Mostly people told me instead what he did that was right, and how corrupt things were, etc. I actually knew these things myself. I was more interested considering the calls for impeachment for what he had actually done wrong that there was actual evidence from, and not some article claiming that there was evidence.

When I say evidence I am speaking of something that any of us can go and research and find out the evidence is there and it is real. For let's face it they've been claiming evidence for all sorts of things going all the way back to just days after the election in November. That evidence will mysteriously not appear, and they'll move onto yet another article with the new evidence.

Now in the process of replying to people they did lead me into remembering something that I think he has done wrong. I don't know that it was illegal. In fact it is really the only thing he did that his opposition was suddenly happy and cheering him on. John "Insane" McCain, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and others were virtually dancing they were so happy.

The "Sarin Gas" attack happened in Syria supposedly perpetrated by Assad who had just gotten very favorable reactions from the U.S. So suddenly he is apparently stupid and gases some people. Trump is shown some photos of dying kids taking their last gasp. He orders a missile strike. This was a mistake. First Assad is not a dumb guy, he's actually a doctor. This would have been the most stupid of blunders ever for him to do when he was suddenly getting what he wanted. It was not a stupid move if your goal was to make the U.S. react and reverse all the progress towards what Assad was seeking. Furthermore did you check out any of the clean up photos and the gear they were wearing and the water trucks. That was not sarin gas. Those cleanup crews would be dead if it was. It likely was Chlorine Gas which the water trucks can effectively neutralize, would lead to gasping children, and doesn't require suits and such to protect the cleanup crew.

So Trump reacted to the emotionally stirring photos, didn't consider motives, evidence, etc. He saw the pictures, believed what he was being told and ordered the missile strike. This was wrong. It was not illegal. It was not an impeachable offense.

Plus, many of the people who would want to impeach him were happy and virtually dancing when he did this. "Now he is finally acting like a president" Why? Because they are war mongers. They have no interest in peaceful resolution.

So why did I write this. @kidsysco just shared a new article on the slack he and I are part of stating that he now had the evidence I was asking for. I figured I would share that article here and dissect it in this post rather than spamming our slack Politics_religion_and_BS channel. :)

NewRepublic.com article - Democrats Should Proudly Call for Trump’s Impeachment

So let us begin. I am going to quote parts of it and make my observations. I may come to other conclusions as I finish it. I started reading it once and was getting ready to start quoting in slack when I realized I should just do it as a post.

When Trump disclosed code-word intelligence to the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador to the U.S. in the Oval Office on a lark two weeks ago, he endangered the life of an Israeli spy who had infiltrated the Islamic State.

Is there actual evidence of this yet? I have been unable to find anything. In fact, from what I have been able to determine he spoke to the Russians about laptop bombs and terror threats related to them. In fact, many public news sources in the U.S. had spoken about this same thing prior to this meeting so it was public. What he chose to speak to the Russians about is not illegal, and is not an impeachable offense. They may form a kangaroo court and try to make it one, but not only does he have the right to do this, every president before him has shared similar information and made the decision when to do so. The president actually CAN choose to declassify information. The CIA, FBI, and NSA are not a branch of the government. We have the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. Any such restrictions could only come from those places, but in this case the President actually can legally do this.

Does it make it smart or wrong? Perhaps not. Yet it is not setting a precedent. It is the norm. The only different thing in the news here is that the presidents name is Donald Trump and somehow that makes a lot of things that have been normal throughout many past presidencies suddenly taboo.

Trump told those same Russians that firing FBI Director James Comey—whom he described as “a real nut job”—relieved “great pressure because of Russia.” Weeks earlier, he reportedly asked Comey to wind down his investigation of ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn, and when he decided to fire Comey, he told NBC’s Lester Holt, “I said to myself, I said, you know this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.”

Yeah? I have no doubts he said this. The assumption people are choosing to draw from this and treat as fact is that this is the ONLY reason he was fired. I thought he should have been fired before Trump was even inaugurated. I view Comey and the Russian B.S. as the last straw. Knowing how Trump speaks I have no doubt he spoke about the latest thorn in his side from Comey. The false assumption being passed as though it is factual is that this is the ONLY motive Trump had. Comey did a lot of shady and dicey things. All you had to do is sit through CSPAN (thus unedited by MSM) of visits Comey had with Congress to see how shifty and unwilling to commit to much of anything Comey was. Obama should have fired his ass if he actually wanted someone willing to commit to justice and not choosing to find ways to avoid it.

Every individual item on this devastating bill of particulars eclipses the combined level of wrongdoing Republicans have sought to pin on Democratic leaders over the past decades, starting with President Bill Clinton’s sexual depravity, through the confusing miasma of Benghazi conspiracy theories under President Barack Obama, and ending with Hillary Clinton’s rule-breaking email protocols.

Which bill? Just start talking about a bill and how bad it is without actually linking to the bill. Or perhaps he is meaning the "Trump Bill" or Trump as a whole. Yet the thing is that all of those things you mentioned have actual evidence. A lot of that evidence (especially on Benghazi) was actually in Hillary's emails. It is public. You can read it. I could care less about Bill Clinton's sexual escapades if it is consensual and they are OF AGE. Those issues are between him, Hillary, and who he has sex with. If they are children or it was not consensual then that is another story. In which case he should be in jail and that actually would be far worse than what Trump has done since the only actual evidence so far (I'm still reading) is that he fired on Syria based upon information from his advisors and it didn't really get any thoughtful investigation.

So I guess assumptions, hearsay, and people saying they "have evidence" counts for more than those other things. Even if Benghazi resulted in a lot of U.S. deaths, lead to the formation of ISIS and such. That is not as bad as allegedly leaking this spies identity to the Russians who is embedded in ISIS. If you believe that to be true then you use a very different scale when weighing good and evil than I do.

Each Trump scandal is well-documented, and a source of enduring national humiliation.

Yeah they are extremely well DOCUMENTED. Yet they lack evidence. It is one string of speculation treated as fact after another. Many of them are incredibly trivial to boot and simply intentionally hyped by the media.

It’s why some rank-and-file Democrats, like House representatives Maxine Waters and Al Green, are calling for his impeachment now.

Maxine Walters is not clean of guilt. She's starting to be found out for some of the illegal things she's been involved with. Rank and FILE does not mean good. Need I go back to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John McCain being happy when Trump shot missiles into Syria? They are rank and file as well. Nice appeal to authority this article attempts to make though.

And yet, it is the position of nearly every leading Democrat that for both political and substantive reasons—the fear of “crying wolf,” the procedural obstacles, the lack of a completed investigation—liberals should not be calling for Trump’s impeachment.

Yeah they'd look pretty stupid until there is actual evidence that they can actually look at and that is not based upon assumptions, and main stream media pushing speculation as fact.

Democrats accomplish nothing by pretending Trump hasn’t earned at least an impeachment inquiry,

They need evidence. So far this article still has not presented any. A lot of it has been assumption (aka speculation as to motive).

Retaining ownership of his business empire doesn’t place Trump in violation of any laws per se, but he is in violation of the Constitution and of laws, if he’s used that business to accept bribes from governments.

This indeed would be an issue. You simply need the evidence to prove it. Because a person can imagine it as true does not make your imagination suddenly real.

Trump has the unquestioned authority to fire the FBI director, but if his purpose in firing the FBI director is to cover up a crime, then he is nevertheless guilty of obstruction—much as my authority to own a kitchen knife does not allow me to use it as a murder weapon.

Again pushing the latest Comey act as though it is the sole motive for his firing. If you think that you have very short term memory. This again is NOT evidence. It is assumption and speculation as to motive.

“Congress has alleged oath violations—albeit violations tied to criminal allegations or breaches of statutory obligations—all three times it has passed or considered seriously articles of impeachment against presidents,” they wrote. “There’s thus no reason why Congress couldn’t consider a grotesque violation of the President’s oath as a standalone basis for impeachment—a high crime and misdemeanor in and of itself.”

As long as they have evidence and can prove it is true. Speculations do not become truths without ACTUAL evidence. Saying "we have evidence" and then not producing it is also not evidence.

Done

Okay done. There once again was nothing new and no actual evidence in this article. There was a lot of speculation, and assumptions. That is not evidence. We can all produce that type of information about anything we like. Simply because it makes our world view feel safe to believe our own speculations does not mean they actually are true.

Impeachment will require actual evidence. I am still looking for that.

Me and Trump

I am actually not a Trump fan. I'll freely admit I despise Hillary. I did vote for Obama in 2008, but I grew to regret that. I learned from it. I would have voted for Al Gore way back when. I was a delegate for Ron Paul in the GOP in 2008 and 2012. So this is not about party for me. I actually voted Libertarian in 2012 and 2016.

I find myself defending Trump for only a couple of reasons. The media has been massively biased AGAINST him since before he even was elected. I found myself defending him even back then and I didn't vote for him. The bias is so over the top blatant.

There is a tremendous amount of passing off speculation as though it is fact. The Washington Post posted about the Russians and this leaking of "classified" information and they were ecstatic about their ratings boost. Yet it was information already in the public before the meeting with the Russians. It was another case of another hyped article based upon assumptions and speculation that was being trotted out as fact.

The truth of the matter is a large portion of our so-called journalism is "drivel". It appeals purely to your emotions and it consists of very little in the way of what we call critical thinking.

This piece I just reviewed falls in that category as well. Sorry @kidsysco there isn't actually any evidence in this post. Hearsay, speculation, and assumption. Nothing you and I can actually research and find the evidence, and nothing impeachable. Even though some people REALLY want him impeached.

Keep in mind there were many people calling for his impeachment before he had even been inaugurated and was in office. What was his crime then? He said scary words...

I'd love to not have to defend Trump. Yet the emotional idiocy and sheer onslaught of propaganda is so deafening that I feel the need to fight back.

Has Trump done something WRONG other than Syria? I have no clue. Has he done anything legally wrong? Not that I am aware of. I've seen no actual evidence just a lot of talking about "we have evidence", "there is evidence".... much like the FAUX NEWS documentary that showed how these networks will use "Some people say..." to support their claim on broadcasts over the year as though that is their credible source, when the credible source is themselves. "evidence says" seems to be the new "some people say", because just like in those cases where there was no actual source... they seem to be able to casually claim evidence these days whenever they want without actually producing any.