Are we at Trump’s tipping point?

Correct, I do not expect that. But I think it has a higher probability than that of Hillary being locked up. What I expect is impeachment followed by conviction followed by indictment followed by trial, conviction, and imprisonment. But: if convicted of treason then all bets are off. Would Mueller have the balls to pursue a treason charge, could he convict, and would death result? Quite likely no, but not impossible.

The “lock her up” chants at Republican rallies were nothing more than wishful thinking on their part, Hillary had already been investigated more than the JFK shooting. If the first dozen investigations found nothing, chances are there is nothing.

I would put it at non-zero, but no higher than that. I’m a scientist though, so I’m trained to put the odds of anything at non-zero.

You’re innocent, but nobody is accusing you.

If I get wrongly accused of murdering my family, I would damn sure give the cops access to absolutely anything they want access to in order to both clear my name, and make sure they don’t waste time chasing down a false narrative. In other words, I don’t welcome the opportunity to be in that position, but I would absolutely understand the need to go down that road given the situation, and if a significant number of people thought me guilty, I would welcome the opportunity to prove them wrong.

Trump isn’t doing the same because he knows damn well that his finances will not hold up to any serious level of scrutiny. He has been dirty as shit for decades, and he would have gotten away with it as a private citizen. He’s not going to get away with it as president.

Here is the exact quote.

He said “the struggle will be for him to avoid the death penalty”. If you want to try to parse out the differences between “the struggle will be for him to avoid” and “expected”, go right ahead.

Your statement here seems to express too much certainty about Trump’s motives, at least for someone who is trained as scientist.

Don’t kill our dreams. Some days it’s all we have.

Please. An obstruction charge is a slam dunk. (Notice that I said charge there, not conviction. The Senate won’t vote for that given the number of flag-wrapping hypocrites I mean Republicans there.)

You seem confused about the details of the processes involved. Mueller’s investigation won’t (directly) determine what Trump might or might not be impeached for, and therefore have the Senate vote on. The House of Representatives does that.

Mueller may (but probably won’t, IMHO) bring criminal charges against President Trump. In that case, a judge / jury would be voting on it, not the Senate.

I’m trying to help you (general you, not Procrustus in particular) have realistic dreams.

It’s like dreaming of winning the lottery. It’s fun, but no one really expects it.

For me, I have modest hopes. Resign in disgrace would satisfy me. Prosecution would be just the cherry on top.

That first sentence is going to get you kicked out of the National Association of Scientists. :wink:

You don’t agree? You actually believe that every market move, up or down, is based on the whims, or actions, or inactions of the POTUS? Seriously?

Maybe you misread the post you quoted?

for historical reference -

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
You’d agree that some days the market moves one direction or the other regardless of what the President’s does or does not do, correct?

While Presidential action/inaction may occasionally result in some market movement, most buy/sell orders are primarily intended to make a profit for the buyer/seller.

Meanwhile, back at the “tipping point” question, has the Democrat Party, and their super delegates, decided witch Democrat will be allowed to represent their party? Without actually having another candidate to chose from, it’s difficult to currently determine if any voters will tip towards that candidate-to-be-determined-later.

Except the super-delegates have never decided a primary result. Nice “oops” of the witch mispelling though. Please keep up.

Ignoring the fact you still don’t know the name of one of the two major U.S. political parties, and if I may play doorhinge for a moment, do you think the party should pick its nominee three years before the election and without the benefit of caucuses, elections, and a nominating convention?

Do you know the definition of “hyperbole”? Hint: it’s not how the Millennium Falcon goes faster than the speed of light.

Wow, that is uncanny. Now just repeat it four or five more times in succession.

Oh, I agree. A popular parlor game of the future, should there be one, may well be “what could Trump have done with all that power if he actually possessed basic intelligence?”

My apologies–I misread your intent. :o

Well it’s one week later. The Stormy interview was on Sunday, so to be scrupulously fair, we should probably wait 3 more days for a more definitive answer.

That said, 538’s weighted trend is currently at… 40.7%, exactly the same as 1 week ago. During the past week, it blipped up to 41.1% for a while: scary! Well no, not really.

Not seeing a tipping point. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump’s numbers are a tad higher in 3 days.

Circus stuff doesn’t hurt Trump. Unpopular policies hurt Trump. Whether criminal charges would cause Trump’s base to question their support is not yet clear.

I believe this is a new opinion for you. You used to welcome official investigations of people, when it was ICE investigating employment records.

No, it’s not a new opinion for me, you’ve just misunderstood. While I don’t particularly mind the authorities doing their jobs within the confines of the Constitution and while giving a reasonable good effort to comply with the various requirements, I would not welcome an investigation of me personally as it’s a hassle with very little upside. I imagine some employers in California feel similarly. Others are probably employing illegals and I imagine utterly dread ICE investigations.