Irish oddsmaker gives 33% chance Trump will be impeached

[robkelk]

Added without comment.

Reuters: U.S. House committee to start public impeachment hearings next week

[robkelk]

Steven D'Souza, CBC News: Your Trump impeachment viewing guide

(Steven D'Souza has covered, amongst other stories, the World Cup in Brazil and the G20 protests in Toronto.)

Wednesday's hearing begins at 10 a.m. ET, with live coverage on CBCNews.ca, CBC News Network and the CBC News YouTube and Twitter pages.

Unlike at previous hearings, such as those relating to the final report of the special counsel Robert Mueller, lawyers, not committee members, will do the bulk of the questioning.

Democratic and Republican lawyers will each get up to 45 minutes to question the witnesses. Committee members from both parties will then have their chance, but with just five minutes available to them.

And there's a big infographic detailing what the process is, including a possible timetable.

[Rajvik]

Lets see Rob:
1-i don't think, (would have to check) Johnson even ran for re-election
2-Ford was the "Safe" pick as VP and thus a do nothing,
3-Gore was a FUCKING IDIOT

also, all three of those impeachments had the backing of the public, this one is hotly contested and quite frankly, is not shaping up in the democrats favor. I'll wager anything you want to name that by the time the election is over the republicans will hold both houses (AGAIN) as well as the white house, this is going to go down like the damn Kavenaugh hearings just you wait and watch

[robkelk]

Huh? Johnson, Ford, and Gore were never the subjects of impeachment hearings. I have no idea what that comment has to do with this thread.

As for the second paragraph, I refer you again to the article linked in this forum post.

[Labster]

Andrew Johnson was impeached, Rob. Back in the days when America had a third party. Our electoral system could not handle so many parties, and civil war ensued. We all learned the valuable lesson to only have two parties after that, better for everyone. /s

[Inquisitive Raven]

Huh? Johnson, Ford, and Gore were never the subjects of impeachment hearings. I have no idea what that comment has to do with this thread.

As for the second paragraph, I refer you again to the article linked in this forum post.

Lyndon Johnson wasn't. Andrew Johnson, OTOH... But the latter Johnson predated radio, much less anything even remotely resembling the modern news media.

[Rajvik]

Rob: as Labster and Raven responded, Andrew Johnson, Abraham Lincoln's Vice President was impeached, basically on charges of being a southern loyalist, (partially because back then the winner got the presidency and the loser the vice, the other part because he opposed the republican's plans for reconstruction which did exactly what he feared, engendered a hate against the blacks in the south) which failed in the senate, you can read more about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachmen...ew_Johnson

As to why i brought those three up, i was pointing out why i felt you were mistaken on why the other side of the aisle picked up the white house in the wake of their presidential bids,
As i said, with Andrew Johnson, he didn't run, and the republicans kept the white house for something like the next 30 years due to the southern states not having a say in the government
Ford was a do nothing, kissed ass, but with both sides of the aisle wanting Nixon impeached he didn't stand a chance in hell, and the republicans used him as a place holder, kind of like Mitt Romney
Gore: Oh the things i could get into about mr. "I invented the internet" Instead i'll just leave it at enough people recognized him as the idiot he is and voted against him, and before anyone says anything about Florida, let me point out that the same counties that had problems getting their ballots in on time in 2018, were the ones that mysteriously "found" those "hanging chad" ballots

[robkelk]

It isn't me who's saying the other party gets the White House after an impeachment. It's Prof. Lichtman - the only one who predicted Trump would be elected - who's saying the other party gets the White House after an impeachment.

If you actually read the article, you'll know why mentioning a pre-WWII President isn't playing fair during this discussion.

Ford was a do nothing

Ford pulled the USA out of Vietnam and signed the Helsinki Accords - two things that the electorate had been clamoring for - and did that in a 895-day Presidency. Hardly a "do nothing". He still got kicked out of the Oval Office.

Gore: Oh the things i could get into about mr. "I invented the internet"

Gore never said that. He never claimed that. Wolf Blitzer never asked him about that during the interview where it's been claimed that Gore said that.

Newt Gingrich - Republican Speaker of the House at the time - said "Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet"

Instead i'll just leave it at enough people recognized him as the idiot he is

Al Gore is on the board of directors of Apple and is a senior advisor to Google. Both companies are known for avoiding idiots like the plague.

and before anyone says anything about Florida, let me point out that the same counties that had problems getting their ballots in on time in 2018, were the ones that mysteriously "found" those "hanging chad" ballots

That sounds to me like a pretty good argument to go back to paper ballots counted by people. at least we all know that those work.

---

Oh, yes - the Impeach-O-Meter reading has changed again.

It's no longer at 95% (1:19) - it's now 99% (1:99).

[Labster]

Well, the chance of impeachment just went down quite a bit, given that Trump has suddenly disappeared from public view following a unscheduled visit to Walter Reed Medical Center. But don't worry, a letter from Doctor <NAME NOT SPECIFIED> says that Trump is in perfect health.

I was asked by one of my old college roommates whether or not to take even odds on Trump not finishing his presidency, the first four years. I told him to take it. Back then I thought there would be a small chance he'd quit (lol nope), a big chance he'd be impeached. But also that he's a 75-ish year old man who doesn't seem like a person who lives super healthy -- just the actuarial tables make that bet better, as I've said before.

[robkelk]

Back then I thought there would be a small chance he'd quit (lol nope),

Everybody thought Nixon would never quit... until he did.

[Labster]

No, but I thought he'd ragequit after learning he couldn't make money off the presidency, find out he was expected to actually work every day, or just get fed up of living in the "total dump" called the White House. Turns out he solved those problems by making money off the presidency anyway; scheduling wide swaths of "executive time"; and by taking every excuse to golf, fly to other countries, hold rallies, and declare summits at Mar-a-Lago.

[Dartz]

And Pelosi Pulls the trigger on Trump

It now depends on which way the wind's blowing when its gets to the Senate.

[Matrix Dragon]

I suppose the question is how much longer the GOP can risk not doing their jobs. Given Trump's a lot more popular than a lot of them, it wouldn't shock me if they continue to turtle up and not take action. At this point.l, anyone still willing to take a stand has been driven out...

[classicdrogn]

Tch. I think the People's Nationalist Party for the Republic of Trumpistan (Patsies for short) have already shown exactly how they're going to jump. Not that the Democrats are really any better even if I can't think up a cute nickname so quickly, but at least the moral high ground happened to lie in the direction they're attacking from this time.

e: probably Socialist something something aka Suckers

[Matrix Dragon]

Yeah, but the GOP has been a lot more blatant about not doing their jobs and having no ethics left for the past decade or so.

[hazard]

Just the past decade?

As far as I can tell, the Republicans have been publicly celebrating their lack of ethics since the later Bush jr. administration. Although they were less obvious about it until they declared they'd sandbag everything Obama they could.

[Matrix Dragon]

I was referring to their outright refusal to work. When it comes to outright having no ethics, well, that's not a uniquely US thing. *Gives the ALP a disgusted look*

[robkelk]

I suppose the question is how much longer the GOP can risk not doing their jobs. ...

They're working - you just don't hear about it on the evening news.

[GethN7]

I'm gonna wade in here and put the odds on this actually going anywhere except failure as basically zero.

Whether you like Trump or consider Orange Mad Bad, this has to be the most nakedly partisan impeachment attempt ever done in American history.

Nixon left immutable, irrevocable evidence of his guilt and resigned before his inevitable impeachment would have gone through.

Clinton was impeached, but what he did, while disgraceful, was nowhere near the level of getting him kicked out of office.

Andrew Johnson was impeached for breaking a law later declared unconstitutional and the whole thing was a partisan dagger throwing exercise and even some Republicans weren't willing to die on the hill of such skullduggery.

Trump has even less clearly defined, no wiggle room WHATSOEVER evidence of guilt on him then even Johnson had (at least Johnson blatantly admittedly defying the Tenure of Office Act), and this whole thing is an even more shameless dagger throwing exercise.

If Trump is truly guilty of any truly impeachable offense (and the evidence for that is really shoddy at best from where I sitting), then by all means I want him impeached. However, given the preponderance of all the evidence I've weighed, I have an incredibly hard time seeing this as anything other than yet more evidence the Democrats never got over losing in 2016, and however the dice fall, fine, I'm cool with that.

I just want this to be put to bed one way or the other for good because the US has wasted enough time on this drama.

[robkelk]

Trump didn't do himself any favours by refusing to cooperate with Congress, or by ordering his staff to refuse to cooperate with Congress. Whether that qualifies as "obstruction of Congress" is a matter of debate, but that debate needs to be held in DC. (It does, however, remove any possible argument that he wasn't allowed to have any say in this - he refused to have a say.)

And I've been saying for years in this forum that both sides need to learn how to work with each other. This is what happens when they don't.

[hazard]

Geth, if it was a Democratic president who got assistance from a foreign, hostile government in an election and then tried (and succeeded) in slowing down and otherwise hindering the investigation into the national security implications of that assistance, and then, when that investigation was wrapped up immediately tried to bully another, different foreign government into interfering into the soonest following election in a manner that compromised your nation's security and safety, would you not want their conduct in those matters to be scrutinized with the greatest care? Especially when all the while deliberately denying the investigators any documentation or testimony that would let the investigators get to the truth of the matter?

Frankly, I don't care about party in such circumstances, that shit gets looked at very carefully and permanent disbarring from any office would be the minimum sentence for all involved. Including for the bureaucrats and political appointees who didn't go 'wait a minute, this is a bad plan, I'd better make sure the people who need to check this know to do so'.


And yes, I'm not a US citizen. But if this sort of shit happened in the Netherlands, my expectation would still be 'you can resign or have a motion of no confidence passed, criminal prosecution soon to follow'.

[Labster]

I know GethN7 well enough to know that he's very earnest here, and trying to build common ground. And in terms of the current events he describes, I disagree with him on all the facts.

Part of the reason that it's so hard to follow the facts is that they happened all out of order -- this wouldn't make a good drama, for instance. The halt to foreign aid happened from the day after the Mueller Report was released, all the way until there started to be news reports about an Inspector General report on a national security issue. Then Trump confessed on live TV, which was followed by the whistleblower report coming out. Trump then unconfessed, and called it a witch hunt. Then the congressional investigation began. Zelensky said he was not being pressured while sitting literally right next to Trump on a trip asking for aid. Witnesses began testifying, which were followed by witnesses being subpoenaed, and then deciding not to show up. Mick Mulvaney confirmed the scheme in a press conference, then began denying it. All of the witnesses, including many Trump appointees, confirmed that the hold on aid was an attempt to get another country to investigate the Bidens. No exculpatory evidence was presented, though many attempts were made to identify the whistleblower and call the Bidens to testify -- both of which are immaterial in the instant case. Then the articles of impeachment were written, and here we are.

I always thought the point wasn't that the facts are in dispute, it was whether the action is enough to warrant impeachment.

There are also some things that I think a lot of people don't get. While the President is nominally in charge of the Justice Department, he should not interfere in individual cases, so as to not let politics get involved in the enforcement of law. This is a norm which would be considered part of the Constitution, if we had an unwritten one such as in the U.K. Another thing is that international relations do not work like personal relations -- if they are, it's a failure mode of the system. If we get back to the days when alliances are made by marrying off daughters then this is a serious problem. Third, diplomacy shouldn't be entirely transactional, because a lot of benefits come from trust. For instance, the U.S. has been fine with paying more on defense than Europe for many reasons, but first and foremost that it ensured American hegemony.

[GethN7]

I know GethN7 well enough to know that he's very earnest here, and trying to build common ground.  And in terms of the current events he describes, I disagree with him on all the facts.

Part of the reason that it's so hard to follow the facts is that they happened all out of order -- this wouldn't make a good drama, for instance.  The halt to foreign aid happened from the day after the Mueller Report was released, all the way until there started to be news reports about an Inspector General report on a national security issue.  Then Trump confessed on live TV, which was followed by the whistleblower report coming out.  Trump then unconfessed, and called it a witch hunt.  Then the congressional investigation began.  Zelensky said he was not being pressured while sitting literally right next to Trump on a trip asking for aid.  Witnesses began testifying, which were followed by witnesses being subpoenaed, and then deciding not to show up.  Mick Mulvaney confirmed the scheme in a press conference, then began denying it.  All of the witnesses, including many Trump appointees, confirmed that the hold on aid was an attempt to get another country to investigate the Bidens.  No exculpatory evidence was presented, though many attempts were made to identify the whistleblower and call the Bidens to testify -- both of which are immaterial in the instant case.  Then the articles of impeachment were written, and here we are.

I always thought the point wasn't that the facts are in dispute, it was whether the action is enough to warrant impeachment.

There are also some things that I think a lot of people don't get.  While the President is nominally in charge of the Justice Department, he should not interfere in individual cases, so as to not let politics get involved in the enforcement of law.  This is a norm which would be considered part of the Constitution, if we had an unwritten one such as in the U.K.  Another thing is that international relations do not work like personal relations -- if they are, it's a failure mode of the system.  If we get back to the days when alliances are made by marrying off daughters then this is a serious problem.  Third, diplomacy shouldn't be entirely transactional, because a lot of benefits come from trust.  For instance, the U.S. has been fine with paying more on defense than Europe for many reasons, but first and foremost that it ensured American hegemony.

And that's a fair rebuttal. Trump certainly has played pretty fast and loose and while I do like a lot of the things he does admittedly, I always thought his diplomacy skills were lackluster at best, and if they have reached the levels of tarnishing the good name of the country, then he should be legally fried for doing that.

However, what does not sit right with me is that unlike Nixon, where there were bipartisan efforts to hammer out things both sides of the aisle could agree were objectively bad and worthy of impeachment, this has been a nigh one sided Democrat led effort to destroy Trump that has not ceased since day one and they've tried so many times to get him thrown out that they are just as bad as he may or may not be, especially since there is a lot of evidence they likely committed crimes of their own just to get him nailed for the same. And as for the Republicans, there hands aren't entirely clean either, and if they contributed to any conduct worthy of impeachment that can be definitively proven, they deserve a book thrown at them too.

Ultimately, I want the guilty to be properly judged and called to account, but I want justice to blind to bias in this case, but unfortunately, bias has deeply colored this whole affair and I think there are lot of parties (on both sides of the aisle) who should be facing justice irregardless of Trump's guilt or innocence no matter how this goes down.

[Black Aeronaut]

Part of the problem is that what Trump has done goes so far beyond the pale that it vastly overshadows anything any one else on either side has done.

He has, in essence, bribed a foreign government in an attempt to gain leverage over a political opponent, and thereby undermining America's sovereignty in doing so.

But I think what was the final straw for a lot of folks - that which has really dumped the gasoline on the fire - was his decision to pull US troops out of key positions in Syria, leaving the Kurds to the tender mercies of the Turks, fully furnished US facilities for the Russians to casually peruse, and Assad to carry on doing what he likes.

There's simply no way around it. This whole thing is so polarized because Trump and his cronies have made it that way, all while failing to realize that this is a sword that cuts both ways; that the more you polarize a populace, the more enemies you're going to have. And no matter how many allies you might have gained, you don't want more enemies. Ever.

[Matrix Dragon]

WHELP.