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?
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”.
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.
Or “wager” means he thinks it is likely. Speculation, once again. You’ll have to ask him if he will put money down.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
