Do You Think President Trump Will Be Impeached?

by minimus 240 Replies latest jw friends

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @minimus: no I don’t think so. If they take the House, they will find some small thing... like he didn’t pay $100 of taxes he should have paid 30 years ago on some small sale.... Or they may even just go for it on the hype. I think the left is nucking futs with hatred.

  • sir82
    sir82

    if you are talking about a post-term trial, they would have to list the criminal charges EXACTLY.

    Ahem...well, duh!

    Mueller & company are experienced prosecutors with hundreds of successful convictions.

    They're not suddenly going to bring Trump (or anyone) to trial for stupid or flimsy reasons.

    Rest assured, when Trump is arraigned, there will be a (very long) list of (very specific) charges.

    He is also behaving exactly like you would expect an innocent man to behave.

    I love this. No further comment. Just.....love it.

  • Simon
    Simon
    No reasonable person, who wants to have a president that is serious, responsible and decent, can ever support this lunatic staying in the office.

    Many people felt exactly the same way about the Clinton and Obama comedy duo ... except they were causing real harm to the world and society.

    Weren't we meant to have had WWIII started yet? Hands up anyone who thinks there wouldn't be a major military operation going on right now if Clinton was in charge.

    And if any of his supporters pause and reflect on whether they would support Trump if he had run as a democrat, and the answer is no, then you are a moron, that doesn't realize you are in a cult, and like the Jehovah Witnesses are willing to support any drivel as long as it's part of you tribe.

    FYI: From now on, any "you must be in a cult" comments will just be deleted. It's the equivalent of claiming someone must be a nazi.

    Now, will he be impeached? I doubt it.. I think Trump will lose the next election before that happens. And if democrats can't win an election after Trump's first term, which by all accounts is a near-disgrace, then they should disband their party, and start over again.

    Given that Clinton had the debate questions, 90% of the press, the IRS and the FBI all working for her and every celebrity on the planet giving free concerts and shoutouts ... and she still lost it ... against apparently the dumbest man to walk the earth. Shouldn't they already pack up and go away?

    Their only chance was to try and oust him quickly. Now he's shown that Obama's "we can't have real jobs or growth" was pure BS and incompetence, they have no chance of beating him, especially as we all know Clinton is going to show up to have her turn again.

    This is why there is so much crying and media spin going on. It's the death throes.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @sir82:

    Your post is basically: Meuller will get him. Any day now. We will have him. Because he’s obviously guilty. He’s got the evidence and he’s keeping it secret so that Trump can’t get out in front of it. But he has it!!!!

    I love this. No further comment. Just.....love it.

    Wow, you convinced me with you air tight logic.

  • Simon
    Simon
    E.g., there is nothing in any legal statute about "bumping off" your business partner, either, but lack of that term in a statute book does not make murder legal.

    There is a clear legal statue though - that's murder and you would be guilty of it. If you want to find someone guilty of "a thing" then they need to have done that thing specifically, not something that a broad, vague interpretation would cover. You are making the vagueness in the wrong direction.

    A few charges that may be brought up:
    -- Obstruction of justice
    -- Witness tampering
    -- Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
    -- Conspiracy to defraud the United States
    There are others as well, that's just off the top of my head.

    In the same way that you could be charged with murder, rape, fraud and lots of others that I just came up with ...

    ... but only if you actually did those things.

    Just listing potential crimes is not an argument or evidence.


  • sir82
    sir82

    He’s got the evidence and he’s keeping it secret so that Trump can’t get out in front of it. But he has it!!!!

    Well, yes. That's exactly it.

    I don't understand your puzzlement.

    If a prosecutor is investigating a racketeer & building a case against him, does he call up the racketeer, and alert the press, prior to arraignment to say "here's what we've got on you so far"?

    Special counsel probes are of course much longer and more carefully executed than typical DA cases, of course.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-long-special-prosecutor-mueller-trump-2017-6

    A chart from Compass Point's Issac Boltansky and Lukas Davaz shows that the average length of special counsel investigations, dating back to Watergate, is 904 days.

    The longest a special counsel has maintained an investigation was the look into President Bill Clinton's Whitewater real-estate deals. That investigation eventually morphed with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It went on for 2,978 days.

    The investigation into the arms deals around the Iran-Contra affair under President Ronald Reagan went on for 2,420 days.

    It has been 365 days since Mueller was appointed.(Note: Article is from May 2018)

  • sir82
    sir82

    Just listing potential crimes is not an argument or evidence.

    Of course not.

    But then, I'm not a prosecutor, so my opinion is meaningless.

    But, there are dozens if not hundreds of legal scholars who have written opinions on this stuff. Some say Trump could easily be charged with these things; others say no.

    Personally, I find the arguments "for" Trump being charged with the various crimes listed to be more compelling. YMMV.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @sir82:

    Oh sure, I don’t doubt that. If I was a special council, I would want to ride that gravy train for as long as I could.

    He’s already had one side-show trial with Manafort. That trial has nothing to do with anything, except maybe intimidation.

    Maybe he’ll find some tax problem somewhere in year 3.

  • sir82
    sir82

    That trial has nothing to do with anything, except maybe intimidation.

    I'm having a really hard time following you.

    That trial had to do with the specific charges against Manafort. There were 32 such charges, mostly dealing with tax fraud.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @sir82: Right, I wasn’t clear: it has nothing to do with Trump, Russia, “collusion”, the election, etc. Meuller went into the distant past because he was given no boundaries on the investigation, dug up some stuff, and who knows if he will be convicted, but it certainly was a side-show...

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit