I think the President should be impeached, which verb means, literally, to accuse. That implies a trial.
That would be a nice change from your earlier posts where you were advocating for Obama to be removed without any mention of a trial or process. However as you previously were advocating for extralegal action, and you have latched on to at least 5 completely separate conspiracy theories about him that have lead others to advocate for the same action, it is hard to imagine that you are serious about an interest in actual due process.
It's possible that he's purely innocent,
Being as you have a grocery list of different events you want to throw him out over:
Benghazi, the IRS, Fast & Furious, &c?
It is hard to envision a point at which you would ever consider such a label as "innocent" for Obama.
You've conjured some violent hypothetical, accused me of carrying it out, and are holding me rhetorically accountable for "crimes" that neither I nor anyone I know have so much even kind of hinted at, much less, contemplated.
You have repeatedly advocated for the removal of the president, and only recently have you pretended to care about whether it was done in a legal process or not. As I pointed out before, when you are advocating for the removal of a president without a trial, you are advocating for a violent removal. A violent removal seldom goes well for the one removed.
And being as your list of conspiracy theories just keeps growing as time goes on it is likely that even if a trial were to occur for theory A, and Obama was not thrown out over it, you would only yell louder for conspiracies B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and (and the very least) J to be prosecuted with even more vigor.
I'm moving in the direction of not needing to reply to your posts any further, frankly
I'm not sure I would notice much of a difference. You aren't really replying anyways. But is that new JE for me?