More likely it will happen when the GOP in Congress do the political calculus and decide that the benefits of having President Pence outweigh the demerits of impeaching Trump. If booting Trump will earn them more votes than it loses, out will come the long knives. That doesn’t necessarily require the hardcore base to crack; there are still votes in the middle-right to court and they are already starting to be disgusted with Trump.
I agree 100% - this is what it comes down to.
I think Senate Republicans are already worried. Not about the Senate in 2018, but about about the House and looking beyond that, the Senate in 2020. I guess they can take some relief in the fact that Democrats still don’t seem to be putting up particularly organized and effective resistance at the moment. There’s no credible leader, no spokesman for the party, and no message.
I see this path:
Mueller indicts Donald for money laundering, racketeering, corruption, and obstruction of justice. A replay of Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre ensues. Congress re-appoints Mueller. Donald pardons himself. The case goes to the Supreme Court, and on a 5-4 vote decides that presidents may not pardon themselves. Donald resigns and Pence pardons him. However, New York officials indict him on applicable state charges, he is tried and convicted and spends the rest of his life in prison.
There is also the point that if they consider impeachment to be more or less inevitable it is in their own best interest to get it done and over with as early in the term as possible in order to limit the damage to the 2020 campaign(s).
BobLibDem: I doubt Trump will ever spend a night in jail. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some huge-ass fines in his future, though.
Impeachment isn’t inevitable; the Republicans control the congress, so nothing is inevitable. It would only be inevitable if they lost control of congress in 2018, and that’s not going to happen. The Senate Republicans would probably pull the plug on Trump if they could, but impeachment starts in the House. And so far the party of Trump has held its ground. The intensity of its support is slipping, but it’s still holding. Senator Jeff Flake probably is probably more worried about losing to a democrat than a primary opponent, but in the House, the threat of a primary challenger could be a real one, depending on the district.
That’s why I think that the only thing that brings Trump down is some kind of national crisis or some kind of sudden change in national mood. Maybe the economy goes south, or maybe the war in Afghanistan gets really messy. Not that I want these things to happen obviously, but this is the only thing that brings Trump under the threat of an impeachment.
Don’t tease like that!
<sigh> The Orange One in an orange jumpsuit (size XXXXL). Sweet.
Any updates to this prediction?
Or this one?
Doing the lord’s work there, Bricker.
Hey, if someone wants to make a prediction, then they should own up to it’s failure. It’s not that big of a deal.
I, for one, would like **Bricker **to respond to the fact that AT&T has already violated NN rules, far in advance of my prediction in the MPTIMS (or whatever that forum is)
Here’s what I take your comment to mean: that because the wrong predictions were anti-Trump, it’s bad to point out their error.
Is that the gist of your comment?
I’d be happy to - can I get a cite?
No, it’s because you’re such a normal and healthy that you go digging in old threads to bump them so you can gloat in order to own the libs.
Here’s the thread, and the link to what happened:
AT&T’s Time Warner deal and net neutrality’s end gave us WatchTV
Come on now, don’t you think people that make predictions should own those predictions?
Completely irrelevant to my assertion actually.
Given that he’s 8 months late on calling out one of the predictions, it actually reinforces my point.
Is your preferred outcome that predictions that fail to materialize should be ignored?
I mean, almost by definition, these predictions will be in older threads, right? There would be absolutely no way to refer to them except by reference to old threads – true?
Can you explain what you believe the better course of action is? I infer that your preference is to not highlight old threads when they contain failed predictions. But I highlight my own old prediction failures
too. I don’t find too many people in those threads criticizing my digging up an old subject to highlight a predictive failure.
Should I also forgo that practice, in your view?
I’m about as lib as lib gets on this board, and I have no problem standing by the predictions I made in this thread.
The list of things my comment didn’t mean is nearly infinite, but that’s near the bottom of the list.
I’ve found a picture of Bricker in his natural environment.
If your assertion is that he is doing it to “own the libs” then I would disagree. I suspect that he would do that with anyone of any political persuasion who offers a ludicrous prediction. I find it kind of funny, myself.