geo wrote:
Yes, I'm surprised that anyone is talking about impeachment at this stage. Trump has not been proven to have committed any crimes.
What???? So, if my wife is found murdered in my house and all the evidence points to me, I should not be charged because no one has proven I did it??? See, you have to charge the person first in order to prove he did it. That's called a trial. But before a trial can be begin, charges have to be filed. You DO know that what the word "impeach" means right? Of course Trump must be impeached, it is the only way his guilt can be established or dismissed.
His comment to Comey: "I hope you can let this go” is not a specific request to end the Flynn investigation and not enough to warrant a charge of obstruction of justice.
Actually it is. Trump did not say, "I don't want to butt in here but Flynn is a good guy and I've never known him to do anything illegal or unethical." That's okay. He can say that. But he cannot say that he hopes Comey will stop the investigation, which is what he meant by "let it go." That's obstruction by iself. And then he fires him--big red flag! Moreover, Trump asked everyone to leave the room before he talked with Comey. That's suspicious. If they were all present, they all become accessories to Trump's obstruction. it indicates that Trump knew what he was doing was illegal. He did the same thing when he wanted Comey's loyalty--he got Comey alone and asked him in private. It was the privacy issue that prompted Comey to make memos in the first place because it was only proof he had of what happened. He didn't like what Trump was doing. It's all the more damning because the Trump administration has a policy against contact between the WH and the Justice Department except in national security matters that this did not fall under that. Also, since Trump had already fired Flynn, why vouch for him as a good guy? Why bother? Yet Trump tries to stop the investigation of a man he fired. That indicates that he feared that the investigation may lead to him or to others he is currently trying to protect. If that's the case then that's illegal.
The memo is ultimately Comey's side, not to mention that the memo hasn't been released yet.
Comey is a law enforcement officer and a law enforcement officer's memos, notes and reports form the foundation of a case against a defendant and are considered admissible evidence. Comey's memos CAN be used as evidence against Trump because he is a sworn law enforcement officer. If a cop busts you and says you tried to bribe him, the court takes that to be the case. Your lawyer will get nowhere telling the cop on the witness stand. "That's just YOUR version of events. My client said it didn't happen." Of course you're going to say that. But the court won't side with you. An LEO's statements are taken as evidence. Now, granted, they don't want to simply pit Comey against Trump so they are going to look for other evidence that Trump has tried these shenanigans on others or admitted to someone that he did this. And they may decide not to press ahead but they must investigate and the very fact that a special counsel has been appointed indicates there is a lot of evidence to sift through to make a case because the fact that Trump was always careful to do this in private would indicate he wanted no witnesses to his actions.
To discuss impeachment without evidence only feeds into the Republican narrative that there's a witch hunt in progress. It only creates further division in our country. Sorry, you have to wait until Trump actually does something treasonous or illegal before we start an impeachment process, which itself would be very divisive and damaging.
No you don't have to wait. That's stupid when you have enough to go after him. They have enough. Trump's exact words on the firing of Comey:
"And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won."
Right there is an admission that he fired Comey over the Russian investigation. Doesn't matter if he thought it was a made-up story. It's an official investigation. Then he said he welcomed Mueller to get to the bottom of it. Why didn't he just say that about Comey? Why fire him then? Why not just say, "I welcome Comey to get to the bottom of this." Because he thought firing him would be the end of it. Now he knows it is not. If there is no evidence against him, he has gone through a lot of trouble and hurt himself trying to kill these investigation that he now says he welcomes. Plus there are too many contradictory stories floating around within the White House about Trump's actions. That indicates a cover-up.
No, I'm afraid there needs to be an investigation and that it will end with a recommendation for an impeachment.