President Donald Trump has now been officially impeached! Only the 3rd Pres in history. Yeah this will be his legacy forever in history

[fskimospy]

Articles were drafted and approved by the judiciary committee. Nixon resigned before a vote on the articles could happen. The fact that it didn't does not nullify the question.

Yeah, I'm not sure what distinction is supposed to be drawn here. He basically said 'you can't fire me, I quit'.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

What do you think about the articles of impeachment against Nixon. Were they warranted?

I don't feel Nixon was as guilty of as many things as the current fool is.

But unlike the current fool, Nixon had the integrity to resign when he recognized that others felt he did something wrong.

 

[HomerJS]

Nixon wasn't impeached.

I didn't say he was. Referring to the articles drawn up. Feel free to answer the question as well.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't feel Nixon was as guilty of as many things as the current fool is.

But unlike the current fool, Nixon had the integrity to resign when he recognized that others felt he did something wrong.

I definitely agree - Trump is guilty of far more grave abuses of office than Nixon ever was. Nixon basically tried to use his powers to cover up a burglary tasked with getting political dirt. That's really bad! Trump used the foreign policy of the US and hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to extort a foreign power into criminally investigating his political opponents. That's a lot worse!

That's without even getting into his attempts to subvert Congress' oversight authority, etc.

 

[Greenman]

The predictive models that actually suggested Trump would win 2016 are not based on the actual candidate but based on party / whether the current US situation suggests it will be a "change" election. The models would have predicted any Republican to win 2016. Those models incorporate scandal, and that is a negative factor. Impeachment, of course, being a pretty major player in the way of scandal. Has Trump changed the rules of how the public votes? I don't actually think so. The models which don't include polls and subjective ideas predicted Trump would win. I feel highly likely they'll be accurate in 2020. The most compelling predictor in Trump's favor is the economy, although that obviously can change over the next 11 months. Without impeachment and economy holding stable, I believe Trump would win. Who the candidates end up being is probably not all that important unless a significant third party candidate emerges or the Dem candidate has to contend with scandal themselves. Even though it's a manufactured one, the noise Republicans are raising against Biden might have an influence. Principally, we have to realize that even the most uninformed posters on this board are far more attentive to actual political happenings than a typical American. Plenty of people are going to hear Trump was impeached and think negatively of him without any awareness of arguments for or against.

I never saw anything that predicted Trump winning, I never heard one single pundit say he had a shot.
It's not really even Trump winning, it's the democrat losing. Whoever loses to Trump will really have to work at it.

 

[fskimospy]

I never saw anything that predicted Trump winning, I never heard one single pundit say he had a shot.
It's not really even Trump winning, it's the democrat losing. Whoever loses to Trump will really have to work at it.

Fivethirtyeight gave him about a 1 in 3 chance of winning.

 

[interchange]

I never saw anything that predicted Trump winning, I never heard one single pundit say he had a shot.
It's not really even Trump winning, it's the democrat losing. Whoever loses to Trump will really have to work at it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/

I'm not saying it is definitely better than pundits. But it's results have been. Either that's being on the good side of random variation or it's actually better. There aren't enough Presidential elections to determine that with reasonable certainty.

 

[fskimospy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/

I'm not saying it is definitely better than pundits. But it's results have been. Either that's being on the good side of random variation or it's actually better. There aren't enough Presidential elections to determine that with reasonable certainty.

It probably bears noting that Lichtman's prediction for 2016 was wrong.

 

[interchange]

It probably bears noting that Lichtman's prediction for 2016 was wrong.

Personal prediction, yes. Not model. My feeling is that is an indicator that Trump's personality is so biasing that I'm going to put more faith in a model over human prediction for the next election.

 

[fskimospy]

Personal prediction, yes. Not model. My feeling is that is an indicator that Trump's personality is so biasing that I'm going to put more faith in a model over human prediction for the next election.

No, his model was wrong too. Before 2000 the claim was the model predicted the winner of the presidential election but in 2000 the model picked Gore and, well, he lost. After that the claim became that the model picked the popular vote winner but in 2016 that was Clinton.

His model is bad IMO, it relies heavily on subjective decisions made by the person running the model, it has far too many IVs (which is a sign of overfitting) and it's been wrong in 2 out of the last 5 elections by the standards it used going in, which in effect makes it no better than a coin flip.

 

[BoomerD]

I don't know if it's been mentioned already... but technically, Trump hasn't been impeached...yet.

until the House sends the letters of impeachment to the Senate...he's not been impeached.

Of course, it's a foregone conclusion that he WILL be impeached, then not convicted by Moscow Mitch and his merry band...and things will go on just as before...or maybe worse since Trump will know beyond a doubt that the (R)'s have his back.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know if it's been mentioned already... but technically, Trump hasn't been impeached...yet.

until the House sends the letters of impeachment to the Senate...he's not been impeached.

Of course, it's a foregone conclusion that he WILL be impeached, then not convicted by Moscow Mitch and his merry band...and things will go on just as before...or maybe worse since Trump will know beyond a doubt that the (R)'s have his back.

No, Trump was impeached when the House passed articles of impeachment. Remember, if you are impeached or not is 100% up to the House, they decide the definition and no one else.

In fact no one else is even allowed to weigh in on whether or not someone is considered to be impeached.

 

[BoomerD]

No, Trump was impeached when the House passed articles of impeachment. Remember, if you are impeached or not is 100% up to the House, they decide the definition and no one else.

In fact no one else is even allowed to weigh in on whether or not someone is considered to be impeached.

No.

Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote.

www.bloomberg.com

The HoR has voted to impeach...that's only one step in the process.

 

[blankslate]

oddly enough what the two last impeached Presidents have in common other than impeachment is.....








wait for it....

Spoiler

Numerous rides on the Epstein express... <insert obligatory Epstein statement here>

 

[pcgeek11]

Based on the childish, hateful, factually wrong, and divorced from facts posts you both have made here we are qualified to make that judgement.

Hateful?
Childish?

You need to do a self evaluation little man.

 

[pcgeek11]

What do you think about the articles of impeachment against Nixon. Were they warranted?

Nixon has nothing to do with it.

Why do you keep dragging his carcass out of the ground?

 

[fskimospy]

No.

Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote.

www.bloomberg.com

The HoR has voted to impeach...that's only one step in the process.

That's not what your article says and as the author admits his interpretation has no basis in the text of the Constitution.

The House has the sole power to impeach. Impeachment is, by definition, whatever the House says it is. No external body has any input to this, not SCOTUS, not the Senate, not anyone. The power is absolute and cannot be questioned. EDIT: As the passed House resolution explicitly states that Trump is impeached, he is impeached. Remember, the House has the *sole* power to determine this.

Something analogous would be if a grand jury issues an indictment of you but then prosecutors hold it because maybe they want to investigate other people more or whatever. By this author's logic you have not been indicted because the grand jury hasn't handed off the indictment yet. This is of course plainly false.

 

[brycejones]

Hateful?
Childish?

You need to do a self evaluation little man.

I rest my case.

 

[FirNaTine]

That's not what your article says and as the author admits his interpretation has no basis in the text of the Constitution.

The House has the sole power to impeach. Impeachment is, by definition, whatever the House says it is. No external body has any input to this, not SCOTUS, not the Senate, not anyone. The power is absolute and cannot be questioned. EDIT: As the passed House resolution explicitly states that Trump is impeached, he is impeached. Remember, the House has the *sole* power to determine this.

Something analogous would be if a grand jury issues an indictment of you but then prosecutors hold it because maybe they want to investigate other people more or whatever. By this author's logic you have not been indicted because the grand jury hasn't handed off the indictment yet. This is of course plainly false.

You clearly read a different article than Boomer and I did. Here is a direct quote from it "Strictly speaking, “impeachment” occurred – and occurs -- when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial." It is the author's opinion is that vote isn't the sole step required to be impeached.

And you should note who the author of the article was...He is a Constitutional law professor at Harvard and was one of a few expert witnesses chosen by *Democrats* to testify at the Judiciary Committee hearings they just held that Trump had committed impeachable offenses. I sincerely doubt he is saying it to provide political cover for Trump.

Now, other prominent legal scholars might not agree with his interpretation. This particular scenario was not contemplated in the Constitution.

 

[FirNaTine]

Here is a follow up debate the same expert had with another Harvard professor, and a quote directly from him "“Sorry @tribelaw,” Feldman politely responded, “With great respect for you always, your view, not mine, mistakes part (House vote) for whole (House vote plus transmitting/presenting articles in the Senate). Impeachment is the whole thing.” Has Trump been impeached?

The other professor agrees with your point of view BTW.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. I fully expect the writ to be delivered shortly after the holiday break. Pelosi is stirring the shit rather nicely in the meanwhile. The break gives her the opportunity to turn the public further towards wanting witnesses, something most people already want. If McConnell won't do it that way, then the GOP gets to wear the stink & shame of having orchestrated a sham trial in the Senate. They can't remove Trump because the base would lose their fucking minds & turn against them. Intraparty bloodshed would be epic. Trump may not yet rule the world, but he rules the GOP. They're all his hostages now.

 

[Jhhnn]

..

 

[fskimospy]

You clearly read a different article than Boomer and I did. Here is a direct quote from it "Strictly speaking, “impeachment” occurred – and occurs -- when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial." It is the author's opinion is that vote isn't the sole step required to be impeached.

And you should note who the author of the article was...He is a Constitutional law professor at Harvard and was one of a few expert witnesses chosen by *Democrats* to testify at the Judiciary Committee hearings they just held that Trump had committed impeachable offenses. I sincerely doubt he is saying it to provide political cover for Trump.

Now, other prominent legal scholars might not agree with his interpretation. This particular scenario was not contemplated in the Constitution.

No, I did not read a different article. As it clearly says, the author is talking beyond the text of the constitution as the constitution is very clear.