that there is something very fishy going on.

Here are the reasons to deny anything is fishy:

1) no one has tweeted or posted on facebook any highly confidential "nail-in-the-coffin" information about the currently ongoing investigation

 

[Malintent]

Possibly, but the important part is that he's been trained in the L. Ron Hubbard School of Perpetuating Bullshit. Now, suddenly, we're talking about evolution rather than the OP question of whether or not Trump will be impeached. This is intentional, and a dodge meant to draw attention away from a previous (and easily exposed) attempt at perpetuating bullshit.

A little up the thread (before the appropriately hilarious DeForest Kelley meme) WP said this:



A demand that people who said "yeah, he'll be impeached" provide evidence before the discussion can move forward.

WP subsequently said:

I have no demands

Goddammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an E-meter!

But there's more bullshit:

Whether he is or not is beside the point.

"He" being Trump and "is or not" referencing possible impeachment:

The only conclusion is that there is no way of telling if Trump is impeachable at this stage. Whether he is impeachable or not is another question.

This is actually a masterstroke of bullshit. L. Ron would be proud. Dr. McCoy's face aside, the fact is that any president is impeachable. Clinton's impeachment proved that impeachment can be had for the price of a stained blue dress. Trump is absolutely impeachable. That became an option the moment he took the oath of office. There is actually no question at all as to whether or not he's impeachable...he is...every president is...but WP wants to change the subject.

The OP is a simple question. WP is deliberately making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Evolution came up so I evolved my points regarding that.
Simply put, Impeachment requires more than saying impeach.

You keep saying that, and every single time someone tells you you're wrong and then proceeds to explain why. How has it not sunk in yet that our president can be impeached for any reason at any time?

No
There must be specific reasons under
High Crimes
Treason
Bribery
Misdemeanors

Under Article II the US Constitution Section IV the President can be removed from office if convicted of any of the above listed items

Furthermore and for avoidance of doubt the Lower House must vote for any of the above charges in order that the Impeachment can proceed in the Senate. This is akin to an indictment in a court.

The Senate will then conduct the Impeachment like a court; but 2/3 must vote for a conviction. The procedure is akin to a court trial with a judge and jury.

So there have to be reasons not just any reason(s)

You are confusing indictment with impeachment. Everything you listed (except the senate vote) is required for Indictment. Indictment is the accusation of a crime.. .following that would be a criminal trial.
Impeachment need only have the 2/3 senate vote. Impeachment is the firing of an elected official. The President can be fired by the senate. period. That is just how it works.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Possibly, but the important part is that he's been trained in the L. Ron Hubbard School of Perpetuating Bullshit. Now, suddenly, we're talking about evolution rather than the OP question of whether or not Trump will be impeached. This is intentional, and a dodge meant to draw attention away from a previous (and easily exposed) attempt at perpetuating bullshit.

A little up the thread (before the appropriately hilarious DeForest Kelley meme) WP said this:



A demand that people who said "yeah, he'll be impeached" provide evidence before the discussion can move forward.

WP subsequently said:

I have no demands

Goddammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an E-meter!

But there's more bullshit:

Whether he is or not is beside the point.

"He" being Trump and "is or not" referencing possible impeachment:

The only conclusion is that there is no way of telling if Trump is impeachable at this stage. Whether he is impeachable or not is another question.

This is actually a masterstroke of bullshit. L. Ron would be proud. Dr. McCoy's face aside, the fact is that any president is impeachable. Clinton's impeachment proved that impeachment can be had for the price of a stained blue dress. Trump is absolutely impeachable. That became an option the moment he took the oath of office. There is actually no question at all as to whether or not he's impeachable...he is...every president is...but WP wants to change the subject.

The OP is a simple question. WP is deliberately making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Evolution came up so I evolved my points regarding that.
Simply put, Impeachment requires more than saying impeach.

You keep saying that, and every single time someone tells you you're wrong and then proceeds to explain why. How has it not sunk in yet that our president can be impeached for any reason at any time?

No
There must be specific reasons under
High Crimes
Treason
Bribery
Misdemeanors

Under Article II the US Constitution Section IV the President can be removed from office if convicted of any of the above listed items

Furthermore and for avoidance of doubt the Lower House must vote for any of the above charges in order that the Impeachment can proceed in the Senate. This is akin to an indictment in a court.

The Senate will then conduct the Impeachment like a court; but 2/3 must vote for a conviction. The procedure is akin to a court trial with a judge and jury.

So there have to be reasons not just any reason(s)

You are confusing indictment with impeachment. Everything you listed (except the senate vote) is required for Indictment. Indictment is the accusation of a crime.. .following that would be a criminal trial.
Impeachment need only have the 2/3 senate vote. Impeachment is the firing of an elected official. The President can be fired by the senate. period. That is just how it works.

Not certain why people are even bothering with this person. They clearly don't understand that Congress can fire the President if the Congress has the votes. There is no recourse. If the Congress wants it, they can do it... for any reason.