Citi: Trump's 'risk of impeachment' is higher after the Donald Trump Jr. email bombshell

Citi: Trump's 'risk of impeachment' is higher after the Donald Trump Jr. email bombshell

From businessinsider.com

Citi thinks people should start to think about the I-word when it comes to Donald Trump's presidency: impeachment. Tina Fordham, the chief global political analyst at Citi, said the possibility of impeachment was still low. But after the release of emails between Donald Trump Jr. and a music publicist believed to have helped arrange a June 2016 meeting with a Russian attorney in which Trump Jr. was hoping to get damaging information about Hillary Clinton, the prospects of a Trump ouster are on the rise, she said. "Do these most recent developments, which suggest that key Trump advisers, including his son Donald Trump ... (full story)

Comments / Top
Subscribe

Jul 12, 2017 1:44am

Quoting NotAtrader

Disliked

{quote} Complete chaos in the market. Enormous volatility until everything settles down again.

Ignored

I think you are right. On face value, Trump will be good for the economy and the future of the USA. In reality, he is projecting a confused and naive persona. He has been like this in business and it has worked for him. On the world stage it looks corny. I think Mexican Wall describes it quite well.

The Fool

Jul 11, 2017 9:19pm

Permalink

impeachment is not a legal proceeding, it's a political process carried out by Congress. There's no way the GOP stacked Congress will impeach DJT, unless, for some unforseen reason, they have to do so to preserve the life of the Party, or even of (laffs) the Nation. GOP control of Congress could be a passing phenomenon, though...tick tock...

kenleander

Jul 12, 2017 5:08am

Permalink

Impeachment = trial. The result of a conviction can include removal from office but it is a very unlikely outcome. Bill Clinton WAS impeached. He committed perjury (a felony) and he wasn't removed from office. He was later disbarred.

kenleander

Jul 12, 2017 10:45am

Permalink

Quoting cliffedwards

Disliked

Hey Ken ... all good? So... further to your Clinton post above.. just to add..that as I recall it requires a supermajority to convict...? so Clintons 50:50 in that circumstance did not represent a split vote but a comfortable win. Whatever.. On the Story above.. I have a feeling that the Citi comment were taken quite out of context.. Since Fordham was very specific in saying the impeachment issue was "not our base case." Its the usual crap of instead of simply publishing Citis full original statement.. some twat in BusinessInsider...

Ignored

All valid points.

I checked, it is a 2/3 Senate vote to convict, a simple majority in the House to impeach.

I merely wanted to suggest that impeachment isn't trial and conviction. It's just indictment. And that conviction isn't likely, even though there are stains on a dress.

NotAtrader

Jul 12, 2017 12:53am

Permalink

Quoting FateAnother

Disliked

what happen if he got the impeachment?

Ignored

Complete chaos in the market. Enormous volatility until everything settles down again.

cliffedwards

Jul 12, 2017 9:53am

Permalink

Hey Ken ... all good?

So... further to your Clinton post above.. just to add..that as I recall it requires a supermajority to convict...?
so Clintons 50:50 in that circumstance did not represent a split vote but a comfortable win.
Whatever..
On the Story above.. I have a feeling that the Citi comment were taken quite out of context..
Since Fordham was very specific in saying the impeachment issue was "not our base case."
Its the usual crap of instead of simply publishing Citis full original statement..
some twat in BusinessInsider has tried to make a contentious, and controversial headline out of it.

Not-KPMG

Jul 12, 2017 11:28am

Permalink

Quoting kenleander

Disliked

{.... guilty ... he did have sex with "that woman" and he lied about it under oath..... that description... . d...

Ignored

Good memories.
So much laugh was there. I was young

Aside note: WTF were these perverted investigators asking about his sex with or without Monica??

If it was me I'll just say "go stuff yourself and fine a hobby".

Seems I missed so much

There's freedom of speech, freedom of sex, and Fifth Amendment, right???

Another note: why aren't they probing Trumpy for shady deals, missing taxes, colluding with a superpower.????

Al Capone and Boris Becker can go to prison for irregular taxes, Trumpy don't ??????

spzd

Jul 12, 2017 6:21am

Permalink

Hey FF, another BS "news" story. You need to fire the person who chooses these.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/07/11/curiousor-and-curiousor-natalia-veselnitskaya-pictured-with-obama-officals-in-dc-on-june-14th-2016/#comments

kenleander

Jul 12, 2017 6:43am — Edited

Permalink

Quoting cliffedwards

Disliked

In December 1998, the House impeached Clinton, accusing Clinton of perjury and of obstruction of justice. In February 1999, the Senate acquitted Clinton of both charges.

Ignored

The obstruction of Justice charge vote was 50 to 50. Perjury was 45 to 55 for acquittal. But it was pretty clear for any but a left-winger with blinders that he was guilty ... he did have sex with "that woman" and he lied about it under oath. The Senate just determined that removing a POTUS from office for anything but a heinous act was not in the interest of the country. Lying about having sex with Monica just didn't fit that description. A vote of 50 to 50 is NOT exactly an acquittal. It's more like a hung jury.

Al Gore missed his chance. Just one more vote...

Oh, and the House impeaches. The Senate conducts the trial. Majority of the House in Clinton's term was Republican. This Republican House won't impeach Trump. I can't tell if Trump even committed a crime. So discussion of impeachment by Citi is absurd. I wonder if market manipulation by Citi is an indictable offense.

cliffedwards

Jul 12, 2017 6:09am

Permalink

In December 1998, the House impeached Clinton, accusing Clinton of perjury and of obstruction of justice.
In February 1999, the Senate acquitted Clinton of both charges.

Aussi

Jul 11, 2017 11:27pm

Permalink

yikes there going to impeach Donald Trump jr WHOOOOOOOOOOOO SO SCARRY

Micc23

Jul 11, 2017 8:03pm

Permalink

Not really. Per Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow,

1. There was no illegality to having the meeting. and
2. There was no illegal information obtained at the meeting.