ADDED: It's shockingly weird that Donald Trump is President. I still find it hard to believe. But I am tired of all the people who are so disbelieving of the reality that they act weird and still fight to upset the results of the election. The next election is creeping ever closer. Look at those odds. Not only is Trump securely in first place, but you can read down the whole list as see that no one is well-positioned to compete with him. Get on it, people. You have to beat him with someone. Stop bothering me with repetitions of the message that Donald Trump is terrible. Show me what you have.
List of the odds demoted to below the fold:
Donald Trump 3-2
Kamala Harris 8-1
Elizabeth Warren 10-1
Joe Biden 12-1
Bernie Sanders 12-1
Mike Pence 16-1
Michelle Obama 20-1
Cory Booker 25-1
Kirsten Gillibrand 25-1
Beto O’Rourke 30-1
Mark Cuban 50-1
Oprah Winfrey 50-1
Eric Holder 50-1
Julian Castro 50-1
Bob Iger 50-1
Andrew Cuomo 50-1
Sherrod Brown 50-1
Deval Patrick 50-1
Gavin Newsom 50-1
Dwayne Johnson 60-1
Jamie Dimon 60-1
Hillary Clinton 60-1
Michael Bloomberg 60-1
Howard Schultz 60-1
Amy Klobuchar 60-1
Eric Garcetti 60-1
Al Gore 70-1
Keith Ellison 70-1
Mitt Romney 70-1
Scott Walker 70-1
Marco Rubio 70-1
Ted Cruz 75-1
Tim Kaine 75-1
George Clooney 75-1
Carly Fiorina 75-1
Rand Paul 75-1
LeBron James 100-1
John Cena 200-1
Tammy Duckworth 200-1
Chelsea Clinton 200-1
Tim Cook 200-1
Evan McMullin 250-1
Nancy Pelosi 250-1
Jeff Flake 250-1
Kanye West 500-1
পোস্টগুলি
১৩৮টি মন্তব্য:
200-1 for Chelsea Clinton? Those odds are way too high. 200000000 to 1 is more like it.
It will be Harris, which is not good news for USA.
Kanye West, 500 to 1? I think that one would be a good deal. He's _way_ more likely than anyone but the top ten on the list. Eric Holder??
It's still Oprah's to lose.
Trump is so fortunate in his enemies.
I'll guess Harris and she will lose worse than Hillary. She is obnoxious in person.
What are the odds on impeachment? 9 to 1? Less?
Kamala Harris 8-1 for POTUS but 1-1 for whore.
Chuck said...
What are the odds on impeachment? 9 to 1? Less?
I know it doesn’t help you in your masturbation, but the odds of impeachment resulting in anyone on that list ending up in charge is exactly zero.
Odds of impeachment 1,000,000 to 1.
Harris, a black woman, is considered 2nd most likely to be President, because America is so racist and sexist.
So if I put 10$ on Trump to win in 2020 I get paid 15$?
Chuck said...
What are the odds on impeachment? 9 to 1? Less?
I'd say > 50%. If the Democrats take the house then >100%
Odds of conviction in the Senate? 0%.
LYNNDH said...”It will be Harris, which is not good news for USA.”
After watching her performance the last two days, I don’t think she’s smart enough to pull it off.
AllenS said...
Odds of impeachment 1,000,000 to 1.
I want that action. I am buying a $2 Win ticket. How can we arrange it?
The odds strike me as the 'for entertainment purposes' type. I don't know BetDSI or whatever who set them, maybe you can actually wager or not. But there does seem to be a political motive rather than setting an actual line. I'd love take the other side of some of these. You used to be able to take either side in the prediction markets but then the lines were more realistic there, too...
The effort to remove Trump by impeachment by the House and a conviction by a supermajority vote of the Senate is, obviously, not something that will actually result ousting Trump before the next election. You're delusional if you think that Trump will be thrown out by this method. (Unless some new and serious crime is discovered, not the "obstruction of justice" that was him musing to Comey about going easy on Flynn or whatever these things are that we've been hearing about for the past 2 years.) This is only political theater, and it may or may not help Trump's opponents in the 2020 election, which is what should be the focus.
The left needs a happy warrior with a positive vision to campaign on. Bernie comes closest, as does Robert, excuse, Beto. Of course, their both Caucasian white men. But I'll go with Beto Harris, or Harris Beto, as the ticket.
Of course, Harris owes her prominence to the affair she had with Willie Brown. Not a woman who rose on her own merit, unless you broaden the definition of merit.
I believe in Sharia Law in Trump's case. He hates Muslims and Islam, banning its practitioners from entering the country, so he would surely be executed under Sharia as an infidel. The right-wingers on the Supreme Court should also face the same fate for giving their imprimatur to trump's bigotry. That's a good reason to reject Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, who would likely embrace Trump's bigotry from all we know about him.
Odds in Sept 2018 are not predictable of future probabilities.
It's not surprising Trump won. He had a 1 in 4 chance and on the eve of the election I believe Nate Silver gave him 35%. He was a TV star watched by many and deeply appealed to many.
I suggest these people on polls and probability: Nate Cohn, Harry Enten, Nate Silver.
Another note on polls. Polls are more predictive closer to election. Polls two months out are not as predictive as polls a week out. Multiple polls with trend lines are more predictive then a single poll.
Multiple polls, close to an election, are the gold standard. Look at multiple polls 3, 2, 1 week out.
Waiting is hard. Pollsters aren't fortune tellers. That's life.
You're delusional if you think that Trump will be thrown out by this method.
I dunno, Althouse. Do you really think the Senate will willingly ignore the brainless shrieking coming from a certain useless Michigan lawyer’s mother’s basement?
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Chuck said...
"What are the odds on impeachment? 9 to 1? Less?"
I'd say > 50%. If the Democrats take the house then >100%
Odds of conviction in the Senate? 0%.
Let's say that House Democrat leadership has the self-discipline to wait until the conclusion of the Mueller investigation. And that a report by Mueller shows clearly-documented and irrefutable proof of a dozen or so felonies committed by Donald Trump. Along with the exposure of tax records that show that Trump has borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from Russians seeking to launder money in the West.
And only then, do the House Democrats pass articles of impeachment.
And then, the trial in the Senate consists of little more than a recitation of the irrefutable documentary evidence. The Democrats, having very narrowly taken the Senate, would need about 14 Republicans to support impeachment:
1.Graham
2.Collins
3.Sasse
4.Gardner
5.Rubio
6.Ernst
7.Fischer
8.Heller
9.Burr
10.Portman
11.Toomey
12.Murkowski
13.Johnson
14.Capito
Ann Althouse said...
The effort to remove Trump by impeachment by the House and a conviction by a supermajority vote of the Senate is, obviously, not something that will actually result ousting Trump before the next election. You're delusional if you think that Trump will be thrown out by this method.
I think you underestimate the mendacity and greed of the swamp. I think they are desperate and will try or do anything to get rid of Trump or burn down the country if they fail.
What they do not understand is how despised they are out here in the rest of the country.
Both wings of the uniparty.
It can't please Hillary to be that far down the list.
Absent a real crime, there is zero chance of Trump being impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, and we will know this a day after this coming House election for dead certain because any such crime will be announced before Election Day if it exists, which looks very, very unlikely at this point in time.
Face it, unless there is a recession between now and November 2020, or Trump simply decides he doesn't want to run again or dies, he will be reelected.
Michelle Obama, who won't even run, has better numbers than Cory Booker.
That's gotta hurt.
It's shockingly weird that Donald Trump is President.
I agree. Its an indictment of the political class of the United States.
”Face it, unless there is a recession between now and November 2020, or Trump simply decides he doesn't want to run again or dies, he will be reelected.”
Six more years of Chuck.
Achilles said...the odds of impeachment resulting in anyone on that list ending up in charge is exactly zero.
Mike Pence is on the list at 16-1
It is fun to watch Chuck delude himself.
Mueller is already negotiating to keep himself out of jail.
Interestingly, the odds of Trump being impeached (just impeached, not convicted) are probably higher than him losing in 2020.
I bet that's never happened before.
. But I am tired of all the people who are so disbelieving of the reality that they act weird and still fight to upset the results of the election.
Where were you during the second Bush administration?
He was an iligitimate president. Gore won. The SCOTUS gave Bush the presidency. Etc. Etc.
tim maguire said...
Achilles said...the odds of impeachment resulting in anyone on that list ending up in charge is exactly zero.
Mike Pence is on the list at 16-1
And if Pence is stupid enough to assume power after Trump is removed from office he just assures he is the first in line.
Amen. That's what bothers me so much about the Mueller investigation, too. I presidency is 4 years. 8 years tops. It goes by in a flash. We can wait, rather than having to investigate the whole time and try to hurry it out with promises of impeachment. It's no way to have a democracy.
Well, I certainly hope Donald Trump wins in 2020. He certainly has earned it.
I am interested and intrigued by who his Dem opponent will be. I really hope it;s Elizabeth Warren.
Since JFK, the Dems have tried Mass liberals Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas and John Kerry. The GOP has tried Mitt Romney. Two couldn't win the primary; three won the primary and got swamped in the general election. That's 0 for 4.
More Mass politicians!
Let’s say Mueller produces well-documented evidence of Trump tweeting in less than complete sentences!
Achilles said...It is fun to watch Chuck delude himself.
I counted 9 "if"s in Chuck's scenario. I don't think he's even deluding himself. Try though he may.
Kamala Harris 8-1
We already had our Affirmative Action president and he wasn't that good.
It's shockingly weird that Donald Trump is President.
Donald Trump is like Guy Grand, the hero of Terry Southern's The Magic Christian. He's a billionaire with a puckish sense of humor, who goes to great expense to pull off yuuuge practical jokes.
My family and I have been laughing at Kamala Harris's "4% out of 100%" comments since she made them. If Trump said something like that, we'd have CNN spending a day on his innumeracy.
> It's shockingly weird that Donald Trump is President.
The Diplomad 2.0 claims tat his dad started predicting that Trump would become president in 2004.
That is, the predictions started in 2004, not that Trump would be elected that year :)
The Rock's odds are delightful.
"It's shockingly weird that Donald Trump is President. I still can't believe it."
*****************************
Miss Ann, you oughta be reading Selena Zito's book.
It's neither shocking, nor weird, that vast numbers of the American citizenry aka Deplorables, backed a candidate who ran on THEIR interests, and not those of the self-proclaimed elites and the Swamp.
If you don't know that already, you yourself are politically weird. Or clueless. Or part of the self-proclaimed elites.
Take yer pick.
What are the odds on the Queen of England?
It's shockingly weird that Donald Trump is President.
Yes, but isn't it fun!
Since JFK, the Dems have tried Mass liberals Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas and John Kerry. The GOP has tried Mitt Romney. Two couldn't win the primary; three won the primary and got swamped in the general election. That's 0 for 4.
More Mass politicians!
Don't forget Robert and Ted Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, Scott Harshbarger (does he count?)- all since the 50s. George HW Bush was also born in Massachusetts, I believe.
It's the draw of Massachusetts' elite snooty colleges and the images of grandeur they implant in ambitious students.
Okay, maybe just Harvard.
Chuck at 10:41 AM
a report by Mueller shows clearly-documented and irrefutable proof of a dozen or so felonies committed by Donald Trump. Along with the exposure of tax records that show that Trump has borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from Russians seeking to launder money in the West.
Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller would have to prove that ...
* the Russians loaned the money in order "to launder money in the West"
* Trump knew that was the Russians' purpose.
You're delusional if you think that Trump will be thrown out by this method. (Unless some new and serious crime is discovered, not the "obstruction of justice" that was him musing to Comey about going easy on Flynn or whatever these things are that we've been hearing about for the past 2 years.) This is only political theater, and it may or may not help Trump's opponents in the 2020 election, which is what should be the focus.
Gee, all this would make Chuck look pretty stupid.
Trump will probably not be reelected. That's what 3-2 means. But he's got a 40% chance, and that is higher than any one right now, but not higher than anyone.
Mark Cuban talking to Charlie Kirk of TPUSA
Based on some of Mr. Cuban's comments in this back and forth I'm guessing he doesn't run except maybe as an independent if the Dem side of the field is bad enough that he thinks it is a better shot than they have.
I have to say I do greatly respect how he enagages here. I've seen a lot of folks like Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, etc. going into what can be presumed to be, if not hostile environments, ones with many non-receptive people. I feel Mr. Cuban here engages people he knows he disagrees with about many things with respect without pulling punches about his views.
Chuck at 10:41 AM
.... the exposure of tax records that show that Trump has borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from Russians seeking to launder money in the West. ...
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller proves that some Russians lent "hundreds of millions of dollars" to Donald Trump.
Such a loan itself is not a crime.
Mueller would have to prove much, much more beyond the mere fact of such a loan.
By definition, if Trump were to be removed via impeachment, Pence would be President... that's kind of the definition of the job of Vice President. If not him somehow, it would be Paul Ryan at the moment.
It won't be Hillary or Warren. I'm not actually sure the left knows that, though.
wwww said...
"Waiting is hard. Pollsters aren't fortune tellers."
Well, yeah they are.
They go poll some people (that's the non fortune telling part) and then they weigh each identified group as to what percentage of the electorate they will be. That's the fortune telling part.
They poll 1000 people but that if sample only has 200 republicans, they weigh the republican responses to match what they guess will be the percent of republicans that actually vote.
Since households are not tied to land lines any more it has been harder and harder for national pollsters to wrap their datasets around who will show up on election day.
The betting site that the numbers come from has a Trump Impeachment by the House at:
Donald Trump is impeached by the House during first term:
Yes +100
No -130
So, that's about a 44% to 50% chance it happens.
Chuck at 10:41 AM
.... the exposure of tax records that show that Trump has borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from Russians seeking to launder money in the West. ...
I suppose it's possible that when the Russians loaned hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump, they told Trump that they were loaning him the money in order "to launder it in the West".
Perhaps the Russians revealed that intention in the presence of a Trump associate who has been flipped by Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller.
Does the Russians' intent make Trump's acceptance of the loan a crime? If Trump actually needed the loan for his casino business, then can Trump be prosecuted because of the Russian lenders' criminal intent?
John Kass on Booker's "Spartacus Moment"
He is in rare form.
The emails showed Kavanaugh to be opposed to racial profiling of all kinds.
Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro tweeted that Booker should not be called Spartacus, but rather, “Fartacus.”
I won’t go there. But I have other complaints against Booker.
lol, Mike Sylvester...
We would know EXACTLY what to think of that. That Trump's tax returns were never non-disclosable because they were under an "audit." They were just too embarrassing. That when Trump denied having any business in Russia, it was a lie. A clever, Trumpian lie insofar as Trump might not actually have any business assets in Russia, but all kinds of dealings with Russian oligarchs. And that when Eric Trump blurted out to golf writer James Dodson that the Trumps can get all the capital that they might need from the Russians, and then denied it, he was lying too.
The list is meaningless this far our.
But this was interesting:
"List of the odds demoted to below the fold"
There's no 'fold' anymore -- just a newspaper term that's outlived its usefulness.
Polls are profiling.
"Waiting is hard. Pollsters aren't fortune tellers."
"Well, yeah they are."
Pollsters can't guarantee the future, only probabilities.
Odds at this point are useless unless you're a bookie. They don't reveal the probabilities of early November 2020.
Chuck at 10:41 AM
.... the exposure of tax records that show that Trump has borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from Russians seeking to launder money in the West. ...
If some Russians loaned hundreds of millions of dollars to Donald Trump, then how does that loan "launder" that money?
If Trump paid back -- or still is paying back -- all the money in according with the loan's conditions, then the loan is simply a loan. It's not "laundering" of money.
I suppose that Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller would have to prove that the loan was not repaid fully. In other words, Trump paid back some of the loan by doing something else.
Perhaps Mueller will prove that Trump paid back some of the loan by advising the Russians about buying Facebook ads. I suppose that might be "laundering" money.
This sort of speculation is trivial in every dimension.
Your real political problems are deeper and broader.
Its not at all a matter of one man, but of hundreds of millions.
The position of President is a prize in the ongoing contest, thats all.
These hundreds of millions have determined, over time, that they do not really have interests in common, that a great number of things are zero-sum games, and that they believe in incompatible gods - in every sense. More and more they hate each others guts, even if they are too polite to say so, mostly. Anything that is brought up as a common interest is exactly the same sort of consideration that also existed before every other major conflict.
You see this conflict everywhere, daily.
A lot of whistling past the graveyard.
"List of the odds demoted to below the fold"
There's no 'fold' anymore -- just a newspaper term that's outlived its usefulness.
It's been adopted by the web to refer to things on a web page you need to scroll down to see.
Chuck at 11:35 AM
That when Trump denied having any business in Russia, it was a lie. A clever, Trumpian lie insofar as Trump might not actually have any business assets in Russia, but all kinds of dealings with Russian oligarchs.
I don't think that Trump has "denied having any business in Russia".
* Trump broadcast a Miss Universe pageant from Moscow.
* Trump considered developing hotels and golf courses in Russia.
Those activities are public knowledge.
Perhaps Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller will prove that Trump borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from some Russians.
I'm not sure that getting a loan from some Russians for a casino in New Jersey is considered to be "having business in Russia".
Chuck again fantasizing about how he can participate in returning control of the government to a party that has sworn to turn the US into a democrat Dictatorship.
Pray tell, Chuck... let's assume you and the GOPe and the Democrats, united as never before, do indeed manage to take down Trump. Do you think that you will calmly and blithely return to Democrat dominance, forever more?
Or do you think that the people, having seen the Deep state and the aristocrats steal political power... the people might not like your coup?
Or do you think that Washington, franklin, and the boys of concord and lexington fought the British so you could set up another aristocracy that refuses to listen to the people and actively removes any representation they might have?
You and your leftist allies are systematically removing the ability of the people to peacefully get their way. Your leftist Google, Facebook, etc allies are removing the soap box. You want to make the ballot box useless by throwing out the politicians the people elect you don't like. And your favorite network CNN is out there asking to remove the jury box protections (remember them asking the judge to strip the jurors of protection so that CNN could harass and destroy them? Naturally you cheered that). What's left once you and your leftist allies have destroyed the jury, ballot, and soap boxes? The ammo box. Reading the Declaration of Independence and substituting today's GOPe and the Democrats for the King makes it pretty clear that 1) Washington and Jefferson would not be GOPe and its leftist allies and 2, Trump is a pretty reasonable first step, a warning if you will, against you aristocrats.
If Booker or Harris is elected - there goes the Republic.
Both of them make Obama look like Einstein.
Booker or Harris would be irrelevant.
They would not be active policy agents, they would be figureheads, as with Obama.
Worse figureheads because of lower skills in the matter of presentation.
The trouble with either is the nature of the administration.
It would be something like the Bourbon restoration of 1815.
I wonder what the odds would look like calculated on the basis of looks, which I think Althouse has a theory about that. If we just elect the best looking person, who would that be? Anyone on this list?
It's shit or cut bait time for the democrats. perhaps they envision the messaiah coming forth from the midterds.
It's sad not to see Ben Sasse on the list. He cares too much about his family to expose them to the hyenas. As for the despicable Kamala, I do think that after Wilson, she would be the most evil person ever to be elected. Has she ever had to really campaign against a Republican? I would enjoy seeing her eviscerated, but am too scared she could be elected.
>>By definition, if Trump were to be removed via impeachment, Pence would be President
Under the left's "Illegitimacy Theory", Kavanaugh can't be confirmed, since Trump is under investigation.
So, if the investigation shows Trump received aid from the Russians, then Pence is also Illegitimate, and would need to be removed as well.
I believe the plan is to impeach everybody from Trump on down until they get back to a D, or failing that, an R that won't fight back.
Fighting back will then, of course, be an impeachable offense.
Danton smiles.
Anything is possible given the incompetence and corruption in Washington, but its really a pretty sad list for Democrats.
If Trump doesn't run, the odds for the failed 2016 Repubs improve quite a bit, which this doesn't take into account.
so he would surely be executed under Sharia as an infidel. - Trumpit
The crazy person doesn't realize she's an infidel, too.
Nobody saw Jimmy Carter coming two years before the 1976 election. Not the best example, but there could be somebody out there lying in the weeds that we're not considering. None of those on the list are Messiah material.
Mark Cuban - if not an outright 9/11 Truther - has at least played footsies with the loons in the past.
He won't be elected.
>Nobody saw Jimmy Carter coming two years before the 1976 election.
The Carter people wanted to run against Reagan. They thought he was a fool, and would be the easiest beat.
The Clinton people wanted to run against Trump. They thought he would be a total joke, and the easiest to beat.
So, for all of those saying "I hope the D's run Person X, he/she will get clobbered!" should be careful what they wish for.
“Let's say that House Democrat leadership has the self-discipline to wait until the conclusion of the Mueller investigation. And that a report by Mueller shows clearly-documented and irrefutable proof of a dozen or so felonies committed by Donald Trump. Along with the exposure of tax records that show that Trump has borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from Russians seeking to launder money in the West.”
Calm down everyone. Chuck has just posted a hypothetical where Trump might possibly be impeached AND removed. He is essentially suggesting that sufficient Republicans could be found to remove him if he is caught red handed, with irrefutable evidence of having committed major felonies. He is not doing what the leftists here, like Inga, do which is to assert as true the most insane claims out of the fetid leftist swamps.
1. It is highly unlikely that something like that proposed by Chuck will turn up, after trying for better than two years now.
2. House Dems are not about to wait for an ironclad case before voting out articles of impeachment. Just isn’t in them.
3. How did Mueller legally get Trump’s tax records? Won’t matter with a Dem House, but very well could matter in the Senate. I don’t think that FISA Title VII helps there, nor National Security Letters. They need a search warrant, and failing to include exonerating information is a Woods Procedure violation, and likely would invalidate the search warrant - and having acquired the tax returns illegally first, before applying for a search warrant, would be just that sort of omitted information that would void a search warrant.
4. Voting for removal would be extremely unpopular with many of the voters who put Trump in the Presidency. You could get the vote of a McCain, but many of those listed are going to be worried about reelection n, if they vote for removal.
What should be shockingly weird is that Hillary was ever even considered as a serious candidate for POTUS.
I've seen more than one timeline that shows President Donald John Trump started planning his run for the White House a dozen or so years ago. And he doesn't like to lose. If he had ever seriously thought he was going to lose, he would never have jumped in.
Reality 101 for people who haven't figured it out: President Donald John Trump is not dumb. President Donald John Trump is not ignorant. President Donald John Trump is not naive. He wasn't elected by accident, he was elected by careful planning and strategy. His careful planning and strategy, with assistance from hand picked assistants. Against the largest media opposition ever against any candidate ever, even Nixon. He bypassed the mainstream media. Utilized social media effectively. Targeted the states he needed to win in- and won in them.
I voted for him, though my vote didn't matter since I'm in NY. But as it goes, I'd have voted for Syd the Syphilitic Camel over Hillary. There was an amorphous opposition to Trump, not solid, because the opposition and the press never took him seriously. At the same time, he had a small but solid core of support. I know some of them, people not normally engaged in politics. I wasn't one of them. Hillary has a large and solid core of supporters, for reasons I cannot fathom. But more importantly for the election- she had a large and solid opposition composed of people who would crawl over broken glass to vote against her. We're the people who ultimately gave Trump his largest percentage of votes. Not Trump supporters, but Hillary opposition. His actual but smaller number of supporters gave him his margin of victory. Both sets of voters were essential to his win.
He picked the right time to jump into the presidential fray. And had the perfect opponent.
"Mark Cuban talking to Charlie Kirk of TPUSA"
This alone makes Cuban ineligible for the Democrat ticket.
Kanye West is primed for 2024, not 2020.
He can make KAGA (Keep America Great Always) hats.
@Gospace, Trump did pick the right time and the right opponent, but don’t overlook the role that the media — orchestrated by the Clinton campaign — played in pushing him during the nomination process.
And I am with you — I would have crawled over broken glass to vote against Hillary Clinton. But that was then. Right now, given what I have seen from his pragmatic foreign policy and economic policies, I will vote for Trump.
I am very willing to wager that the Dem nominee will NOT come from the top 10 choices here.
The Democrats, having very narrowly taken the Senate, would need about 14 Republicans to support impeachment:
If 14 Republican senators vote to impeach Trump the Republican Party dies in flames.
Chuck at 10:41 AM
.... the exposure of tax records that show that Trump has borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from Russians seeking to launder money in the West. ...
If Donald Trump borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from some Russians, then we can be sure that the loan contract if a very large document that has been written, discussed and approved by a lot of lawyers and finance experts.
A loan of hundreds of millions of dollars is not documented with a do-it-yourself, generic loan document purchased at Staples.
Let's suppose that the money-laundering was done like this:
* Russians loan $200 million to Trump.
* Trump pays back only $100 million but shows the Russians how to buy Facebook ads.
In this manner, the Russians have "laundered" $100 million but have secretly garnered the valuable knowledge of how to buy Facebook ads.
With so many lawyers and finance experts involved, however, I doubt that this money-laundering scheme could be kept secret.
Maybe, after all, this money-laundering scheme will be discovered and reported by Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller.
If polls two years out were predictive, Ted Kennedy would have been the Democrats' nominee for about five elections, and served three terms as President.
Thank you Bruce Hayden!
Please allow me to return the favor with regard to you own reasonable comment.
1. I have never much believed that any major criminal "collusion" would turn up between the Russian Federation and the Trump-Pence Campaign. I have all along believed it to be much more likely that Trump would be reported out as having done Cohen-like things with regard to banking, tax, and FEC violations.
2. You make an excellent point. Democrat activists might not be able to restrain themselves, from trying to impeach Trump based on something they read in The Nation or The Guardian.
3. I see not reason why Mueller could not get a warrant for Trump's taxes. And I see no reason why they could not execute on such a warrant, and could not include Trump's tax records in producing a report from the Special Counsel's office, detailing allegations of criminal activity by Donald Trump. There would be no exclusionary rule problem; they probably couldn't indict a sitting President in any event. We aren't talking about prosecuting Trump. We are talking about impeaching him.
4. Your point #4 is well-stated but I just don't agree. I listed 14 GOP Senators who fall into three categories:
a) Senators whose 'purple' states are not strongly pro-Trump, and who need the support of upper middle class suburban Republicans (Gardner of Colorado, Collins of Maine, Ernst of Iowa, Toomey of Pennsylvania, Portman of Ohio);
b) Senators who appear eager to adopt John McCain's "conscience of the Republican Senate Conference" mantle (Graham, Rubio, Sasse), and;
c) Senators who won't be running again and who need not prostrate themselves before Republican primary voters (and there we might be able to throw in additional names, like Kyl, or perhaps Cornyn, or others).
Not to mention all of the Senators who remember what a profound asshole Donald Trump is. How could Ted Cruz not feel that way?!?
Since the person with the second best odds can't possibly win, I guess its all over 'cept for the crying.
Not to mention all of the Senators who remember what a profound asshole Donald Trump is. How could Ted Cruz not feel that way?!?
Anybody who thinks it is a good thing that a Republican senator would vote to impeach a Republican president because he thinks Trump is an asshole is definitely part of the problem and part of the reason we got Trump in the first place.
No Democrat would consider voting to impeach a Democratic president for any reason what so ever.
" I have all along believed it to be much more likely that Trump would be reported out as having done Cohen-like things with regard to banking, tax, and FEC violations."
I think this is also likely. At this level there are a massive number of complications in financial reporting and structure of deals, just to start. There are specialists hired to slide these close to the rules. There is scope for all kinds of judgement calls. There are, besides, an enormous number of details left to subordinates or contraparties, and there is the further complication of foreign deals, with often fuzzy lines and inconsistencies.
A creative prosecutor could certainly dredge up something to indict out of a half-century business career at this level. Tom Wolfe's ham sandwich rule.
But that creative prosecutor given the same authority and access could do the same to anyone in the Forbes 400.
Ann nailed it. You dopes are hysterical.
Hysterical people can not get organised and get anything done.
Trump thrives on your chaos. He is not chaotic, despite your hysterical shrieks that he is.
Pardon me, but no prognosticators are understanding the strength of the bond between President Trump and his Deplorables. It won in 2016, and has become stronger and stronger as DJT keeps fighting for them and telling them the truth about the corrupt/criminal DC swamp, one layer at a time . He wins for them. They will come out and fight for him on Election Day.
It's time to play Taps for all of the dead Dems.
Is BetDSI- who supplied the odds for the story- a legit gambling operation? I've lost track as to what's legal in online gambling...
Anyway, their website has an unusual prop bet:
Will Roe v Wade be overturned by Dec. 31, 2019? (Kavanaugh must be confirmed for action) Yes +150 No -200
Wouldn't the Supremes like, you know, need a case in the hopper for this to happen in 2019? Wouldn't it probably needed to have been selected by the Supreme's already or at least have it ready in October? Is there such a case?
I'm trying to figure out why the 'No' bet isn't a sure thing since 2019 seems either an impossibility, or at least why the odds aren't longer than they are (for either side)...
"I see not reason why Mueller could not get a warrant for Trump's taxes."
I am not a lawyer and I suspect that neither is Chuckles.
Better one should ask the reasons that would allow Mueller (or any prosecutor) to demand my tax records, your tax records or Trump's tax records.
Maybe Professor Chuckles can explain to us the meaning of the term "probable cause."
"I am very willing to wager that the Dem nominee will NOT come from the top 10 choices here."
As am I.
I suspect that the nominee will be a fresh faced, obscure Governor who has a supposedly moderate record - Jimmy Carter redux.
I also suspect that this is the last time the Democrats nominate someone who tries to appeal to moderates. It's socialism from here on out.
But that creative prosecutor given the same authority and access could do the same to anyone in the Forbes 400.
And this is the crux of the problem for people who want to use something dredged up in such a way for grounds for impeachment. The typical voter almost certainly will not be able parse the fine details of such a case, but they will also almost certainly get the sense that this is a railroading, or that it'll feel like a railroading. It'll be akin to a cop singling out a driver for speeding while ignoring a vast sea of speeders. They'll sense that the whole system is flawed.
Now, people who despise Trump will obviously have zero problems with how Trump is taken down as long as he's taken down. But they're not whose at issue here. In order to make a strong case for impeachment, you have to be able to convince a large swath of the populace that despite things actually going pretty well by most measures, we have to get rid of the guy who arguably is largely responsible for it.
But that creative prosecutor given the same authority and access could do the same to anyone in the Forbes 400
We deal with Trump sized returns all the time. I will concur and add you wouldn't need fifty years of returns to find it. For a mid career principal, five would be sufficient.
Hell, 'SWISS BANK ACCOUNT!!!!' was enough to tar Mitt. It would be nothing to find an entanglement with our convoluted FEC laws..Oh, wait...
If I had to predict, I think Kamala Harris will be the Dem Nominee in 2020.
She checks all the liberal boxes (female, of color, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, lawyer).
Thankfully, she will lose in 2020 to Trump. She'll win California, but thankfully the rest of the country don't look like California.
Sadly, though, this will put her in a nice position to win 2024. So, I am glad that Trump likely will be president for 6 more years. But, the cost may be a President Harris down the road.
"No Democrat would consider voting to impeach a Democratic president for any reason what so ever."
This
By whatever margin Ted beats the Cultural Appropriator this year, even pink shoes Wendy would beat him if he voted to convict. Stop being silly, you act like you have nothing better to do than use the comments to post BS for fun. Its a tired act, start you own blog and see if anybody gives a rat ass.
The only one who doesn't make my right eye start to twitch again is Scot Walker. A vast majority of them make me want to throw up. And a few make me want to take my 67 year old body to a cave to become an ascetic.
From a gamblers perspective, Pence at 16-1 is the way to go. A lot of thing besides impeachment could have him running as the incumbent.
Look at those odds. Not only is Trump securely in first place, but you can read down the whole list as see that no one is well-positioned to compete with him.
That's just the nature of the list. All of the top contenders are Democrats. Trump gets the best odds because, as the incumbent, the Republican field is just him.
Pence is in there, but those are impeachment odds.
It's all hypothetical nonsense, anyway, but the real odds would be "incumbent vs the opposition field" because that's how elections work.
But, the cost may be a President Harris down the road.
You may be right, but it's too far out to say for certain. A lot can happen in 6 years. A lot of stupid gaffes can occur that could render her presidential prospects irretrievable. A lot of closet skeletons could be dragged out into the light of day. There could be a major 9/11 sized terror event that would scare us all into neocon paranoia. Or any number of other events that might not bode well for someone like Harris.
"be Harris, which is not good news for USA."
Mortgage the house, yer gonna be rich!
NB: the smiling , half black, Muslim got a complete pass on all criticism because he was the first African American President.Kamala has no pass. Trump will brand her every which way but loose. The Kanye West wing of the American born blacks are now getting aboard the Trump Train.
DIf Trump gets removed with Republican fingerprints, the party is dead, sorry Chuck. That's why everyone thinks that you are a Democrat.
Dwayne Johnson 60-1
Is that the Rock? Or some other Dwayne Johnson?
>>A creative prosecutor could certainly dredge up something to indict out of a half-century business career at this level
Show me the man, I'll show you the crime.
We already know who the man is, now all we are waiting for is the "right" political moment to reveal the "crime". I'm guessing October 29th.
Is that the Rock? Or some other Dwayne Johnson
They don’t specify- maybe it’s the field?
"Not only is Trump securely in first place, but you can read down the whole list as see that no one is well-positioned to compete with him"
That's because he's already secured the nomination. 3-2 means they only think he has a 40% chance of re-election. The odds are divided about who precisely will oppose him.
I bet the Indian will get the nod. We have had our black president and I guess there is no appetite for another just yet, even a female. Harris will tank in the debates. Even Slow Joe is brainier.
Unless, I guess, they manage to find some genuine criminal activity. Not some technical violations that would not get a second look if we were talking about a Democrat.
You're not factoring the never trumpers. Its quite possible that a well financed "Never Trumper" like Huntsman/Romney - Sasse - or Flake will run against Trump, in the General.
Unlike Egg McMuffin, he will be well financed and well known.
Just skimming off 5% of the Trump Vote in FLA, OH, MICH, WINSC, will be good enough to elect ANY DEMOCRAT.
The left are still fighting 2016. They want Hillary, dog gone it.
Plus, you need to recognize that the D's will vote for ANYONE with D after their name.
And they will have the entire MSM on their side.
THe D's have an absolute LOCK on almost 200 Electoral Vote. Their dumb voters will vote D no matter who is nominated. Bush II had a good economy AND a War AND a weak opponent. Yet, a couple hundred thousand votes in OH and FLA would've given Kerry the election.
The USA is becoming like California was in the 90s. The demographic change is happening, and it won't be long before the D's have an absolute Lock on the Presidency.
“Better one should ask the reasons that would allow Mueller (or any prosecutor) to demand my tax records, your tax records or Trump's tax records.”
Actually, there is a decent chance that they do have Trump’s tax records, just not really legitimately, in a form that would pass 4th Amdt scrutiny. One of the things that Peter Strzok brought to the Mueller investigation was the ability to use counterintelligence tools, such as FISA Title VII database searching and National Security Letters. Maybe the Title VII searches, because NSA Dir Adm Rogers shut down access to 702(USPERS) searching after discovering that 85% of the accesses over the previous year had been abusive (I.e, illegal). “About” queries appear to still be shut down, but the FBI really does need to do “To” and “From” searches in their counterintelligence and counter terrorism roles, but it is not clear whether that was reinstated before Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team.
One point on the tax returns is that a prosecutor cannot legally go on a fishing expedition through someone’s tax returns. They have to have some evidence showing at least a reasonable suspicion, if not probable cause. And in a case like this, it would have to have been well articulated at the time that the warrant was applied for. And it had better not have come from already having looked at his tax returns, or be manufactured out of thin air, as was done for the Title I FISA warrants on Carter Page.
Right now, I am assuming that Mueller’s team got Trump’s tax returns, very possibly through Peter Strzok, but haven’t found a smoking gun there yet involving Russian collusion. They may have found something hinky, but absent a Russian collusion connection, I think that it would be political suicide to bring it out into the open right now (because w/o the Russian collusion connection, accessing Trump’s tax returns would be seen by many as a fishing expedition aimed at removing the duly elected President). That said, I think that Mueller is under the gun right now, time wise, with the elections in two months, and the predicate for his investigation, which comes back to the highly questionable Steele Dossier and Carter Page FISA warrants, liable to blow up any minute with Trump declassifying the rest of the FISA applications. (Interestingly, Mueller’s lead investigator, Andrew Weismann, was involved with the Ohrs, Steele, and Simpson as early as August 2016).
The left are still fighting 2016. They want Hillary, dog gone it.
The left don't like Hillary any better than we do. They just hate Trump worse.
It might be Spartacus
Right now, I am assuming that Mueller’s team got Trump’s tax returns, very possibly through Peter Strzok, but haven’t found a smoking gun there yet involving Russian collusion.
Yes or through Lois Lerner, although I forget the time line.
They are all crooks.
If Trump gets removed with Republican fingerprints, the party is dead, sorry Chuck. That's why everyone thinks that you are a Democrat.
Look at South Carolina. In 1974 the state Democrats used lawfare to get Charles "Pug" Ravenel, who had won the Democratic primary for governor, upsetting the party favorite, removed from the ballot. South Carolina hadn't elected a Republican governor since Reconstruction, but it did that year, and hasn't elected a Democrat since.
Don't shaft the base..
You’d be amazed how unrevealing a large tax return is. Maybe they’re just too boring...
"Right now, I am assuming that Mueller’s team got Trump’s tax returns, very possibly through Peter Strzok, but haven’t found a smoking gun there yet involving Russian collusion."
If that is true, they illegally accessed that information and are subject to criminal penalty. Thus, that information can never be directly used in or out of court.
Not a very impressive group of Americans. Hardly any seem like the kind of person you want as leader of the free world, which I now belatedly must admit Trump clearly is, despite his unique style.
No generals, no impressive personal stories, just pure name recognition, and some have little of that. People often say Trump was not experienced for the job, but I think he has exactly the kind of experience that's needed, which very few politicians possess - experience getting things done, talking plainly, negotiating with one's own skin in the game, choosing subordinates, hiring and firing, and keeping your eye on the ball.
true, but the whole awan clan, the Pashtun crowders, who were cleared by the fbi investigation suggests that won't be a concern,
maybe she will be the successor,
https://babalublog.com/2018/09/07/ambassador-nikki-haley-forces-un-security-council-to-address-the-crisis-in-nicaragua/
the 80s seem to rhyme if not repeat explicitly, dan moldea, had he the opportunity would have gone back 25 years to find mob ties with Reagan, as jeff gerth did with Nixon, in a little publication, sid vicious edited, along with phillip agee,
Why is Pence on the list?
Is he supposed primary Trump?
I guess the “people who would crawl over broken glass to vote against” Clinton are Trump Democrats; hopefully, they’ll stay that way.
3. I see not reason why Mueller could not get a warrant for Trump's taxes. And I see no reason why they could not execute on such a warrant, and could not include Trump's tax records in producing a report from the Special Counsel's office,
Under what jurisdiction is Mueller going to use to get tax returns before President Trump took office?
Much like the Biden rule, has bitten Dems in the ass, just like the Reid rule, sunk the Dems and assured a conservative SCOTUS for decades, Just like the Booker rule is going to create havoc in the Senate when the Dems get the majority, This foray into impeaching President Trump with no accusations of any wrong doing, Democrats keep fumbling the ball in their own end zone. To quote Spartacus from Newark, "bring it on"
"I counted 9 "if"s in Chuck's scenario. I don't think he's even deluding himself. Try though he may."
Indeed.
LLR Chuck is the Spartacus Of If's!
Well, Chuck and his lefty allies.
LOL
Maybe Cory Booker, after losing the dem nomination in 2020 could instead find a role as head of LLR Chuck's "Dept Of Black People".
Everyone is surprised that Trump is POTUS. Given what he had to do to become POTUS and what he has to endure to remain POTUS, I'd be amazed if anyone in their right mind ever sought the office again. By 2024, we might be drawing names out of a database for election and frogmarching the winner onto the inaugural stage.
I agree it’s delusional to think Trump will be removed. It’s not delusional to think he will be impeached. Any charges will be a pretext, but the goal is to deny the legitimacy of his election, or indeed the election of anyone supported by the deplorables.
Trump isn't being removed via impeachment - even if Democrats swept every single Senate seat available to them this year, they'd need 10 Republicans to vote with them, and that's just not happening absent a genuine public groundswell to remove Trump from office - partisan butt hurt over Trump winning doesn't count, and so far, with 3 years of everything plus the kitchen sink thrown at him, Trump is still holding steady in the 40s approval wise, very far from the depths plumbed by Bush 43.
Enough with the election tampering nonsense - the Democrats claim cheating every time they lose, much like a 4 year old denied a lollipop and with about the same level of maturity. That didn't help defeat Bush 43 in 2004, and it won't help defeat Trump in 2020. The conspiracy nonsense prevents Democrats from reaching any Trump voter who voted for Trump for literally any reason other than Russia and still supports him.
Bernie Sanders is still probably the strongest option on the list. It's shocking the Democrats have nobody better really, but it's hard to promote new talent when a) so many seats have been lost since 2009, and b) seemingly every moment is spent on an anti-Trump rage, which might play well with 2020 Democrat primary voters, but not so much 2020 Republican and independent voters.
Bruce hayden @ 4:17
What our resident anachist , Chuck, fails to see is that Trump has been and is being audited by the IRS.
He also doesn't have a clue sbout international financing.
After all this time It's beginning to dawn on me that Chuck is in reality a life long progressive. Who wishes nothing more than to be "relieved of the burden of freedom."
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন