If you want to follow those who are betting on it you have this (odds in Ireland):
From Paddy Power increases odds on Trump impeachment | IrishCentral.com
Or they may be trying to be as careful as possible. Like it or not, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is going to be a much higher bar for a corrupt President than for a corrupt alderman. Realistically, the case they bring against Trump that they hand over to (presumably) the House Judiciary Committee is going to have to be overwhelming - not just beyond reasonable doubts, but beyond the vast majority of absurd and ridiculous doubts as well.
Those 2018 odds: it’s hard for me to imagine that Trump will be impeached in 2018, no matter what evidence comes to light. Even if Mueller handed the House an ironclad case, the leadership would punt it to next year so that they could blame it on the Dems.
If Congress does decide to impeach Trump, the easiest path would be to go after him for corruption. There are numerous examples of individuals, organizations, and foreign countries that have received favorable treatment from the administration after paying Trump large sums of money.
Based on this thread alone, I don’t think we need to take your assertion seriously.
I care very much. Trump has set a lot of terrible precedents already. We don’t need to set another one by removing a President via government-sanctioned assassination. It would be Trump this time but it could be a good President next time.
Trump should be removed from office but it should be done by legal means. And if we can’t remove him by legal means, we should just endure his presidency rather than use illegal means.
Maybe not so minor. Back in May this was printed:
Since then he has, at the least, added 12 more indictments. Not bad for 14 months of work.
Well kinda. He lied under oath, but that isn’t enough to make it perjury. The lie must be deliberate and material. Was it?
Note he was never actually charged in a criminal court with perjury.
Back to the Op. It all depends- if the GOP decides Trump is more of a liability and that dumping Trump would be good for the party, sure, they could cut their losses. Pence is a dependable sort for the GOP.
He was found in contempt of court for giving intentionally false and misleading testimony. Cite.
He was not criminally charged.
Regards,
Shodan
And they probably are taking into consideration the liability Trump could become even after being removed from office. It’s a publicity machine geared toward that 30% or so of the population that are so stupid they’ll believe anything he says, in or out of office.
Yes, but that is false and misleading testimony, not perjury.
So, then no, Bill was not guilty of Perjury.
Sure, but so what? Giving false testimony is just as good (or as bad) a reason to impeach and/or remove from office as perjury, or mopery, or spitting on the sidewalk. You don’t need evidence of a crime, or a civil offense - all you need is a reason that convinces a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate. Congress can only remove a President from office, and prevent him or her from holding any other office. They can’t send anyone to prison or impose fines or anything other than those two options.
A high crime or misdemeanor is pretty much anything Congress wants it to be.
Regards,
Shodan
Sure, they could have impeached Bill for hitting a bad note while playing his saxophone, too.
But actually a “high crime” does mean something for which the death penalty could be imposed. Adding that “misdemeanor” does add a plethora of crimes however.
In any case, people just need to stop saying Bill committed Perjury. He didn’t.
It seems he was punished once out of office by having his law license suspended. Would it have been worse had it been perjury? Or add perjury to the list? No idea…dunno what the penalties are for these things and it seems he negotiated a deal anyway. That said there were more ramifications to it than just impeachment.
Trump could be impeached for violating the emoluments clause of the constitution. It’s not especially hard to find evidence that he is receiving foreign profits while president.
If you want to limit the impeachment to his collusion with Russia, then most people would agree that it makes sense to wait for the Mueller probe to conclude. Mueller is still busy flipping witnesses.
What is necessary to say that someone “committed” perjury?
In my view, the record adduced at the proceedings at which his law license was lost is legally sufficient, if introduced at a perjury trial, to convict him of perjury.
But he was not convicted of perjury.
I really don’t care. Do U?
I assume that’s what DB was getting at.
No, it doesn’t mean that. It means a crime that can only be committed by someone in government, or in “high office”. It could be a petty crime committed by a high official. Or, perhaps, an official who is high. 
Well, that exonerates Clinton. It is a well-known fact that he never actually inhaled.
Yes, I care very much if the means by which Trump is removed from office are legal or not.
We have the rule of law in this country. Anyone who suggests an exception to that in the case of Trump is committing a betrayal of this country much worse than Trump.
OK, hypothetical time. The usual magic genie presents you with a choice -
[list=A][li]Trump serves out his full term, is re-elected, and serves out his second term as well.[/li][li]Anti-Trump progressives have located a Lone Nut who will assassinate Trump next Tuesday.[/list]Anyone who picks B is no countryman of mine.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan