How would the absolute nature of innocence be affected in any way by a trial, if one were innocent?

Which is not the same thing as saying you know the President to be innocent.

One obvious way is to note that, were any of the previous whitewashings, in fact, adequate, there would not be further investigations.

Our political system has never seen the likes of the IRS suppression of dissent, and the Benghazi suppression of truth that have, unfortunately, clouded the outcome of the 2012 election. Precedent must be set, sir.

How shall I judge them disconnected? All I have is the river of prevarication that you represent, and I have to tell you that your every weasel word does nothing to support your cause.

I guess you'd have to confine yourself to simple, historically factual, dispassionate, balanced, collegial arguments. The Left spent the last decade carpet bombing Bush in particular, and conservatives in general, so badly with rhetoric. You won. You got the rodeo clown into office and re-elected. And now your rhetorical chickens are coming home to roost. It should indeed bother you that the Left's (politicians and media) countless false accusations of are called out and attacked. This IS racism, and it's done to divide Americans and amass power. Be honest about it; let's purge the country of falsehood, and build a meritocracy.

Help me understand how a man who is actually innocent could ever be guilty. Sure, there will always be liars who hurl accusations (see, for example, statements on this website by people you know) but innocence is an absolute state. It's almost as though you kind of suspect the President may be guilty, and you're more interested in gaming the system, as with unreliable investigations, than you are in proving innocence and providing justice for the slain.

I have not once done so. Let me double down. I have never once sought to manipulate your speech. In fact, I have never attempted to coerce directly anyone to say anything. Which is not the same as saying I've never encouraged honesty, nor attempted to get you to speak truthfully, nor failed to admit where I (in this JE thread, for example) have veered into inaccuracy. Integrity, dude: it's what's for breakfast. Not force feeding you, but do eat up. Please.

Are you in creative writing mode again? I assure you: I'm not (though it sounds as though you may be) talking about the Full Clinton.

I'm not sure anything resembling an "independent" investigation has occurred for any of the myriad of scandals in the last five years.

I don't know. Maybe. . . .BE innocent?

The ski jump logic got wild there. I am pretty sure I'm NOT the GOP, and this is a hypothetical future case where somebody else would be disagreeing with Obama (the definition of racism, to some). How, exactly, that amounts to YOU calling anyone racist is unclear. Though, admittedly, in keeping with your style.

The justice system, too will require rebuilding if there is to be any traditional sense of justice regained. Like traditional marriage, justice has been taking major hits for many decades. Lord have mercy.

I would love to see some justice, but I'm not sure it's attainable. Were Obama innocent, he should welcome an exoneration. THEN the GOP could be both raaaaacist and wrong, amIright? The simple truth is that I care as much about an impeachment proceeding as I do the question of the lat/long of his mother at his birth--What. Difference. Does/Would. It. Make?
Does it offend you if I'm kind of past caring?

I should think Obama's record the best answer for this question. Do you think there is evidence that he has deviated from his oath of office?
For my part, I'm emotionally past the question. If you yourself think that BHO was born in Kenya, then maybe you should demand his ouster. I'm not wasting my breath.

For which of Obama's alleged indiscretions would you recommend this procedure? Or, could a composite series of charges be proffered? I really can't be too specific until you tell me what charge(s) you think worthy.

I suppose I was enthusiastic until the 2012 election. However, think of that election as a quasi-referendum on the topic; the fact that Obama won re-election* pretty well indicates that not enough Americans felt strongly enough to deliver his ouster. Now I'm ambivalent.
Conversely, the jacked up pile of frack since 2012 that is Obama's third two year period does not bode well for anyone not named Soros. The question moves to whether Obama can deliver as much damage to Her Majesty in the last two years as he did in 2008. If there really IS to be an impeachment, wouldn't it be funnier if the people calling for it were Harry and Nancy, in the hopes of restoring some shred of credibility to the party of Sandra Fluke?

Um, truth?

I'm really more "pro reform". To your point, I've never explicitly said I am "actively against" impeachment. I figure, after this November's GOP wave, there is going to be some sort of circus, which the Democrats will try to turn away from the truth and into some manufactured raaaaacism screed. They need such a move to regain the tempo in advance of Her Majesty's coronation in 2016.
None of which is meant to proclaim Obama's innocence of anything.

Maybe we can agree, irrespective of the IRS scandal, that the existing tax system is a wash, and we need something shorter & clearer. The irony is that we have crusaders like Her Majesty wailing about the need to tax the rich, while pumping the loopholes like mad. But that's the sort of prevarication one expects from our neo-aristocracy.

I mean, your Orwellian claptrap is ruin. What sane person wants your ruin?

I'm sorry, have elections had consequences?

Hey, didn't the no-talent rodeo clown campaign on the 'Stan as the correct war?

The only thing that can improve college access is getting the federal government out of education, which was and remains a 10th Amendment violation.

Was it a party-line vote like the Affordable Care Act, please?

It was silly of me to expect other than crap from you.

Conservative, in the sense of any elected official in the federal government who has an (R) after their name, or anyone who supports them enthusiastically.

So you say 'Conservative' where I would say 'Progressive'. Fine.

I kind of agree with you, from the standpoint that BHO is pure concrete galoshes for the Democrats. The more of their crypto-Marxist twaddle he blows up and takes with him, the better.

Look at your cheap deflections! GM is about crappy domestic policy, not crappy foreign policy. And I'm all for the workers, and dead-set against the UAW.

What I have is a useless President. Every time that clown 'pivots to jobs' another fistful get whacked. Stand by for him to stand up and request another Keynesian coke-hit to keep him buzzed until Her Majesty arrives.

Should I read that liar, Dana Milbank?

Now who's the illiterate one? I've been arguing the unlikelihood of impeachment for a long time, and actively against it for the last few weeks. See above in this reply.

Rodeo clown, rodeo clown, rodeo clown. Apparently the high percentage of validity contained in that description bothers you. Rodeo clown.