So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[Just Joe]

The parade is cancelled.  I am so disappointed.  I wanted to see ICBMs rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue.  Maybe Space Force can do a flyover instead.

Just use CGI instead and tell DJT that it really happened. ;)

[Just Joe]

Okay, how about this for a start.  No more celebrities as President.  Additionally, I would like some minimal basic competence.  Intelligence and intellectual curiosity would be nice too.  Emotional stability is a plus.  Any experience whatsoever in governance or public policy would be just great.

Republicans: the next time your party nominates a buffoon of questionable intelligence and you find yourself justifying your vote with "oh-he'll hire smart people to help him", I want you to remember how that worked out the last two times you said it.  We are starting to think that this approach is flawed.

My current favorite is Rick Perry as Energy Secretary.  Remarkably, HE IS ONE OF THE BETTER CABINET MEMBERS.  Remember when he wanted to get rid of the department he is running, except he forgot its name (and then blamed painkillers)?  Remember when he started and the staff members had to gently explain to him what the department actually did?  Remember when Obama appointed an actual Nobel prize-winning physicist as Secretary of Energy instead of a dim bulb? The bar has been lowered so far that the fact that Rick doesn't ask his security detail to drive around collecting lotion and used mattresses means he's in the top 10% of the cabinet.   

I just don't get why Republicans don't find this embarrassing.  I'd like to think that Americans of all stripes admire competence and would prefer their government to be staffed by competent people.  I don't have to like my surgeon or my pilot, but I'd like them to be good at their jobs.  I might not have wanted war with Iraq, but competent generals are better than incompetent ones.  But now we've sunk to the DeVos/Price/Pruitt/DeVos/Omarosa/Kushner/Ivanka fiasco stage.  Maybe you think it's great that the government is run by idiots because who needs it...but does that libertarian ethos really extend to the people in charge of the nuclear arsenal?

God-remember when the ACA website was buggy for 3 days after launch and Republicans flipped their shit about the sheer incompetence?  The Trump administration would be overachieving to epic levels if their worst fuck up was a website launch that was three days late.

Remember when Sarah Palin seemed like a one off mistake? It got alot worse after her.

[nereo]

I agree that Trump is terrified of the democrats taking the house, and probably expects his presidency to end shortly if that happens.  Not because of impeachment, but because a democratically controlled house would subpoena is tax records and reveal the full extent of his financial ties to Russia.  If America learned that Trump was basically a broke reality tv star who only managed to be in the election in the first place due to Russian financing, I think impeachment may be the least of his problems.

Sol, I like this idea, but while I think Trump has terrible lawyers, they do seem to be excellent at stalling.  They've been "negotiating" with the Special Counsel about whether Trump will sit down with him since last year.  We'd be fools to think that they were negotiating in good faith.  They're just delaying the subpoena.  Then, they can take that through the judicial process. 

Meanwhile, even if they can't get Kavanaugh on to the bench, they'll end up with a 4-4 split on the issue, which means that if the House subpoena's his tax returns, he can fight the same fight again.  It makes it unlikely that his tax returns see the light of day before 2020.

I'm enough of an optimist to believe that he won't win reelection, but by that point, we'll probably be looking at clean up more than anything else.

Any ranking member of the House already has the power to subpeona any US citizen or private business's tax records. This doesn't just mean Trump and the Trump Organization (which is actually hundreds of seperate entities), but also records from other corporations, such as Deutsche Bank, which has loaned Trump money in the past. Further, they would not need to notify Trump himself if they subpeonead such records.  So his lawyers might not even get a chance to stall.

Whether that information would ever filter down to the general public unchallenged is unknown.  There are 'intentional leaks' - but whether any member would risk that is unclear.

[wenchsenior]

How does the double jeopardy rule (can't be tried twice for the same offence, essentially) apply vis a vis impeachment and criminal charges?   If Trump is impeached (or impeachment proceedings are started but no finding of impeachment) for actions which are criminal, does that prevent future criminal charges on the same matters?

If it does, Trump should be wanting impeachment proceedings to start, because the risk of losing the Presidency could be a much lesser penalty for him, with lower chances of suceeding, than a series of criminal indictments brought on 21 January 2020 or 2024.

Edited based on nereo's comments below, where they pointed out I was conflating impeachment and removal from office.


My understanding is that impeachment has zero bearing on legal criminal charges and is a purely political act.  Theoretically, any congress with enough votes to do so could impeach any president for pretty much anything they could come up with as long as they could convince enough of their members that the acts in question were 'high crimes or misdemeanors'. And I don't think there is even any legal definition for those terms as it applies to impeachment.

Having said that, it is incredibly unlikely that Trump is impeached *ETA and actually removed from office*.  I am baffled as to why this keeps being brought up on this board, or by anyone in the press or in politics.  Dems do not have the votes to *ETA remove him* even if they could impeach. And they are unlikely to get the votes *ETA to remove him* even with a big blue wave in November.  The GOP have already proved  themselves unwilling to stand against Trump, and they won't stand against him until their base voters (not swing voters) turn on Trump.

And the GOP base is not going to turn on Trump, no matter what. They have proved it over and over. 

Not to mention, if the Dems start proceedings to impeach, even if those proceedings are purely cosmetic *ETA and are not intended to result in Trump's removal from office*, the only thing they will accomplish is driving some of the GOP leaners who don't like Trump back to Trump's corner for the 2020 presidential election.

Given how moronic attempting to impeach Trump is as a strategic move, I would be shocked if some Dems didn't try it if they take the House. B/C they seem terminally stupid about strategy, and eager to lose winnable races.

[nereo]

How does the double jeopardy rule (can't be tried twice for the same offence, essentially) apply vis a vis impeachment and criminal charges?   If Trump is impeached (or impeachment proceedings are started but no finding of impeachment) for actions which are criminal, does that prevent future criminal charges on the same matters?

If it does, Trump should be wanting impeachment proceedings to start, because the risk of losing the Presidency could be a much lesser penalty for him, with lower chances of suceeding, than a series of criminal indictments brought on 21 January 2020 or 2024.

My understanding is that impeachment has zero bearing on legal criminal charges and is a purely political act.  Theoretically, any congress with enough votes to do so could impeach any president for pretty much anything they could come up with as long as they could convince enough of their members that the acts in question were 'high crimes or misdemeanors'. And I don't think there is even any legal definition for those terms as it applies to impeachment.

Having said that, it is incredibly unlikely that Trump is impeached.  I am baffled as to why this keeps being brought up on this board, or by anyone in the press or in politics.  Dems do not have the votes to do it, and are unlikely to get the votes even with a big blue wave in November.  The GOP have already proved  themselves unwilling to stand against Trump, and they won't stand against him until their base voters (not swing voters) turn on Trump.

And the GOP base is not going to turn on Trump, no matter what. They have proved it over and over. 

Not to mention, if the Dems start proceedings to impeach, even if those proceedings are purely cosmetic, the only thing they will accomplish is driving some of the GOP leaners who don't like Trump back to Trump's corner for the 2020 presidential election.

Given how moronic attempting to impeach Trump is as a strategic move, I would be shocked if some Dems didn't try it if they take the House. B/C they seem terminally stupid about strategy, and eager to lose winnable races.

With a simple majority in the House the Dems could certainly impeach Trump..  However, they would almost certainly be unable to remove him from office - to do that they would need a supermajority, in both houses.

Given the near impossibility of removing Trump through impeachment proceedings, the entrechment it would cause and the multiple other avenues available to curtail and investigate given a majority, I think it would be a grave mistake.

However, the GOP impeached Clinton on what many believe were far less serious charges. To those people it would seem a failure of our checks and balances NOT to impeach him.

[PDXTabs]

With a simple majority in the House the Dems could certainly impeach Trump..  However, they would almost certainly be unable to remove him from office - to do that they would need a supermajority, in both houses.

They only need a supermajority in the Senate, right?

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. - US Constitution

[wenchsenior]

How does the double jeopardy rule (can't be tried twice for the same offence, essentially) apply vis a vis impeachment and criminal charges?   If Trump is impeached (or impeachment proceedings are started but no finding of impeachment) for actions which are criminal, does that prevent future criminal charges on the same matters?

If it does, Trump should be wanting impeachment proceedings to start, because the risk of losing the Presidency could be a much lesser penalty for him, with lower chances of suceeding, than a series of criminal indictments brought on 21 January 2020 or 2024.

My understanding is that impeachment has zero bearing on legal criminal charges and is a purely political act.  Theoretically, any congress with enough votes to do so could impeach any president for pretty much anything they could come up with as long as they could convince enough of their members that the acts in question were 'high crimes or misdemeanors'. And I don't think there is even any legal definition for those terms as it applies to impeachment.

Having said that, it is incredibly unlikely that Trump is impeached.  I am baffled as to why this keeps being brought up on this board, or by anyone in the press or in politics.  Dems do not have the votes to do it, and are unlikely to get the votes even with a big blue wave in November.  The GOP have already proved  themselves unwilling to stand against Trump, and they won't stand against him until their base voters (not swing voters) turn on Trump.

And the GOP base is not going to turn on Trump, no matter what. They have proved it over and over. 

Not to mention, if the Dems start proceedings to impeach, even if those proceedings are purely cosmetic, the only thing they will accomplish is driving some of the GOP leaners who don't like Trump back to Trump's corner for the 2020 presidential election.

Given how moronic attempting to impeach Trump is as a strategic move, I would be shocked if some Dems didn't try it if they take the House. B/C they seem terminally stupid about strategy, and eager to lose winnable races.

With a simple majority in the House the Dems could certainly impeach Trump..  However, they would almost certainly be unable to remove him from office - to do that they would need a supermajority, in both houses.

Given the near impossibility of removing Trump through impeachment proceedings, the entrechment it would cause and the multiple other avenues available to curtail and investigate given a majority, I think it would be a grave mistake.

However, the GOP impeached Clinton on what many believe were far less serious charges. To those people it would seem a failure of our checks and balances NOT to impeach him.

Good point, I was conflating impeachment and removal from office. I edited my post. Thanks!

[nereo]

With a simple majority in the House the Dems could certainly impeach Trump..  However, they would almost certainly be unable to remove him from office - to do that they would need a supermajority, in both houses.

They only need a supermajority in the Senate, right?

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. - US Constitution

Yes, the House impeaches, the Senate votes whether to remove from office.  Impeachment requires a simple majority - removal requires a supermajority.  Even if Dems were to 'run the table' and win every senate election this midterms (itself an enormously improbably scenario) they'd still be 8 (?) votes shy of a supermajority.

[PDXTabs]

I agree there, no way the Democrats will get a supermajority in the Senate this fall.

[PDXTabs]

Trump says he will keep criticizing Fed if it continues to raise interest rates

[former player]

OK, so the Constitution refers to "conviction" by the Senate after a House decision to impeach.

So does either a House decision to impeach on its own or (unlikely) a Senate conviction on impeachment prevent a subsequent criminal prosecution on the same matters?  Because if it doesn't, then either way Trump could be prosecuted after leaving office.  But if a decision to impeach, whether followed by a Senate conviction or not, does prevent a subsequent prosecution then that is another good reason for the House not to impeach: without a House decision to impeach Trump leaves office and perhaps goes straight to gaol.

Of course, there is always the pardon power.  It seems to be accepted that Trump can't pardon himself.  So if he stays in office until the Democrats win a Presidential election then there is no pardon for him.   A Republican Presidential candidate running to succeed Trump would be under enormous electoral pressure to promise not to give him a pardon.   So Trump probably only gets a pardon if he is 1) impeached and leaves office either due to Senate conviction or resignation in advance of a likely conviction, or 2) does a last minute resignation the day before leaving office at the end of his term so that Pence can be sworn in and give him a pardon before the term expires.  Which would cause a big fuss but probably too late to matter, unless Pence can be prevailed upon in advance that it would be unChristian to do this.


Is that right?

[Johnez]

Trump says he will keep criticizing Fed if it continues to raise interest rates

Because in Trump land there is no need to cool the forever booming economy. Crash? What crash?! Democrats will be there to pick up the pieces anyway, and be there to blame for onerous regulation. Perfect recipe for another Repub in 2032...

[marty998]

Trump says he will keep criticizing Fed if it continues to raise interest rates

Because in Trump land there is no need to cool the forever booming economy. Crash? What crash?! Democrats will be there to pick up the pieces anyway, and be there to blame for onerous regulation. Perfect recipe for another Repub Ivanka in 2032...

]

FTFY.

You guys love your dynasties don't ya! Bush, Clinton, Bush, almost Clinton, Trump.... Maybe Clinton, Trump....


On the topic of interest rates... nothing will seriously fuck the entire world more than interest rates not reverting higher. Sure there might be some short term stockmarket pain, but the alternative leads to I don't want to even contemplate.

[nereo]

[snip]
Is that right?

Sounds about right, but you overlooked one important point - Presidential pardon power does not extend to state law.
IF any state laws were broken the respective state AG could bring charges.  Given that Trump has had extensive business deals in a dozen or so states just within the last few years , that's an interesting possibility.

[Kris]

Trump says he will keep criticizing Fed if it continues to raise interest rates

Good lord.

Trump supporters, this man is an effing idiot. How you can still support him and be here on a finance forum is beyond me.

[thd7t]

With a simple majority in the House the Dems could certainly impeach Trump..  However, they would almost certainly be unable to remove him from office - to do that they would need a supermajority, in both houses.

They only need a supermajority in the Senate, right?

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. - US Constitution

Yes, the House impeaches, the Senate votes whether to remove from office.  Impeachment requires a simple majority - removal requires a supermajority.  Even if Dems were to 'run the table' and win every senate election this midterms (itself an enormously improbably scenario) they'd still be 8 (?) votes shy of a supermajority.

To remove a president from office requires a 2/3 majority, which is even further from possibility than a conventional supermajority.

[talltexan]

Just because it's not smart to impeach Trump--should they win a majority in the House--doesn't mean the Democrats won't do it. There is a growing far left that is going to become as relevant as the Tea Party has been from the right. They will be incredibly angry if the Democrats they help elect this Fall do not at least appear to be impeaching Trump.

[former player]

Just because it's not smart to impeach Trump--should they win a majority in the House--doesn't mean the Democrats won't do it. There is a growing far left that is going to become as relevant as the Tea Party has been from the right. They will be incredibly angry if the Democrats they help elect this Fall do not at least appear to be impeaching Trump.

There's a lot the Democrats can do other than impeach.  If they take the line "wait for Mueller before trying to impeach" and in the meantime go after the Trump taxes, the Trump emoluments, the Trump expenses and all the failing and corrupt Trump appointees there will be plenty of red meat to keep the left entertained.

[PDXTabs]

OK, so the Constitution refers to "conviction" by the Senate after a House decision to impeach.

So does either a House decision to impeach on its own or (unlikely) a Senate conviction on impeachment prevent a subsequent criminal prosecution on the same matters?  Because if it doesn't, then either way Trump could be prosecuted after leaving office.  But if a decision to impeach, whether followed by a Senate conviction or not, does prevent a subsequent prosecution then that is another good reason for the House not to impeach: without a House decision to impeach Trump leaves office and perhaps goes straight to gaol.

Of course, there is always the pardon power.  It seems to be accepted that Trump can't pardon himself.  So if he stays in office until the Democrats win a Presidential election then there is no pardon for him.   A Republican Presidential candidate running to succeed Trump would be under enormous electoral pressure to promise not to give him a pardon.   So Trump probably only gets a pardon if he is 1) impeached and leaves office either due to Senate conviction or resignation in advance of a likely conviction, or 2) does a last minute resignation the day before leaving office at the end of his term so that Pence can be sworn in and give him a pardon before the term expires.  Which would cause a big fuss but probably too late to matter, unless Pence can be prevailed upon in advance that it would be unChristian to do this.


Is that right?

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. - US Constitution

So you probably want to try him after he is removed from office. I would add that after he was (hypothetically) removed from office he wouldn't have any pardon powers, right?

[GuitarStv]

OK, so the Constitution refers to "conviction" by the Senate after a House decision to impeach.

So does either a House decision to impeach on its own or (unlikely) a Senate conviction on impeachment prevent a subsequent criminal prosecution on the same matters?  Because if it doesn't, then either way Trump could be prosecuted after leaving office.  But if a decision to impeach, whether followed by a Senate conviction or not, does prevent a subsequent prosecution then that is another good reason for the House not to impeach: without a House decision to impeach Trump leaves office and perhaps goes straight to gaol.

Of course, there is always the pardon power.  It seems to be accepted that Trump can't pardon himself.  So if he stays in office until the Democrats win a Presidential election then there is no pardon for him.   A Republican Presidential candidate running to succeed Trump would be under enormous electoral pressure to promise not to give him a pardon.   So Trump probably only gets a pardon if he is 1) impeached and leaves office either due to Senate conviction or resignation in advance of a likely conviction, or 2) does a last minute resignation the day before leaving office at the end of his term so that Pence can be sworn in and give him a pardon before the term expires.  Which would cause a big fuss but probably too late to matter, unless Pence can be prevailed upon in advance that it would be unChristian to do this.


Is that right?

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. - US Constitution

So you probably want to try him after he is removed from office. I would add that after he was (hypothetically) removed from office he wouldn't have any pardon powers, right?

Presidents don't go to jail though.  Whoever is elected next will pardon him.

[MDM]

Trump supporters, this man is an effing idiot. How you can still support him and be here on a finance forum is beyond me.

It may be not unlike the situation many Bill Clinton supporters faced when his behavior with an intern surfaced: on the one hand there are the laws, regulations, policies, etc. that the administration is pursuing, and on the other hand there is the personal behavior of the president himself.

It's possible to support the former while bemoaning the latter.

One could hope that Trump and Clinton supporters could see this and have some sympathy for the others' dilemma.  Of course, anyone who defended both Clinton and now Trump, or attacked Clinton and now Trump, is behaving in a consistent non-political manner.

[Kris]

Trump supporters, this man is an effing idiot. How you can still support him and be here on a finance forum is beyond me.

It may be not unlike the situation many Bill Clinton supporters faced when his behavior with an intern surfaced: on the one hand there are the laws, regulations, policies, etc. that the administration is pursuing, and on the other hand there is the personal behavior of the president himself.

It's possible to support the former while bemoaning the latter.

One could hope that Trump and Clinton supporters could see this and have some sympathy for the others' dilemma.  Of course, anyone who defended both Clinton and now Trump, or attacked Clinton and now Trump, is behaving in a consistent non-political manner.

I see no way in which this is analogous, frankly. My comment was in response to an article quoting Trump as literally saying he will keep criticizing the Fed if it continues to raise interest rates. Indicating that Trump literally has no grasp of what the Fed's role is or why it would raise interest rates in the first place. This is grossly incompetent at best -- and arguably quite a bit worse than that. He is an effing idiot who is not qualified to be the President of the United States -- and who is seeking to undermine a government institution whose job it is to keep our financial systems stable.

Bill Clinton was a competent president who dallied with an intern. I was horrified by his behavior at the time, and said so. But he knew what the goddamned Fed was for.

[PDXTabs]

Bill Clinton was a competent president who dallied with an intern. I was horrified by his behavior at the time, and said so. But he knew what the goddamned Fed was for.

I would have been fine with removing Clinton from office. Same with Trump.

[Kris]

Bill Clinton was a competent president who dallied with an intern. I was horrified by his behavior at the time, and said so. But he knew what the goddamned Fed was for.

I would have been fine with removing Clinton from office.

Yes, me, too.

Edit: Though of course, the years since have shown us the full extent of Republican hypocrisy and fake outrage regarding the Lewinsky affair.

[Davnasty]

Bill Clinton was a competent president who dallied with an intern. I was horrified by his behavior at the time, and said so. But he knew what the goddamned Fed was for.

I would have been fine with removing Clinton from office.

Yes, me, too.

And I doubt Al Gore would've too upset about either. Hell, he may have had a better shot as an incumbent.

[MDM]

I see no way in which this is analogous, frankly. My comment was in response to an article quoting Trump as literally saying he will keep criticizing the Fed if it continues to raise interest rates.

First, good for you and PDXTabs on being consistent.  Relatively few fall into that camp.

OK, Trump said he will keep criticizing the Fed.  Politicians say a lot of things, many of them ridiculous.  Trump says more than his share.  As long as that is as far as he goes, it's just noise.  The signal (i.e., what laws, etc. are enacted) matters more.

[Kris]

I see no way in which this is analogous, frankly. My comment was in response to an article quoting Trump as literally saying he will keep criticizing the Fed if it continues to raise interest rates.

First, good for you and PDXTabs on being consistent.  Relatively few fall into that camp.

OK, Trump said he will keep criticizing the Fed.  Politicians say a lot of things, many of them ridiculous.  Trump says more than his share.  As long as that is as far as he goes, it's just noise.  The signal (i.e., what laws, etc. are enacted) matters more.

Yeah, the President of the United States being dangerously ignorant and incompetent and trying to undermine the public's confidence in our governmental institutions (FBI, CIA, the Fed) is just noise.

Right.

Sigh.

[partgypsy]

Well, I guess I am inconsistent with how I view Clinton's versus Trump's behavior. As far as I know, having an affair, while morally reprehensible and personally embarrassing (I feel for Hillary having to keep a stiff upper lip during all this), as far as I know it is not illegal nor a bar for a president to do that. If the only thing they had on Trump was cheating on his wife and lying about that, I wouldn't care. 
I guess what I'm saying is I care that the president lied, DEPENDING on what he lied about.   

[talltexan]

Bill Clinton was a competent president who dallied with an intern. I was horrified by his behavior at the time, and said so. But he knew what the goddamned Fed was for.

I would have been fine with removing Clinton from office.

Yes, me, too.

And I doubt Al Gore would've too upset about either. Hell, he may have had a better shot as an incumbent.

It's remarkably difficult for a sitting Vice President to be elected President: George H. W. Bush succeeded in 1988. Before him, the previous one was...Martin Van Buren in 1836.

[Davnasty]

I see no way in which this is analogous, frankly. My comment was in response to an article quoting Trump as literally saying he will keep criticizing the Fed if it continues to raise interest rates.

First, good for you and PDXTabs on being consistent.  Relatively few fall into that camp.

OK, Trump said he will keep criticizing the Fed.  Politicians say a lot of things, many of them ridiculous.  Trump says more than his share.  As long as that is as far as he goes, it's just noise.  The signal (i.e., what laws, etc. are enacted) matters more.

This is such a cop out stance. "I'm fine with his stupid opinions and words as long as he doesn't act on them." Except that once he acts on them, there's a good chance it's already too late.

On top of that, when you're the president, or any public figure for that matter, words are action. One of the primary goals of government is to influence the populace and words do just that. There is a significant number of Trump supporters who agree with his stance simply because it's his stance. If he is against raising interest rates, they are against raising interest rates. The average person doesn't even understand why the federal reserve manipulates interest rates so it's not difficult to persuade them, Trump is just making it yet another issue to divide the country and giving his supporters another reason to criticize the establishment. I believe that his criticism has real implications as it causes real damage to the people's trust in our monetary system.

[MDM]

I see no way in which this is analogous, frankly. My comment was in response to an article quoting Trump as literally saying he will keep criticizing the Fed if it continues to raise interest rates.

First, good for you and PDXTabs on being consistent.  Relatively few fall into that camp.

OK, Trump said he will keep criticizing the Fed.  Politicians say a lot of things, many of them ridiculous.  Trump says more than his share.  As long as that is as far as he goes, it's just noise.  The signal (i.e., what laws, etc. are enacted) matters more.

Yeah, the President of the United States being dangerously ignorant and incompetent...

The word "dangerous" (also the word "risky", with which it is sometimes conflated) is subjective.  Many people think investing in the stock market now is dangerous - it may or may not prove to have a bad result.  Many thought Trump's tariff tiff with Europe would be dangerous - it hasn't, and apparently won't, have a bad result .  Many think Trump's tariff tiff with China is dangerous - it may or may not prove to have a bad result.

...and trying to undermine the public's confidence in our governmental institutions (FBI, CIA, the Fed) is just noise.

It isn't the institutions so much as the people in them.  But yes, as long as it's just words it's just noise.

[Davnasty]

Bill Clinton was a competent president who dallied with an intern. I was horrified by his behavior at the time, and said so. But he knew what the goddamned Fed was for.

I would have been fine with removing Clinton from office.

Yes, me, too.

And I doubt Al Gore would've too upset about either. Hell, he may have had a better shot as an incumbent.

It's remarkably difficult for a sitting Vice President to be elected President: George H. W. Bush succeeded in 1988. Before him, the previous one was...Martin Van Buren in 1836.

Eh, you're probably right in that being an elected incumbent is different than assuming the role but there's really not much historical data to go on. But even with a couple years in office, I'm pretty sure he would've straightened out this global warming mess for us :)

[MDM]

This is such a cop out stance. "I'm fine with his stupid opinions and words as long as he doesn't act on them." Except that once he acts on them, there's a good chance it's already too late.

You are assuming he will act on them.  I'm assuming he likes to hear himself talk, but will act on only a small fraction of what he talks about.  Time will tell which of those opinions was more correct.

One of the primary goals of government is to influence the populace....

Because we disagree on that assumption, we probably won't agree on conclusions derived from it.

[Davnasty]

This is such a cop out stance. "I'm fine with his stupid opinions and words as long as he doesn't act on them." Except that once he acts on them, there's a good chance it's already too late.

You are assuming he will act on them.  I'm assuming he likes to hear himself talk, but will act on only a small fraction of what he talks about.  Time will tell which of those opinions was more correct.

One of the primary goals of government is to influence the populace....

Because we disagree on that assumption, we probably won't agree on conclusions derived from it.

So many of our laws are based around discouraging or incentivizing certain behaviors. How can this not be a primary role of government? But that's really not the point of what I said, I should have left that part out. The point I was making was contained in the portion you clipped so I'll go ahead and add it back here

There is a significant number of Trump supporters who agree with his stance simply because it's his stance. If he is against raising interest rates, they are against raising interest rates. The average person doesn't even understand why the federal reserve manipulates interest rates so it's not difficult to persuade them, Trump is just making it yet another issue to divide the country and giving his supporters another reason to criticize the establishment. I believe that his criticism has real implications as it causes real damage to the people's trust in our monetary system.

[MDM]

The point I was making was contained in the portion you clipped so I'll go ahead and add it back here

There is a significant number of Trump supporters who agree with his stance simply because it's his stance. If he is against raising interest rates, they are against raising interest rates. The average person doesn't even understand why the federal reserve manipulates interest rates so it's not difficult to persuade them, Trump is just making it yet another issue to divide the country and giving his supporters another reason to criticize the establishment. I believe that his criticism has real implications as it causes real damage to the people's trust in our monetary system.

I believe the "average person [who] doesn't even understand why the federal reserve manipulates interest rates" doesn't spend any time worrying about whether to "trust in our monetary system."  That person is probably more concerned about whether the paycheck will cover expenses until the next paycheck.

Your conclusions are reasonable given your assumptions, and my conclusions are reasonable given my assumptions.  Time will tell whose assumptions were correct - or maybe we will both be proven wrong. ;)

[aaahhrealmarcus]

Just because it's not smart to impeach Trump--should they win a majority in the House--doesn't mean the Democrats won't do it. There is a growing far left that is going to become as relevant as the Tea Party has been from the right. They will be incredibly angry if the Democrats they help elect this Fall do not at least appear to be impeaching Trump.

I'm about as far left as you can get without being deported, and I don't really want them to impeach Trump. My lefty friends and I are more interested in moving forward with policy changes that will increase social mobility for working class Americans than we are in sticking it to Trump.

[sol]

It's a big day in trump land:  Cohen and Manafort are both guilty.  Any chance their boss gets out of this without a similar fate?

[talltexan]

Prof. Seth Abramson (who also served as a DA for years) has systematically unpacked the entire Russian Conspiracy with Trump via epic-length twitter threads. He constantly compares Trump to an unchecked monarch based on his pattern of witness tampering and censure of law enforcement officials via Twitter, pointing out each time a tweet is basically a signal to a new crime.

And he only puts Trump's probability of ever being behind bars at about 20%. I think that is an upper bound and the true probability could be much lower.

[marty998]

It's a big day in trump land:  Cohen and Manafort are both guilty.  Any chance their boss gets out of this without a similar fate?

To add - Manafort was found guilty on 8 of the 18 counts. The other 10, the Jury was unable to reach a verdict.

Cohen simply handed himself in and is taking a plea deal. Probably to avoid the public airing of further dirty laundry.

[sol]

Just as quick reminder, how many people who worked for "crooked Hillary" in the 2016 campaign have either pled guilty, or been convicted by a jury?  Because I think trump is up to 7.

You can try to take solace in 10 counts of mistrial, but manafort was found guilty of a bunch of stuff, and innocent of nothing.  His convictions amount to 80 years in prison (he is 69 years old) even without the other ten charges that mistrialed.

Cohen is cutting a deal that also includes years behind bars, and that's a reduced sentence from what he would get at trial and he knows it.  That's not exactly "innocent" either.  To make it worse, his plea specifically implicates Trump in a federal crime (campaign finance violation) by saying he acted at trump's request while committing the crimes he is going to jail for.

So the president is now a co-conspirator to a known crime, the illegal use of campaign contributions to cover up his marital infidelities until the election was over.  That makes the president officially a criminal, for doing things we all sort of knew were illegal when they happened, but had somehow not been prosecuted yet.

Has the inevitable epic tweetstorm started yet?  Maybe he tweets a declaration of war against North Korea?  Have to distract somehow!

[Glenstache]

What if your witch hunt finds actual witches?

[Glenstache]

Epic tweetstorm is most likely to happen in the middle of the night. If you have your bingo cards ready, look for references to servers, Hillary, witch, "no collusion", biased. Covfefe is an instant bingo.

[Khaetra]

Has the inevitable epic tweetstorm started yet?  Maybe he tweets a declaration of war against North Korea?  Have to distract somehow!

He's at a campaign rally tonight, so I am sure he will be lashing out in epic fashion.  I might have to watch, have plenty of booze on hand.

[sol]

I'm still kind of in shock that this is really happening.  The FBI has rock solid proof that Donald J. Trump committed a federal crime.  He is going to be charged.

It looks like he can't be indicted while in office, so he won't get charged until after we have a new President.  But he's basically certain to be convicted at that point, unless he tries to pardon himself first.

[Glenstache]

Thinking about all of the indictments, I wonder if this is what draining the swamp looks like?

[nereo]

at his rally, he keeps saying "where's the collusion?"

His personal lawyer just confessed and pled guilty to to paying hush money to cover up affairs at DJT's direction in an effort to influence the result of the 2016 election.  That's collusion.

[Glenstache]

at his rally, he keeps saying "where's the collusion?"

His personal lawyer just confessed and pled guilty to to paying hush money to cover up affairs at DJT's direction in an effort to influence the result of the 2016 election.  That's collusion.

I think that is actually being an accomplice in a conspiracy to break campaign finance law.

[sol]

I think that is actually being an accomplice in a conspiracy to break campaign finance law.

I don't think you get to call yourself an accomplice when you're the one directing your employees to break the law.  We usually call that "criminal mastermind", which in this case also feels a bit generous.

[Glenstache]

A fun angle is that if Trump pardons them, they no longer get to take the 5th because they don't have to worry about self-incrimination. Since plea deals are in play for at least Cohen at this point, that would also include testimony should Trump be taken to court. Good times. The schadenfreude is thick and creamy!

[ixtap]

I'm still kind of in shock that this is really happening.  The FBI has rock solid proof that Donald J. Trump committed a federal crime.  He is going to be charged.

It looks like he can't be indicted while in office, so he won't get charged until after we have a new President.  But he's basically certain to be convicted at that point, unless he tries to pardon himself first.

If Congress were doing their job, he would be impeached so that he could be removed from office and then charged. I am not holding my breathe, though.