Merged Is a a Trump impeachment likely?

[Babbylonian]

So it's a sunk cost issue as much as a partisan issue?

They could abandon the beast anytime and lose nothing. It only takes a 10-second look at the order of succession to see that the alternatives are more re-electable than the beast.

That's the truly demented thing about the defenders. They think that keeping it around will somehow accrue to their advantage when elections roll around again, ignoring the fact that every time someone opens their mouth in its defense they lose credibility and can't get that credibility back as long as the beast continues to occupy the Oval Office.

 

[CORed]

It may be wishful thinking, but while I think impeachment is extremely unlikely, I think resignation is a good possibility. I think Trump might just get sick of the media constantly (from his viewpoint) persecuting him and frustrated by not being able to get much through Congress, and executive orders being overturned by the courts, and decide to take his ball and go home. If he doesn't resign, he might decide not to run for a second term.

 

[Spindrift]

They could abandon the beast anytime and lose nothing. It only takes a 10-second look at the order of succession to see that the alternatives are more re-electable than the beast.

That's the truly demented thing about the defenders. They think that keeping it around will somehow accrue to their advantage when elections roll around again, ignoring the fact that every time someone opens their mouth in its defense they lose credibility and can't get that credibility back as long as the beast continues to occupy the Oval Office.

The Republicans are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

If they act too quickly, they risk alienating the Trump believers. There is quite a lot of them and the Republicans need them to win. Republican leadership will not move against Trump until there is overwhelming evidence against him.

If they take too long, they risk losing the the Senate and maybe the House in 2020 or even 2018.

 

[Tony Stark]

18 USC Section 4

Obstruction being a felony, Comey would have had an obligation to report it to a judge, the Attorney General or some other authority. I guess it remains possible that he did indeed report it but in that case it seems odd that we wouldn't have heard about it already; I mean, there's your impeachable offense right there.

The federal definition of misprision requires that, “(1) the principal committed and completed the felony alleged; (2) the defendant had knowledge of the fact; (3) the defendant failed to notify the authorities; and (4) the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principal.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../misprision-of-felony/?utm_term=.ed096850afd0

He could probably argue that he didn't do (3) given that he was an authority. Even if not, he shared the memos with other authorities.

And he didn't do (4), Just the opposite, he took affirmative steps to make sure that other authorities knew what happened.

 

[portlandatheist]

Because it's easier than acknowledging that not only is it likely a criminal that needs to be impeached, but it has done nothing particularly useful for its own supporters, let alone the entire nation. Defending it is, at virtually every level, the most empty of gestures; the only thing truly accomplished is making "liberals/progressives" angry, which for some I guess is a primary goal. It's too bad that it's apparently necessary to flush the quality of our government down the toilet to fully accomplish such a laudable goal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/...trump-must-be-doing-something-right.html?_r=0

"But the real heart of anti-anti-Trumpism is the delight in the frustration and anger of his opponents. Mr. Trump’s base is unlikely to hold him either to promises or tangible achievements, because conservative politics is now less about ideas or accomplishments than it is about making the right enemies cry out in anguish."

Trump isn't a really much of a conservative, but I feel your comments and the NYT piece are correct, the best part about Trump is pissing off liberals, and by that benchmark, he is doing an outstanding job. Even some of his supporters here seem to know he is completely rudderless and unhinged but support him just the same. It is extremely toxic tribalism at work here.

 

[angrysoba]

Don't just single out the republicans. The first thing that any politician will think of before voting either way on an impeachment issue is, "Is my seat safe?"

Seriously though, this is just another straw to clutch at. Donald Trump is so despised in this forum that he could solve world poverty and implement every progressive agenda in the book and everybody here would still be saying "hang him!"

What do you suggest drives this animus?

It's not mere partisanship. Like many others, I would take almost any Republican president over Trump. And now the question is whether we would take a Pence over a Trump. Pence would be bad and I would oppose almost everything he stands for, but Trump is a complete disaster. He is at odds with his own White House, his own staff and he tweets contradictory things without batting an eyelid. He is astonishingly self-absorbed and apparently unable to see any value in the truth. The Republicans worried about their seats should know that they are trying to gain some short term advantage for a legacy of shame. People may look back on Trump as the most ignominious episode in electoral history and his enablers will be vilified. This might not happen if his presidency blows over quickly but if there is any kind of crisis that the president has to deal with then this could be a real nightmare.

 

[ddt]

What do you suggest drives this animus?

It's not mere partisanship. Like many others, I would take almost any Republican president over Trump. And now the question is whether we would take a Pence over a Trump. Pence would be bad and I would oppose almost everything he stands for, but Trump is a complete disaster. He is at odds with his own White House, his own staff and he tweets contradictory things without batting an eyelid. He is astonishingly self-absorbed and apparently unable to see any value in the truth. The Republicans worried about their seats should know that they are trying to gain some short term advantage for a legacy of shame. People may look back on Trump as the most ignominious episode in electoral history and his enablers will be vilified. This might not happen if his presidency blows over quickly but if there is any kind of crisis that the president has to deal with then this could be a real nightmare.

That, of course, assumes there is a future post-Trump for all of us, and not just for a few survivors in shelters trying to rebuild society after a nuclear armageddon that was precipitated by one of those tweets.

 

[Upchurch]

Like many others, I would take almost any Republican president over Trump. And now the question is whether we would take a Pence over a Trump. Pence would be bad and I would oppose almost everything he stands for, but Trump is a complete disaster.

I like to think about them in terms of alignment: Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil?

 

[Noztradamus]

I believe I'm cute.

Evidence?

 

[Noztradamus]

I noticed that no one else has posted this particular news item regarding a Trump impeachment, so I will do so now ...

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-odds-impeach-comey-611015

TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ODDS: PRESIDENT NOT LIKELY TO SERVE FOUR YEARS, ACCORDING TO BOOKMAKERS

...

British betting company Ladbrokes has cut the price of a Trump impeachment to odds-on at 4-5 from 11-10. Those new odds equate to a 55.6 percent probability that the Senate will remove the president from office.

...

And by a strange coincidence odds on at 4-5 was also the odds Ladbrokes were giving of Hillary being elected


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...esident-win-bets-london-gambler-a7404666.html

 

[Cain]

At this point, trying to remove Trump is like getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Why bother? He's already contained. Keep him in office for the mid-terms, and let him try to run for re-election.

Impeachment (and conviction) lets us off too easy. I think someone in another thread compared Trump to national chemotherapy. Elect a clown, expect the circus.

 

[PhantomWolf]

18 USC Section 4

Obstruction being a felony, Comey would have had an obligation to report it to a judge, the Attorney General or some other authority. I guess it remains possible that he did indeed report it but in that case it seems odd that we wouldn't have heard about it already; I mean, there's your impeachable offense right there.

I see others did cover this, but... "other person in civil or military authority under the United States" includes himself and those he sent the memo to, thus you're incorrect.

 

[xjx388]

I see others did cover this, but... "other person in civil or military authority under the United States" includes himself and those he sent the memo to, thus you're incorrect.

Probably right. After reading a bit more about it, I doubt Comey would be in much trouble anyway if anyone actually called him out on this.

 

[McHrozni]

At this point, trying to remove Trump is like getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Why bother? He's already contained. Keep him in office for the mid-terms, and let him try to run for re-election.

Impeachment (and conviction) lets us off too easy. I think someone in another thread compared Trump to national chemotherapy. Elect a clown, expect the circus.

I agree with this to some extent. If Trump is contained and ensures the retard vote is dead for a generation or two then his election and serving one term could be a painful treatment the country needed to get back on track.

It also depends on the extent of beating Republicans get in 2018 and 2020. If it's severe enough for the party to conduct a purge of retards, if it splits into a conservative and retard wings, then it could be good for the country, overall.

The only problem then is that it could take many, many years for a non-democrat to be elected president. This too is problematic for democracy.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

I agree with this to some extent. If Trump is contained and ensures the retard vote is dead for a generation or two then his election and serving one term could be a painful treatment the country needed to get back on track.

It also depends on the extent of beating Republicans get in 2018 and 2020. If it's severe enough for the party to conduct a purge of retards, if it splits into a conservative and retard wings, then it could be good for the country, overall.

The only problem then is that it could take many, many years for a non-democrat to be elected president. This too is problematic for democracy.

McHrozni

The trouble is that it's all a rather big IF

An alternative is that it doesn't play out that way. The GOP is happy with Trump as President because he draws all the flak while they get on with the business of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich AND he delivers the 20-25% of the US electorate who are his base, many of whom would otherwise not vote.

A combination of Gerrymandering in the House and electoral statistics in the Senate means that the GOP hang onto control of both in 2018, get another SCOTUS appointee or two in and get their tax cuts implemented.

By 2020, the effects of the tax cuts are being felt in terms of a short term bubble fuelled by government debt and enough people have got used to having a man-child as President to re-elect him.

Rather than lancing the boil of the "retard wing", as you call them, this further empowers them and the GOP remember that, like Reagan and Dubya, it's good to have a useless figurehead to act as a focus while you get on with pushing forward your legislation.

They continue to nominate "colourful" candidates because they get elected (in stark contrast to white-bread, sane bland, candidates like Huckabee and McCain).

Trumplike candidates and Trumplike Presidents become the new norm

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think the big IF is whether Mueller finds clear criminal wrongdoings by Trump and his campaign. That should make him toxic, regardless of his base, since it would taint the GOP at least until 2020 if they stick with a known crook - again.
As usual, the question for the Republicans is: can Trump survive this?
No one really thought he could beat the Hollywood Access tapes.
Can he beat the Comey memos?
Let's face it: if anyone can, it's him.

 

[McHrozni]

The combination of intentional gerrymandering and coincidental "gerrymandering" due to the modern tendency of demographic groups to self-segregate makes it unlikely that the Republicans will lose their majority in the House in 2018.

That's not how gerrymandering works at all. If you want to abuse it to increase your vote share you need to have constituencies you want to win rather diverse, with a large block of your core supporters plus as many other groups as you can afford. Your candidates will win with small margins.

You need to stick other constituencies in as monolithic blocs as possible, where they'll elect your opponents with overwhelming margins, your candidates there should be defeated with hefty margins, exceeding 40 points easily. The tendency of demographic groups to self-segregate (there is nothing modern about it by the way) will do more damage to gerrymandering than anything else.

The upshot of this is the Democrats have a very real shot at taking the House, perhaps even score an overwhelming majority. Most of their seats are as safe as they can get, but a substantial portion of Republican seats are competitive. If they make the election a referendum on a lame duck president more than 2/3 of the country wants impeached (a realistic prospect) the only seats Republicans can be calm about are the ones Democrats gerrymandered to disfranchise them.

McHrozni

 

[Babbylonian]

I agree with this to some extent. If Trump is contained and ensures the retard vote is dead for a generation or two then his election and serving one term could be a painful treatment the country needed to get back on track.

It also depends on the extent of beating Republicans get in 2018 and 2020. If it's severe enough for the party to conduct a purge of retards, if it splits into a conservative and retard wings, then it could be good for the country, overall.

The only problem then is that it could take many, many years for a non-democrat to be elected president. This too is problematic for democracy.

McHrozni

The biggest problem with this plan is that it doesn't account for the occupant of the Oval Office being Commander-in-Chief of the military. If there's a crisis and the nation passed on a chance to flush the hellbeast out of the capitol, it could turn into a monstrous mistake. It can't even competently manage its own staff!

 

[McHrozni]

The biggest problem with this plan is that it doesn't account for the occupant of the Oval Office being Commander-in-Chief of the military. If there's a crisis and the nation passed on a chance to flush the hellbeast out of the capitol, it could turn into a monstrous mistake. It can't even competently manage its own staff!

I don't see this as being a very significant factor. No military force in the world can challenge the might of the US military and the ones who come the closest are mostly close US allies. It's true enough that incompetent management from above could make any such resolution more costly to the US forces, but that's about it.

There are only two likely significant flashpoints at this time: North Korea and the Baltics. North Korean military is a joke and wouldn't stand a chance defeating the South in a scenario where North Korea launches an invasion, their only threat is the danger their emplaced guns pose to Seoul. Baltics would require a major Russian mobilization and Russia would be faced with the rest of NATO as well. European NATO allies are able to match Russian forces man for man, tank for tank, plane for plane, if Russia sends the entire military there - including the forces in the Far East, Ukraine, Georgia and the Caucasus, where they're needed to defend against insurgents.

Even if both things happen at the same time the greatest threat would come from Trump winning popular support from rally around the flag effect.

McHrozni

 

[theprestige]

I noticed that no one else has posted this particular news item regarding a Trump impeachment, so I will do so now ...

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-odds-impeach-comey-611015

TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ODDS: PRESIDENT NOT LIKELY TO SERVE FOUR YEARS, ACCORDING TO BOOKMAKERS

...

British betting company Ladbrokes has cut the price of a Trump impeachment to odds-on at 4-5 from 11-10. Those new odds equate to a 55.6 percent probability that the Senate will remove the president from office.

...

What odds did Ladbrokes give for a Trump presidency?

I don't believe Putin tried to tilt the election in Trump's favor. I think Putin had the same analysis from the same pundits, and like everybody else he predicted Hillary Clinton to win. Whatever he did, it should be interpreted with the expectation that Hillary would win.

Anyway, unless Ladbrokes predicted a Trump presidency, I don't think they have the demonstrated competency to accurately predict a Trump impeachment.