What will happen from the impeachment?

[Angra Mainyu]

Probably nothing. Trump will be impeached, but the Senate will neither remove him nor otherwise punish him. The whole process might motivate people on both sides, resulting in a higher turnout in the 2020 election among both left-wingers and right-wingers.

 

[Toni]

There is speculation that he will resign rather than be impeached. Probably citing health reasons. See recent mystery trip to Walter Reed to get some medical tests out of the way. And note how empty his calendar is recently.

The counter argument to that is that Trump's ego won't let him resign and that he's too dumb/arrogant/ill/delusional to realize how bad a public trial with the Senate as jurors who cannot speak will be for him.

 

[James Brown]

Is President Trump's fighting so hard to avoid impeachment a counter-argument to the idea that he didn't really want to win the election? That he just wanted to run, to be extra-famous for a year, then coast on claims that Crooked Hillary stole the election from him?

That's what it felt like to me, based on circumstantial evidence. But if that were the case, then he could use this opportunity to resign and get his life back.

 

[Elixir]

Is President Trump's fighting so hard to avoid impeachment a counter-argument to the idea that he didn't really want to win the election? That he just wanted to run, to be extra-famous for a year, then coast on claims that Crooked Hillary stole the election from him?

That's what it felt like to me, based on circumstantial evidence. But if that were the case, then he could use this opportunity to resign and get his life back.

If he resigns, INDIVIDUAL-1 is going to jail. From his perspective the 2020 election are a life and death matter, as he needs the statute of limitations to expire on numerous crimes he has committed.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The Donald will never go to jail. His whole life tells you that. In his days as a Manhattan playboy/'entrepeneur' he had a battalion of lawyers whose main occupation was stalling legal procedures and throwing up disincentives to those whom he'd screwed and wanted a little justice. It's astounding how much delay is possible with the right dream team. My prediction: their process of throwing logs, hunks of machinery, and pools of mire under the feet of his pursuers will outrun the lifetime of his 'hamberder'-clogged arteries.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Donald will never go to jail. His whole life tells you that. In his days as a Manhattan playboy/'entrepeneur' he had a battalion of lawyers whose main occupation was stalling legal procedures and throwing up disincentives to those whom he'd screwed and wanted a little justice. It's astounding how much delay is possible with the right dream team. My prediction: their process of throwing logs, hunks of machinery, and pools of mire under the feet of his pursuers will outrun the lifetime of his 'hamberder'-clogged arteries.

Maybe, maybe not. The Sanduskys, Epsteins, Pells, justice eventually caught up with them and lots of others. But you are right, there is a chance nothing will happen except perhaps his brand is tarnished and he loses out financially.

 

[Deepak]

The Donald will never go to jail. His whole life tells you that. In his days as a Manhattan playboy/'entrepeneur' he had a battalion of lawyers whose main occupation was stalling legal procedures and throwing up disincentives to those whom he'd screwed and wanted a little justice. It's astounding how much delay is possible with the right dream team. My prediction: their process of throwing logs, hunks of machinery, and pools of mire under the feet of his pursuers will outrun the lifetime of his 'hamberder'-clogged arteries.

In the old days he would be pushing around smaller companies or individuals in court, but usually managed to skirt prosecution from the state. At this point he's flipped on a lot of the people, he's pissed a lot of people off, and the menace of his schemes (like his 'charity') have a lot more visibility - where I think a lot of folks used to dismiss him as a simple scam artist huckster in the past. Let's not forget there were a slew of issues referred to NY courts during the Cohen, Manafort, and Stone investigations that are unresolved.

I had the same gut feel as James Brown, especially seeing his face on the night of the inauguration, but at this point I think Trump's goal has changed to dying in office. Either that or bunking with Edward Snowden

 

[ideologyhunter]

Actually, Deepak, you made a lot of good points there. Makes me hopeful again!

 

[TV and credit cards]

My opinion, as presented to me by MSNBC is that this offense of bribery is so blatant that the Senate will not sweep this away. They will not lower the bar this much. It would be too detrimental to the future of the country. My hope is that McConnell & Co will have a coming to Jesus moment with Trump and have him resign in exchange for not being indicted as this would quell any Trumpkin uproar.

Further, I hope some legal issues are resolved: 1. That we do not indict a sitting president versus the statute of limitations. If the clock is ticking, this DoJ opinion should be rejected. 2. That the president should enjoy executive privilege during an impeachment inquiry. That privilege belongs to the office not the man and his fitness to hold the office is being called into question. During an impeachment inquiry/trial, to the extent that this privilege becomes an obstruction, it should be suspended for the duration.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

My opinion, as presented to me by MSNBC is that this offense of bribery is so blatant that the Senate will not sweep this away. They will not lower the bar this much. It would be too detrimental to the future of the country. My hope is that McConnell & Co will have a coming to Jesus moment with Trump and have him resign in exchange for not being indicted as this would quell any Trumpkin uproar.

I'd say that's not even close to their mindset. Legal defenses against the bribery charge are pretty easy to find, even from people who often criticize Trump as well (e. g., https://jonathanturley.org/2019/11/...fine-crimes-to-reframe-the-trump-impeachment/ ).

Also, I'm not sure they can make him resign.

 

[TV and credit cards]

My opinion, as presented to me by MSNBC is that this offense of bribery is so blatant that the Senate will not sweep this away. They will not lower the bar this much. It would be too detrimental to the future of the country. My hope is that McConnell & Co will have a coming to Jesus moment with Trump and have him resign in exchange for not being indicted as this would quell any Trumpkin uproar.

I'd say that's not even close to their mindset. Legal defenses against the bribery charge are pretty easy to find, even from people who often criticize Trump as well (e. g., https://jonathanturley.org/2019/11/...fine-crimes-to-reframe-the-trump-impeachment/ ).

For bribery, the "thing of value" is an announcement of an investigation of a political opponent. The "official act" is withholding the military aid.
Regardless of actually receiving this thing of value, Trump agreed to accept a thing of value. In that the aid to Ukraine went through it's normal process and was officially certified by the Pentagon for release citing Ukraine's progress on fighting corruption makes any claim that it is being withheld for this very reason specious. Was there any other argument for putting a hold on the aid?

Turley cites McDonnell v. United States in which the Supreme Court rejected the government's definition of "official act". While I appreciate the citation, I don't think we are arguing definitions here.
McDonnell v. United States

To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision to take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event -- without more -- does not fit that definition of "official act."

This is not the case with Trump. He took action. Withholding the aid was an official act.

Turley claims

All presidential acts are to some extent political, since they are taken by politicians. The same is true for members of Congress.

I would claim there is a line between a political act that serves solely the politician and not the people. It's called an oath of office. There is no argument for acting on the people's behalf with the certification in place.

Turley claims

Trump did not receive the requested investigations and, after a brief delay, the aid was given to Ukraine.

Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion, Mr. Turley.

To convict the McDonnells of bribery, the Government was required to show that Governor McDonnell committed (or agreed to commit) an "official act" in exchange for the loans and gifts.

My bold.


Turley claims Hunter Biden's

contract was a classic example of influence peddling by a corrupt Ukrainian company seeking leverage with Vice President Joe Biden.

I may be mistaken but influence peddling is not in Burisma hiring Hunter Biden but would be in Hunter Biden trying to influence Vice President Joe Biden.

Got anything, Mr. Turley?

Also, I'm not sure they can make him resign.

My hope is that McConnell & Co will have a coming to Jesus moment with Trump and have him resign in exchange for not being indicted as this would quell any Trumpkin uproar.

It was not my intention for "have him" to equate to "make him". I should have said ""that it would behoove him" or perhaps "ask him" in that special way mobsters and Donald Trump are all too familiar with.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My opinion, as presented to me by MSNBC is that this offense of bribery is so blatant that the Senate will not sweep this away. They will not lower the bar this much. It would be too detrimental to the future of the country. My hope is that McConnell & Co will have a coming to Jesus moment with Trump and have him resign in exchange for not being indicted as this would quell any Trumpkin uproar.

I'd say that's not even close to their mindset. Legal defenses against the bribery charge are pretty easy to find, even from people who often criticize Trump as well (e. g., https://jonathanturley.org/2019/11/...fine-crimes-to-reframe-the-trump-impeachment/ ).

Also, I'm not sure they can make him resign.

That link is terrible. I am shocked you would bring it out. Even if your posts normally engage in semantics, your points are often nuanced. But this link contains things obviously wrong. I have to wonder if you accidentally gave us the wrong link.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Turley cites McDonnell v. United States in which the Supreme Court rejected the government's definition of "official act". While I appreciate the citation, I don't think we are arguing definitions here.

It was not my intention to get into a debate about the merits of the case. Rather, I would like to say:

1. There are independent legal experts who disagree that there was any bribery, even if they are independent. There is no particular reason to think Republican senators would be inclined to think there was bribery. Moreover, if they want to make a case, it would not be a problem for Republican senators to cite them, and let the lawyers get into the point-by-point debate.

It was not my intention for "have him" to equate to "make him". I should have said ""that it would behoove him" or perhaps "ask him" in that special way mobsters and Donald Trump are all too familiar with.

But it was my intention to equate "make him" with what you are describing, so no confusion here. I'm not sure they can actually get him to resign by asking him in that manner. He might just tell them to go to hell.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

My opinion, as presented to me by MSNBC is that this offense of bribery is so blatant that the Senate will not sweep this away. They will not lower the bar this much. It would be too detrimental to the future of the country. My hope is that McConnell & Co will have a coming to Jesus moment with Trump and have him resign in exchange for not being indicted as this would quell any Trumpkin uproar.

I'd say that's not even close to their mindset. Legal defenses against the bribery charge are pretty easy to find, even from people who often criticize Trump as well (e. g., https://jonathanturley.org/2019/11/...fine-crimes-to-reframe-the-trump-impeachment/ ).

Also, I'm not sure they can make him resign.

That link is terrible. I am shocked you would bring it out. Even if your posts normally engage in semantics, your points are often nuanced. But this link contains things obviously wrong. I have to wonder if you accidentally gave us the wrong link.

Say it is. That was not my point. My point is about the likely mindset of Republican senators (save perhaps for cases like Romney and a few others); see my immediate previous reply for more details.

To be clear: the amount of evidence presented so far is not even close to the amount required to persuade a sufficient number of senators to remove Trump. There is no actual risk for him, unless something far stronger is presented.

 

[Elixir]

There is no actual risk for him, unless something far stronger is presented.

For instance? Something on wheels with such a big motor that it could outrun those galloping goalposts?
I can't imagine it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There is no actual risk for him, unless something far stronger is presented.

For instance? Something on wheels with such a big motor that it could outrun those galloping goalposts?
I can't imagine it.

There are no galloping goalposts, just misreadings of my previous posts. Regardless, the point remains that many Democrats and several large media outlets paint a picture of Trump on the brink of being removed. That's not happening, barring - again - something far stronger. Like what? A necessary condition would be that you wouldn't find mainstream and non-Trumpian legal experts who disagree. But that's probably not a sufficient one.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is no actual risk for him, unless something far stronger is presented.

For instance? Something on wheels with such a big motor that it could outrun those galloping goalposts?
I can't imagine it.

There are no galloping goalposts, just misreadings of my previous posts. Regardless, the point remains that many Democrats and several large media outlets paint a picture of Trump on the brink of being removed.

He should be on the brink of being removed. That he isn't at the moment, though the potential Nunes situation could again change the dynamic, is an indication of how far off the beaten path the GOP has shifted. The White House has ordered multiple people to break the law and ignore subpoenas

That's not happening, barring - again - something far stronger. Like what?

That is what the Democrats are wondering. I suppose it is one reason the Dems are looking into perjruy in the Mueller investigation. But even then, who knows. He wasn't "under oath" or some BS like that.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no actual risk for him, unless something far stronger is presented.

For instance? Something on wheels with such a big motor that it could outrun those galloping goalposts?
I can't imagine it.

There are no galloping goalposts, just misreadings of my previous posts. Regardless, the point remains that many Democrats and several large media outlets paint a picture of Trump on the brink of being removed. That's not happening, barring - again - something far stronger. Like what? A necessary condition would be that you wouldn't find mainstream and non-Trumpian legal experts who disagree. But that's probably not a sufficient one.

There were mainstream and non-Nixonian legal experts who disagreed with his impeachment.

I think there are enough Republican senators who would like Trump gone and even removed from office. However, until they are willing to accept the risk to their seat in the Senate, they will continue to act like hypocritical cowards.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That link is terrible. I am shocked you would bring it out. Even if your posts normally engage in semantics, your points are often nuanced. But this link contains things obviously wrong. I have to wonder if you accidentally gave us the wrong link.

Say it is. That was not my point. My point is about the likely mindset of Republican senators (save perhaps for cases like Romney and a few others); see my immediate previous reply for more details.

To be clear: the amount of evidence presented so far is not even close to the amount required to persuade a sufficient number of senators to remove Trump. There is no actual risk for him, unless something far stronger is presented.

Well, let's take a step back from the specific charge of bribery and any case being made for it. Whether you want to say bribery, extortion, shakedown, whatever--all these things are add-ons in a sense. Taking a step back to look at what is there, that requires minimal inferences is this: President Trump asked a foreign government to investigate his opponent. It's in the transcript. In the transcript, he asked this foreign government to work with his personal lawyer. He then sent his personal lawyer off to Europe and there are many articles in right-wing sources, like Fox News, about Giuliani meeting with foreigners to discuss Biden. Two of Giuliani's co-conspirators are indicted and tried to flee the country. They had one-way tickets to run for cover. This was a clear conflict of interest, a likely abuse of power, and probable allocation of government resources for personal gain. The human, time, and financial resources involved are inferred, but with time evidence will pile up of the specifics. An abuse of power is sufficient as a charge without bribery, extortion, blackmail, because the Constitution says "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." If there is bribery that is also sufficient for impeachment but not necessary.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are no galloping goalposts, just misreadings of my previous posts. Regardless, the point remains that many Democrats and several large media outlets paint a picture of Trump on the brink of being removed. That's not happening, barring - again - something far stronger. Like what? A necessary condition would be that you wouldn't find mainstream and non-Trumpian legal experts who disagree. But that's probably not a sufficient one.

There were mainstream and non-Nixonian legal experts who disagreed with his impeachment.

I think there are enough Republican senators who would like Trump gone and even removed from office. However, until they are willing to accept the risk to their seat in the Senate, they will continue to act like hypocritical cowards.

Their seats in their Senate aren't at much risk. It is the House that is at risk of a "Trump boycott".