Based on Trump's behavior.....

If lying about sex constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor," certainly Trump has or will have committed much worse, given this list: (from Wikipedia):
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. In fact, I'm guessing he'll commit all of these before his first 100 days are up. Misuse of assets is a no brainer, since he won't put his in a blind trust, conduct unbecoming, ditto--berating judges and heads of state, tweeting nonsense, his Russian pals rigging the election, bribery and intimidation, check...Just give him time. But jp1 is right, with his corrupt yes-men in charge of both houses, there's little chance he'll pay a price for anything he does.

What is the process for impeaching and convicting a sitting US President?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

What is the process for impeaching and convicting a sitting US President?

---

Here's the last one, but he was acquitted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...f_Bill_Clinton

Here the House Resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-...ution/611/text

No one has been impeached and convicted, but "The actual trial on such charges, and subsequent removal of an official upon conviction, is separate from the act of impeachment itself. " I'm not clear on procedures here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

At this rate, he may be there 8 years...

---

Based on protests?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

So it's more wishful thinking? I wouldn't be at all surprised if an effort isn't made to initiate impeachment, but it will have to be based on something more than a personality conflict.

---

No, not wishful thinking....I'm just genuinely interested in what other people think, if he will last the four years he's been voted in for or not. That is all. Rob

https://verdict.justia.com/2017/02/0...ast-four-years

I could see him resigning. It is very different running the giant business of the US where every move is scrutinized and challenged than a giant corporation where you can fire anybody who does not follow your direction. In a company people tend to rise that follow your ideology and vision. He is faced at every level with people who may have little of his vision and have no problem saying so. I was surprised there was not more of an outrage at the AG firing when she disagreed with him. Reading the credentials of the Washington judge who stopped the Muslim ban showed he was doing his job. It was not outrageous. It was doing his job. He might be right, he might be wrong but he did what the checks and balances were put in place for. I think he and Spicer were genuinely shocked they could not fire him. Plus Saturday Night Live must be driving the man crazy. And the Apprentice Boardroom is not the best training for the Oval Office.

What is amusing to me is how many people talk about the constitution like they are experts. I hear or read people,saying about Obama or Trump that they are or did "shred the constitution" like they are experts. There are very smart people who spend many years studying constitutional law and practice law who still disagree on what the interpretation is. It cracks me up that all of a sudden everyone is an expert on the constitution because of what they read on fox, CNN or an Internet forum.
Sometimes a little bit of information can lead to very big errors. I honestly think if the whole travel ban thing had been reviewed by well experienced lawyers and counsel was followed there would have been far fewer problems. Perhaps that is one of the problems with "draining the swamp". You need some insiders who know the rules and customs of the swamp, who is the biggest predator, where are the dangerous areas, or someone is going to eat you.

Maybe he'll have a breakdown. According to Howard Stern, this scenario is the LAST thing he wanted: a huge portion of the population hating him. His ego demands praise and adoration.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/02/medi...ump/index.html

Kind of what I've suspected all along. I still believe he really didn't expect to win, and wasn't thrilled when he was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere

I could see him resigning. It is very different running the giant business of the US where every move is scrutinized and challenged than a giant corporation where you can fire anybody who does not follow your direction. In a company people tend to rise that follow your ideology and vision. He is faced at every level with people who may have little of his vision and have no problem saying so. I was surprised there was not more of an outrage at the AG firing when she disagreed with him. Reading the credentials of the Washington judge who stopped the Muslim ban showed he was doing his job. It was not outrageous. It was doing his job. He might be right, he might be wrong but he did what the checks and balances were put in place for. I think he and Spicer were genuinely shocked they could not fire him. Plus Saturday Night Live must be driving the man crazy. And the Apprentice Boardroom is not the best training for the Oval Office.

---

I thought early on that if he won, he might well resign only a couple of years into his term. He would say "Ive done all I can do, and look at how We cleaned it all up! We did grwat work!!!"

But here's the thing:I am always wrong with predictions. So you can pretty much bet he will not be resigning. Always believe my predictions as the opposite of what will happen.