Nomura: Chances of Trump impeachment are low


Thu, 18 May '17 | 7:07 AM ET

U.S. President Donald Trump is unlikely to be impeached anytime soon, but the current political turmoil will derail his pro-growth agenda, Nomura said in a research note Wednesday.

President Trump has been embroiled in a series of scandals that have made investors concerned. On Wednesday, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 370 points recording its worst day since September last year, following news that Trump asked former FBI director James Comey to "let go" an investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

The events have led some to start weighing the possibility of an impeachment, but according to Nomura this "still seems a distant prospect".

"Removing Mr Trump will require a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and the chances of Republicans voting to impeach their own president seem low," Nomura added.

At least for as long as his approval ratings don't drop significantly, Republicans will have difficulties in turning against their president.


  • Trump Impeachment Proceedings Over Obstruction Charge Unlikely to Go Far, Analysts Say

    May 17, 2017

    While Democrats cry for impeachment, legal experts are dubious that President Donald Trump’s reported conversation with FBI Director James Comey about his former national security adviser would be an easy case of obstruction of justice.

    I don’t personally think any prosecutor would bring that case,Ron Hosko, a former assistant FBI director for the bureau’s Criminal Investigative Division, told The Daily Signal, referring to the report that Trump suggested Comey, whom he later ousted, back off investigating Michael Flynn.

    Any defense attorney could argue the president was wishing out loud,” Hosko said. “There was no killing a witness, no destruction of evidence.

    The New York Times first reported Tuesday on Comey’s purported memo of a February conversation in which Trump told him: “I hope you can let this go … [Flynn] is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

    Trump fired Flynn after barely three weeks on the job after concluding the national security adviser misled Vice President Mike Pence regarding the content of his contacts with Russian officials before the president’s Jan. 20 inauguration.

    The “big however,” Hosko said, is whether Trump’s May 9 firing of Comey could be connected to an effort to stop an FBI investigation.

    “The president can fire an FBI director for any reason or no reason,” said Hosko, now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. “But, if evidence emerges that he fired Comey over the Flynn investigation or over the Russia investigation, now it becomes harder to defend.”

    The Justice Department on Wednesday named another former FBI director, Robert Mueller, as a special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election. The FBI also is investigating Flynn’s contacts with Russia.

    Several House Democrats are using Comey’s purported memo on what Trump said to him to demand impeachment of the president—a highly unlikely scenario given Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

    Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, delivered a floor speech Wednesday about impeachment, though he didn’t sound convinced the president was guilty. Green noted that it is the Senate’s job to make that determination in a trial after the House adopts articles of impeachment against a president for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    “Impeachment does not mean the president will be found guilty,” Green said. “It simply means the House of Representatives will bring charges against the president.”

    Democratic leadership in the House and Senate has not taken up the cause of impeachment, although an increasing number of partisan pundits are using the word.

    Even if there was a House majority to pass articles of impeachment against Trump, two-thirds of the Senate would have to agree on his removal from office after a trial.

    This would be a politically steep hill to climb, one presidential historian notes. Only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, have been impeached by the House, and both survived a Senate trial to serve out their terms.

    The cases were quite different, but offer context for any such effort against Trump, said Larry Schweikart, a retired history professor at the University of Dayton who is author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents” and co-author of “How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution.”

    “Andrew Johnson, for example, was impeached because he was as unpopular in Washington, as Trump is—but Johnson deliberately and blatantly went out of his way to violate a law so as to provoke impeachment as a test case,” Schweikart told The Daily Signal in an email.

    He stressed that Johnson had been Abraham Lincoln’s vice president, assuming office only upon Lincoln’s assassination, and “was a Democrat in a Republican administration that hated him.”

    The economy shows signs of improving, Schweikart added, which means that even if Democrats gained a congressional majority, impeachment would be politically difficult.

    “The GOP actually opposed Clinton, while his own party supported him rabidly. But a similarity with Trump [is] the economy was booming,” Schweikart said. “Trump’s economy isn’t quite there yet, but it’s very, very hard to even undertake impeachment against a president who has a booming economy. Watergate did not turn [public opinion] against Nixon until the economy turned sour. Had Nixon had Clinton’s economy, he likely would have survived.”

    Schweikart said perhaps 20 House Republicans are “committed to the swamp” and might be inclined to join Democrats in impeaching Trump, but he doubts they would take the political risk.
  • JPMorgan: "A Trump Impeachment Is Very, Very Unlikely"

    While it's not the product of JPM's political analysts, but instead comes straight from the far more visceral and intuitive trading desk, moments ago JPMorgan, as part of its intraday summary, notes that contrary to some other speculation, most notably by Heights Securities, a "Trump impeachment is very, very unlikely" and adds that "the impeachment bar is very, very high. The daily scandals obviously don’t help Trump’s political capital but market expectations for legislative action are already very low."
  • its really obvious that President Trump will not be impeached but lets not be party poopers and ruin the fantasy of the liberals and democrats and their followers in this forum of that far but unrealistic dream.

    Here is a liberal media outlet that is also living in that fantasy world. And wrote a story of how this fantasy would go down if it was real.

    Washington Post (FAKE NEWS)
    Will Trump be impeached? Here’s how it would actually happen.

    As the backlash over President Trump's various controversial decisions escalates — the firing of FBI Director James B. Comey and divulging classified secrets to Russian officials, just to name two — Trump's critics are starting to use the “i” word more and more.

    Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said last month that she will “fight every day until he is impeached.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said last week that Trump's actions “may well produce impeachment proceedings.” Other Democrats have repeatedly echoed their thoughts.

    And now it's not just Democrats; Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) was asked by reporters Wednesday whether, if reports that Trump asked Comey to drop his investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn are true, Trump's actions are grounds for impeachment. Amash paused and responded, “yes.” Amash's comments weren't a full-throated call for impeachment, but they're significant, coming from a conservative congressman from the Midwest.

    But while some Democrats, and Trump's opponents in general, might be clamoring for an impeachment, it isn't as simple as Democrats deciding they don't like him. There are two big reasons for that. First, impeachment is actually a relatively lengthy legal process — and no president has ever actually been removed from office. Second, removal from office requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senate, and Republicans — who still publicly back Trump, although some have criticized some of his recent decisions — still broadly support him.

    Let's be clear: Trump hasn't been accused of any crimes. His opponents say he's unfit for office, but that's a judgment call, not a standard by which presidents can be impeached. Legal analysts say Trump may have obstructed justice if he asked Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn, but caution that proving intent is key in obstruction of justice cases.

    In the end, it comes down to members of Congress deciding that Trump did something that meets constitutional requirements for impeachment.

    The Constitution states that “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    But how those high crimes and misdemeanors are defined is largely up to House members themselves.

    Actually removing a president from office is a three-step process. First, a majority of the House of Representatives would have to vote in favor of impeachment. That means at least 218 out of 435 members of the House would need to cast ballots to impeach the president. As of today, Republicans hold 238 seats while Democrats hold 193, and four seats are vacant. That means Democrats would need to persuade 25 Republicans to vote to impeach Trump, which doesn't seem likely.

    Second, the president would face trial in the Senate. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. would preside over the trial.

    Third, the Senate would vote on whether to convict or acquit Trump. Two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote in favor of conviction for Trump to be removed from office — a pretty high bar, given that it's hard for either party to get even the 60 votes needed to overcome a legislative filibuster these days.

    And history is on Trump's side. Only two presidents have been impeached, and none has ever been removed from office.

    Andrew Johnson became the first president to be impeached in 1868. In the wake of the Civil War, Johnson clashed with Republicans who wanted Southern states to pay a higher price to rejoin the union. They eventually impeached him for attempting to replace his secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, without congressional permission, a contravention of the Tenure of Office Act, which stated that the president couldn't relieve members of his Cabinet without consulting the Senate. Johnson's impeachment went to trial in the Senate, and he escaped being removed from office by a one-vote margin.

    Bill Clinton became the second president to be impeached, in 1998, as the Monica Lewinsky scandal unfolded. He was charged with four counts, two of which he was impeached for: perjury and obstruction of justice. When it came to the Senate trial, all 45 Democrats voted to acquit him of both charges; they were joined by 10 Republicans in acquitting Clinton of the perjury charge, and five in acquitting him of the obstruction of justice charge.

    In perhaps the most famous presidential scandal in U.S. history, the president wasn't impeached. When Richard M. Nixon left office in 1974, he faced almost certain impeachment, and likewise almost certain removal from office. But he chose to resign instead, handing the presidency to Gerald Ford.

    Johnson, Nixon and Clinton were all publicly accused of transgressions for which there was publicly revealed evidence. While scandal swirled around all three, and their political opponents howled for their removal from office, none was actually removed by the political process laid out in the Constitution.

    And as long as Trump retains the backing of Congress, he's very unlikely to be removed either.

    Pawnstar: Sadly this is just a dream within a dream. And dreams aren't reality. If cows could fly and money grow on trees and and we popped gold then yes, it would happen but sadly my fellow liberal forumers this isn't reality. @SakaSaka ,@Factsmatters, @Ina Chok, @coconuts, @Lihndanpei, @everyLiberalsInHere.
  • The Major thing the democrats and their liberals followers think is a reason for impeaching Trump is that they claim Trump obstructed justice by firing Former FBI director Comey and the other fake news outlet New York Post wrote a story that Trump tried to make Comey swear allegiance to him.

    Now lets take a stroll down memory lane my liberal friends.

    Comey Admitted Under Oath That Obstruction To FBI Probe 'Never Happened'

    Often in Washington, there's so much smoke no one even bothers to check if there's a fire.

    That was once the job of the media, but now "journalists" stand by fanning the smoke into everyone's eyes, like servants rhythmically moving a palm frond up and down in those old movies about Egypt.

    What's more, stories explode in an instant — but then disappear without a trace. Think back to the last few weeks — how many of those super "scandals" President Trump was supposedly involved in are still in the news?

    Which brings us to James Comey, the former FBI director fired for gross incompetence (and perhaps because he was a sanctimonious pedant as well). Last week — wait, earlier this week (has the story really died that fast?) — the "news" was saturated with reports that Trump tried to squash an FBI probe into former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. Trump held Comey by the ankles — upside down — out the window of the White House's Lincoln Bedroom as he quoted lines from Scarface, reports said. 

    No, that didn't happen. Here's what Trump is said to have said to Comey, according to a memo Comey did not provide to anyone: “I hope you can let this go.” Smoke alarm! Run away! We're all going to die!

    But wait. It turns out someone just left a Pop Tart in the toaster oven. 

    The New York Times published the memo story on Tuesday, citing "two people who read the memo."

    "It was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations," The Times wrote.

    While the story grew and grew from, "I hope you can ..." into "I'll kill your whole family if you don't," everyone forgot to check what Comey has actually said. While The Times went with two anonymous sources, let's do the old-fashioned thing and just go right to the primary source — the former director himself.

    Comey, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3, said — under oath — that he's never been pressured to close an investigation for political purposes.

    "Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something like that — without an appropriate purpose."

    "I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that 'We don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it.' But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason."

    "That would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience," Comey told the senators.

    The former FBI director has let Trump twist in the wind over the purported memo. But Comey is expected to testify again before Congress as early as next week, and a lawmaker there will almost certainly ask about this contradictory conundrum.

    But for right now, it sure doesn't add up.
  • Another Flashback down memory lane....

    FLASHBACK: Comey Said He Had NOT Been Pressured To End Any Investigation

    With the press losing its mind over the news that former FBI director James Comey has a memo detailing President Trump saying he “hoped” Comey would let fired National Security Advisor Mike Flynn off the hook, tape has now emerged from Comey’s testimony before Congress in which Comey admits that he has not been pressured to end any investigation. That pressure was, of course, the basis of the Left’s claims regarding supposed obstruction of justice by Trump: that Trump told Comey he wanted him to drop the case, then fired him when he didn’t.

    Comey stated: Not in my experience, because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something without appropriate purpose. We’re oftentimes — they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there, and so you ought to stop investing resources in it, but I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.

    This would seem to undermine any claim that Comey felt threatened by Trump over the Flynn affair.

    Now, it’s quite possible that the first evidence that the threat was real was Comey’s firing. In other words, Trump made Comey an offer he couldn’t refuse, Comey refused it, and then Trump garroted him like Carlo in the front of the car after giving him tickets to Los Angeles. That’s the case Democrats will make. But it certainly casts doubt on claims that Trump immediately put Comey under pressure.

    It’s always been far more likely that Trump was speaking out of turn than that Trump was actively seeking to impede an investigation into Flynn or Russia more broadly. Trump is clearly frustrated that he hasn’t been personally exonerated, and he’s lashing out at anyone who won’t exonerate him — and he may be right to feel that way, since the Flynn hiring and the hiring of former campaign manager Paul Manafort were probably acts of ignorance and stupidity rather than malice and collusion.

    In any case, the clear-cut “Trump was pressing Comey” case isn’t all that clear-cut.
  • The entire 3 reasons for the impeach trump movement is entirely blown.

    1) The so called Russian interference in the elections, which Democrats claim Russia is behind the DNC files that were leaked to Wikileaks as been dedtryoed. American citizen and murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich is the source behind the leaks.

    2) Comey swore under oath that he wasn't pressured to end investigations and that the FBI wasn't being pressured by the Trump administration.

    3) Trump is not being investigated by the FBI but people with connections to him are.

    9 months of investigation millions and millions and millions of taxpayers money wasted all for the sole purpose of jack sh*t.
  • Not immediately, I agree but chances are higher in 2018 when Dems take control of the House.
  • @LukeNate, there has to be probable cause for impeachment. Just because they may control the house they won't impeach without probable cause. From the looks of it they don't have any. Impeachment because of "We don't like Trump" will never come to reality.
  • PawNStar, I laud your remarkable aptitude in quickly volunteering to correct my ineptitude in putting things together on the impeachment "probable cause" of Trump. I would not have known what that means if it were not for your generosity. Please continue to educate me with more of your highly unmatched adroitness.
  • Thank you @LukeNate. Let me repeat just because you looked into a crystal ball and predicted that democrats will control the house and they will impeach him all for the sole reason is because they control the house. Facts and reality is no evidence have proved in 9 months of investigation that any collusion ever happened. You seem smart but there has to be overwhelming evidences to kick off a impeachment. And there ain't any.

    Here are some videos of democrats admitting there is no evidence to support the claim that Trump and Russia colluded.

    *Full Clapper: 'No Evidence' of Collusion Between Trump and Russia (video)

    Top democrats admitting that there is no evidence of trump Russia collusion.

    Former head Director of National Intelligence James clapper said: No evidence of collusion.
  • If people could take others to court for "dislike" all you liberals in here would have took me to court years ago.
  • one impeachable offense is enough and not two or more to impeach a president. thanks but no thanks as i am going to pass up what i mockingly characterized your rush to judgement yesterday as
    'remarkable aptitude".


    ' your as
  • No evidences to support your claim @LukeNate. No laws were broken as of yet.
Sign In or Register to comment.