# Has Trump Made Himself Impervious to Impeachment Now? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 27, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397 "2017-04-27T21:54:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/121 "2017-05-02T18:20:42Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Note that you took that one line out of context. We were talking about impeachment. If you would like to assert that you have some non-partisan reason to push for impeachment, like evidence of wrong-doing on Trump’s part, by all means present it. If all you can say is that you are pushing for impeachment because you don’t like his policies, then it is rather clearly partisan. > [@](#): > > One, “he”, not “she”. My bad, then - sorry. > [@](#): > > Is it only princes that are covered by the emoluments clause? No, foreign governments too. Do you have any evidence of such? > [@](#): > > Have we ever had a president with income deriving from overseas assets in this manner? [It depends on what you mean by “in this manner”.](http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/oct/17/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-also-has-investments-chinese-com/) > [@](#): > > Most presidents have divested their investments into blind trusts long before. There may be no caselaw to deal with this situation, but that may be because this situation has never come up before. > > “We don’t have a precedent to deal with this unprecedented situation.” does not, to me, make a good defense. So “it isn’t against the law” wouldn’t be a good defense? Are you familiar with the concept of ex post facto laws, and why they probably wouldn’t be a good idea when dealing with unprecedented situations? See also “bill of attainder”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/122 "2017-05-02T19:13:04Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > I agree with your entire assessment; if the 2018 midterm election polls start indicating that GOP candidates are being kneecapped by their association with Trump, it will suddenly start being very important to the leadership to see that Trump goes. And I agree that a “resignation for health reasons” is the way it will go down (rather than an impeachment, which could harm Republicans in Congress). > > He will be assured, privately, that he can keep all the loot he’s amassed so long as he doesn’t fight the decision to oust him. And he has amassed a lot already, between the mysterious record Inauguration fund (over $106 million–where is it?) and his takings from those wishing to curry favor with him at his resorts and condos-for-sale-at-inflated prices. And that’s not even touching on all he is probably getting under the table in the form of ‘pay for play’ that we never hear about. > … > [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The problem with that is that, as we’ve repeatedly seen, the GOP “leadership” couldn’t lead sailors to a whorehouse. They’d have to get Democratic help, which would presumably come with strings attached (the Dems are inept, but not _that_ inept). You’re suggesting that Congressional Democrats would refuse to help the GOP oust Trump, unless conditions they impose are met? ??? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/123 "2017-05-02T19:32:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Air of absolute authority, or idle speculation? Stranger’s statement? Well, I think he’s pretty smart, but do not give him an air of absolute authority either. I suppose it wasn’t _idle_ speculation, but speculation it was nonetheless. I suppose it does depend on how you read it. I first read it, with it in mind that it was a narrative of how things could go, responding to the hypothetical of how trump would be impeached. Re-reading it, out of context, with the pre-formed idea that it is an example of liberal hypocrisy, I suppose I see it as liberal hypocrisy that way. > [@Okrahoma](#): > > Even better (from upthread): > > “But it doesn’t matter; I’ll wager he doesn’t last long enough to even be impeached, and if noises started coming out of Mitch McConnell’s excuse for a face about impeachment hearings, Trump would resign faster than a Trump casino goes bankrupt, and if for some reason he tried to fight it he’d go down harder than Joe Pesci in a mob movie.” > > I wonder if “I’ll wager” means he’s open to an actual wager? Or “wager” means he thinks it is likely. Speculation, once again. You’ll have to ask him if he will put money down. > [@Shodan](#): > > We were talking about impeachment. If you would like to assert that you have some non-partisan reason to push for impeachment, like evidence of wrong-doing on Trump’s part, by all means present it. If all you can say is that you are pushing for impeachment because you don’t like his policies, then it is rather clearly partisan.My bad, then - sorry.No, foreign governments too. Do you have any evidence of such? At this point, the FBI has not shared with me their findings of the relationship between trump and co and russia, so no, I do not have evidence as to how much he has colluded with the russian govt. I do speculate that it is likely that there will be more involvement between him and the russians than even you would be comfortable with. But, as far as why he is uniquely unqualified, that has little to do with his involvement with the russians, and more to do with his utter admitted lack of comprehension of what the job entails. Do you actually defend his statements that “no one knew healthcare would be so complicated,” Or “I thought being president would be easier.” (Slightly paraphrased, as I don’t feel like delving through trumplandia to find the specific quotes, but if you feel that I have misrepresented with my possibly inaccurate quotes, let me know.) Do you not read his tweets, do you not watch his press conferences? If that is not evidence that he is unlike any president ever before, I don’t know what is. Now, there are some who claim that this makes him a better president than those who follow the traditional actions of releasing tax returns or divesting themselves of businesses that may present conflicts of interest, but I would disagree with that notion. > [@](#): > > [It depends on what you mean by “in this manner”.](http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/oct/17/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-also-has-investments-chinese-com/) > So “it isn’t against the law” wouldn’t be a good defense? I take it you did not read all of your cite? Do you think there is any difference between personally investing in, and continuing to personally receive the profits from a fund that you know for a fact does business in russia, vs a fund that is set up as part of a blind state pension fund that owns a fund that owns a fund that has some investments in China? Do you truly not see the difference between a fund you manage yourself, and a fund that is managed by state pension fund managers? That’s the point of blind trusts and pensions, so that you do not have these conflicts of interest. When trump refused to set up a blind trust, then that makes him liable for the investments that he makes. > [@](#): > > Are you familiar with the concept of ex post facto laws, and why they probably wouldn’t be a good idea when dealing with unprecedented situations? See also “bill of attainder”. You would have a point if the constitution were written after Trump’s presidency as an attempt to punish him. As it was written well before his presidency, I don’t know that “ex-post facto” applies here. Now, the fact that there is no precedent or caselaw just means that no president has been dumb enough to actually break these laws in the past, or at least not so publically. That does not mean that the first time a law is used, because it is the first time it is broken is ex-post facto. For instance, I seriously doubt you can find very much case law or precedent that is based on the third amendment. But that does not mean that if the government wants to quarter troops in my house, I cannot file injunctive relief in court, because it is unprecedented. > [@](#): > > Regards, > Shodan And you, my friend, have a great day! k9 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/124 "2017-05-02T20:11:04Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Do you not read his tweets, do you not watch his press conferences? If that is not evidence that he is unlike any president ever before, I don’t know what is. Is it evidence for impeachment? That’s what I am looking for. If you don’t have any, then I am forced to agree with you - you don’t apparently know what evidence is. > [@](#): > > You would have a point if the constitution were written after Trump’s presidency as an attempt to punish him. > > As it was written well before his presidency, I don’t know that “ex-post facto” applies here. I have a point because I was addressing your ‘this is so unprecedented that we have no case law on the subject’. If there is no law against something, then it is not illegal, and the Constitution says that you cannot pass a law making that something illegal retroactively. > [@](#): > > For instance, I seriously doubt you can find very much case law or precedent that is based on the third amendment. I am afraid you are [mistaken](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey) there. There is already substantial material on ex post facto laws (see Peugh v. United States and Stogner v. California, for instance), so even so, I doubt very much if the courts would reverse themselves and rule that an impeachment of President Trump based on his tweets or his press conferences is going to get very far, even if Congress were fool enough to pass a law that takes effect last year. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/125 "2017-05-02T21:23:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > There is already substantial material on ex post facto laws (see Peugh v. United States and Stogner v. California, for instance), so even so, I doubt very much if the courts would reverse themselves and rule that an impeachment of President Trump based on his tweets or his press conferences is going to get very far, even if Congress were fool enough to pass a law that takes effect last year. But see _Nixon v. United States_ (not President Nixon, strangely enough), where the Supreme Court determined that impeachments were not justiciable and solely under the province of Congress. I don’t see any \*legal \* reason why Congress couldn’t impeach/remove Trump for tweets unbecoming the Presidency, and I don’t think the court system would interfere if Congress decided that’s what they wanted to do. Of course this would be exceedingly unlikely for a bunch of political reasons, and I don’t realistically see Congress impeaching Trump (or any president, for that matter) without at least some plausible statutory violations. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/126 "2017-05-02T22:47:02Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Stranger’s statement? Well, I think he’s pretty smart, but do not give him an air of absolute authority either. I suppose it wasn’t _idle_ speculation, but speculation it was nonetheless. It sounds like you’re answering a question I didn’t quite ask. You seem to be answering whether you assign the weight of absolute authority to his post. Unless Our Savior Lord Jesus Christ incarnates again on Earth and registers for this board, I agree that finding a poster in whom you repose absolute authority is unlikely. No, I was talking about whether the tone of his post, his words, admitted to any uncertainty or speculation. I agree that you know them to be speculative regardless. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/127 "2017-05-02T22:47:06Z")
A president who is under Congressional and FBI investigation for impeachable offenses is considerably more likely to end up resigning or being impeached than a president who is not under Congressional and FBI investigation for impeachable offenses. For any realistic value of “president” or “impeachable offenses”. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/128 "2017-05-02T22:49:37Z")
A: Impeachment isn’t here yet. But it’s Comin’… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/129 "2017-05-02T22:51:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > There is already substantial material on ex post facto laws (see Peugh v. United States and Stogner v. California, for instance), so even so, I doubt very much if the courts would reverse themselves and rule that an impeachment of President Trump based on his tweets or his press conferences is going to get very far, even if Congress were fool enough to pass a law that takes effect last year. Again let me emphasize that impeachment is judicially unreviewable. Congress could, if it chose, impeach Trump for grabbing a toy from a playmate when he was a preschooler. As a matter of practicality, impeachment is limited to acts that are crimes, and the concept of ex post facto certainly applies. But as a matter of strict legality, the only thing that matters is a majority vote of the US House of Representatives. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/130 "2017-05-02T22:53:33Z")
**Fiveyearlurker** : > [@Bricker](#): > > That’s a link to a Politico story. > > When I actually search the [Ladbrokes](https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/international/us-elections/) site mentioned in the story, in the “US Elections section,” I don’t see the contract for “Trump’s chances of leaving office via resignation or impeachment and removal.” > > Can you help? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/131 "2017-05-02T23:28:26Z")
**Bricker:** Singles Only. Paddy Power decision is final. He will be deemed to be impeached when the House of Representatives pass a vote for impeachment [10/11 odds](http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/donald-trump?ev_oc_grp_ids=2944322) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/132 "2017-05-03T02:14:05Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > **Bricker:** > > Singles Only. Paddy Power decision is final. He will be deemed to be impeached when the House of Representatives pass a vote for impeachment > > [10/11 odds](http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/donald-trump?ev_oc_grp_ids=2944322) Hmm… "This web site is no longer available through this link. Please choose an alternative web site from the list shown below: " Looks like a U.S. thing, maybe? Are you coming from outside the U.S.? I can fire up a Tor session later if that’s the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/133 "2017-05-03T02:24:25Z")
I like [https://www.predictit.org/](https://www.predictit.org/) because I can legally use it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/134 "2017-05-03T21:33:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So the specific market I have found so far… > > ## **Trump is impeached in 2017: [PredictIt](https://www.predictit.org/Contract/5470/Will-Donald-Trump-be-impeached-in-2017#data) That’s a 93-7 against.** (A share that pays a dollar if he’s impeached can be bought for seven cents right now.) > > # Democrats control the Senate after 2018 mid-terms: [PredictIt](https://www.predictit.org/Market/2703/Which-party-will-control-the-Senate-after-2018-midterms) That’s 80-20 against. (A share that pays a dollar if the Democrats control can be bought for twenty cents right now.) > > Democrats control the House after 2018 mid-terms: > [PredictIt](https://www.predictit.org/Market/2704/Which-party-will-control-the-House-after-2018-midterms) > That’s 65-35 against. (A share that pays a dollar if the Democrats control can be bought for thirty-five cents right now.) > Which specific proposition was 50-50? > [@Bricker](#): > > I like [https://www.predictit.org/](https://www.predictit.org/) because I can legally use it. 🙂 I notice that, like it or don’t, you mentioned ONLY the numbers that reflect your own position: namely, the “Will Trump be impeached in 2017?” market (which today is 8 on Yes and 92 on No). Oddly, you somehow failed to mention the drop-off visible in the “Will Trump be President at year-end 2017?” and “…at year-end 2018?” markets: 85 Yes for 2017 drops to 72 Yes for 2018. (A site comment asking for Impeachment markets for 2018, 2019, and 2020, has several up-votes.) In other words, the predictit money, like the money at Ladbrokes, SkyBet, and others, shows a lack of support for ‘Trump in 2020’ hopes. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/135 "2017-05-03T21:49:50Z")
I’m no fan of Trump. But “Will Trump be impeached by year end 201x?” and “Will Trump be President at year end 201x?” are quite different questions. Only impeachment triggers the first. Whereas impeachment, resignation, removal for ill health (real or exaggerated) or death by whatever cause all trigger the second prop. As well, “during 2017”, “during 2018” and “by year end 2018” are three different props. Certainly the props with more ways to pay out and those working over longer time accumulation will be incrementally more likely to favor yes than no. But that’s a consequence of math, not of politics. In fact if we ignore that today is in May and not back in January, a prop with 85% odds at the end of 2017 and 72% odds at the end of 2018 is expressing exactly the same thing: a 15% chance he’s out somehow in each of the two years. With the same 15%/year risk you’d expect to see 61% & 52% for 2019 & 2020. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397/136 "2017-05-03T22:12:48Z")
Of course those are all differing events with differing odds. (My money, by the way, would be on a Trump resignation ‘for health reasons’ by mid-2019 at the very latest.) The point was that someone had said ‘gambling concerns are giving even odds that Trump will be impeached’ and the counter was ‘at predictit the ‘impeached in 2017’ odds are 7 impeached, 93 not impeached’ (or words to that effect). In other words, the counter was to claim that the smart money was on Trump remaining in office. That’s the position with which I was taking issue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-trump-made-himself-impervious-to-impeachment-now/785397.md?page=6)