Impeachment and stock market

[Epic + 390]

Rick Newman from Yahoo Finance says there is a 0% chance that Trump will be impeached.  If you know anything about Rick, it is that he hates Trump as much as he hates Conservatives.  Therefore, if Rick says no impeachment, then there will be no impeachment.  Had there been even a 1% chance, he would have taken it and spun it to make people think the impeachment was certain, but not even Rick's career could survive an article like that on a 0% chance.  If the Dems take the house in Nov, they might try to impeach him, but it will never pass the Senate. 

0% chance.

Therefore, an impeachment which won't occur will have 0% effect on the stock market.  

Edited August 23, 2018 by Epic

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

32 minutes ago, Tomasz said:

Trump advised by Kissinger wants to make a deal of century with Russia against China. Its not a treason but rather a good strategy in long-term perspective because its China not Russia thats existential threat to US hegemony. And thats terrible stupid when we have full-scall antirussian histeria in US when Russia is rather not a superpower but strong regional power and MSM are rather silent about China activity = maybe not very loud but very effecitive in long=term rivarly with US. That was Kissinger who made deal with China but 40 years later his is still alive and he wants to change unexpected results of trade deal with China.

In USA average wage adjusted to inflation is at the same level like 40 years ago- some sources even say that in 1979 it was 18 k $ and now only 15 k $. Nowadays according to recent study CEOs in US earn 312 times more than average workers.

Thats the real reason why Trump was elected not malicious activity of any country. 

Where are you getting this stuff?

[Tomasz + 1,608]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/16/ceo-versus-worker-wage-american-companies-pay-gap-study-2018

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

29 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

  33 minutes ago, Tomasz said:

Trump advised by Kissinger wants to make a deal of century with Russia against China. Its not a treason but rather a good strategy in long-term perspective because its China not Russia thats existential threat to US hegemony. And thats terrible stupid when we have full-scall antirussian histeria in US when Russia is rather not a superpower but strong regional power and MSM are rather silent about China activity = maybe not very loud but very effecitive in long=term rivarly with US. That was Kissinger who made deal with China but 40 years later his is still alive and he wants to change unexpected results of trade deal with China.

A financial advisor website?  I was really asking about the paragraph above.  Those charts may contain real and accurate data, I don't know.  But have you checked them against any second source?  A financial advisor website?

[Tomasz + 1,608]

My own thoughts. I suggest reading some geopolitical articles and  recent Kissinger strategy as Trumps advisor. Thats my own thoughts but I read a lot in free time.

Its clear that XXI century will a rivarly between China and US. And Russia as biggest commodity exporter  is very important ally for China as biggest commodity importer. Very important is also the fact they have long land border which makes a trade between them immune to US Navy.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Tomasz

[Top Oil Trader + 469]

Trump will go down in history, after his reelection, as the best president the united states ever had, and ever will have. The impeachment will never happen, Muller will end up disgraced just like comey is.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

8 hours ago, Tomasz said:

My own thoughts. I suggest reading some geopolitical articles and  recent Kissinger strategy as Trumps advisor. Thats my own thoughts but I read a lot in free time.

Its clear that XXI century will a rivarly between China and US. And Russia as biggest commodity exporter  is very important ally for China as biggest commodity importer. Very important is also the fact they have long land border which makes a trade between them immune to US Navy.

Thanks, Tomasz.  I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Henry Kissinger.  (For those who may wish to point out other things he was involved with in the world that they didn't agree with, I would ask readers to focus for this discussion on what he was or is involved with, with regards to the P.R. of China.)  IMHO, Dr. Kissinger was one of the great diplomats of his time and, sadly, we have seen few of his calibre since.  As some have since proven, globetrotting in the name of diplomacy, in and of itself, does not mean one has true global vision nor does it necessarily achieve desirable results.  If, on the other hand, Dr. Kissinger shows up at your doorstep, I think one would be well advised to put one's own small world view aside for the moment and heed what he has to say.  You may find as a bonus that he has solutions to your own concerns.

I am happy, and somewhat relieved to be honest, to read from your comment that he is on the Trump team.  This will explain, I think, the levels to which Presidents Trump and Xi believe they can push their respective country's relations, and how far.  It also means, to me at least, that private behind the scenes negotiations have been going on throughout the current trade and technology disputes.  This is very good news indeed.

Dr. Kissinger saw things in the Middle Kingdom that few others in the world did.  Although I feel strongly that President Nixon saw new relations with an opening China as nothing more than a political win for his administration, Dr. Kissinger saw the future and what a positive role China could play in that future as a friend and (hopefully) strong ally of the United States.  Dr. Kissinger knew/knows a great deal about past and current relations between China and Russia, and how having China as a friend and a stalwart ally, or at least partner, against Russia would be of great value in times ahead.  China/Russia relations, I think Dr. Kissinger would agree, are a marriage of convenience in the best of times.  On the other hand, Chairman Mao had full battle plans ready at all times in the event that Russia became "overzealous".  That included estimates of the number of Chinese lives that could be lost should it become necessary to fight Russia with nuclear weapons (300-400 million, which Mao was witnessed to have said was acceptable).  Historically, there is no love lost between the two.  I still revere him for his foresight and diplomacy of that era. 

One of the things that I feel few people outside of the U.S. government and industrial boardrooms understand is that not only was China guided by the United States in their efforts to open up to the outside world (think about that for a moment), they have also willingly been mentored by those same organizations (and many others).  The speed at which China has risen to financial dominance in the world can to a large degree be attributed to these alliances and relationships with key U.S. institutions and industries, Dr. Kissinger included.  That relationship and partnership with the United States, I believe, is not forgotten by the Chinese leadership today.  But the Chinese are nobody's fools and where they saw flaws in the relationship, they have adapted in their own ways.

To include oil in this (too long?) comment, during my 9 years living/working in China I was in close contact with a number of U.S. oil industry leaders.  Those men shared that while China was paying their companies to assist in vast exploration across China, and that the amount of oil found was comparable to the top reserve holding countries in the world, China would not allow more than limited actual drilling and production.  That my friends, is a deliberate strategy learned from their American counterparts: buy oil and gas from the rest of the world first and reserve your own stock for future, um, leaner, times.

Back to your comments about Dr. Kissinger wanting to change the scales with regards to Russian and Chinese power (essentially), I would respectfully disagree with your perception.  It would not be your fault, or mine for that matter, for misunderstanding the perceivable intentions of Dr. Kissinger's spoken or published views and strategies.  History has proven, within Dr. Kissinger's own lifetime, that one may not see his true aims until a much later time.  This is a compliment to Dr. Kissinger; I am not accusing him of deceiving with malice.  I would argue that, in his wisdom, he knows the limits to which those he advises are capable of acting for positive long term achievements.  To that end, I would suggest that it is more his goal to balance two major regional powers and to keep both of their hegemonial aspirations in check.  To achieve that, it would seem essential that now is the time for the U.S. and Russia to forge much closer relations and even partnerships.

[Eric Staib + 21]

On 8/23/2018 at 8:08 AM, Hajga Loma DK said:

Pence would just govern as a typical Republican, probably do the same policy stuff that Trump does. The only difference is he'd be more stable, he wouldn't be insulting everyone and we wouldn't be subject to midnight Twitter tantrums  

I would expect an end to the asinine trade war and respect for our alliances as well.

[Eric Staib + 21]

18 hours ago, Epic said:

Rick Newman from Yahoo Finance says there is a 0% chance that Trump will be impeached.  If you know anything about Rick, it is that he hates Trump as much as he hates Conservatives.  Therefore, if Rick says no impeachment, then there will be no impeachment.  Had there been even a 1% chance, he would have taken it and spun it to make people think the impeachment was certain, but not even Rick's career could survive an article like that on a 0% chance.  If the Dems take the house in Nov, they might try to impeach him, but it will never pass the Senate. 

0% chance.

Therefore, an impeachment which won't occur will have 0% effect on the stock market.  

Ah, one liberal has an opinion. Take it to the bank then!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

11 minutes ago, Eric Staib said:

Ah, one liberal has an opinion. Take it to the bank then!

Eric, I'm happy to see you over here on this forum, from the old Oilpro forum. 

You tend to have strong opinions, viewpoints and insights (good!) some of which I do not agree with (even better ! !)

Relax and dive into the discussions here.  So long as no one is a jerk toward opposing or differing opinions, all is good here.

[TXPower + 643]

I believe some credence can be given to Tomasz' theory concerning Trump being advised by Kissinger.  Viewed in the context of the Tweets(I know I know) that Trump has sent to the "Little Rocket Man" and Iran's Leaders, in terms of what we will do if they keep doing or saying x y or z; the "Irrational behavior and Madman" theories espoused by Thomas Schelling in the 1950's/60's and supposedly adopted by Nixon and his advisor, Dr. Kissinger during the Cold War, it seems plausible.  Perhaps it is just that Trump is the cult of personality, or truly is irrational but his approach to foreign relations, especially with those we don't get along with, runs in stark contrast to the last 20 years easily.  The world knew Obama wasn't going to do anything or honor redlines he drew in the sand.  Most of the world is not so confident Mr. Trump won't do what he says.  It also follows some of the tenants of "Brinkmanship" as a geopolitical tool.

TXPower

[Robert Ziegler + 121]

As the last successful Democrat president said, "It's the economy, stupid!": Business confidence of the all important SMEs is currently second only to the 1983 all time high, and we all know how the elections soon after turned out in spite of "Iran-Contra", the "Russiagate" of its time (but quite a bit more more reality-based). How wonderful it would be if people got together and enjoyed  peace and prosperity while it lasts, for a change. An impeachment is in no-ones interest, except of the most sinister elements of society, who thrive in chaos & turmoil.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 minutes ago, Robert Ziegler said:

As the last successful Democrat president said, "It's the economy, stupid!": Business confidence of the all important SMEs is currently second only to the 1983 all time high, and we all know how the elections soon after turned out in spite of "Iran-Contra", the "Russiagate" of its time (but quite a bit more more reality-based). How wonderful it would be if people got together and enjoyed  peace and prosperity while it lasts, for a change. An impeachment is in no-ones interest, except of the most sinister elements of society, who thrive in chaos & turmoil.

For those readers who are not Americans and do not live in the USA, a short comment on the peculiarly American concept of "impeachment."   First, the issuance of impeachment is NOT a removal from office.  Certain officials in the USA, including of course the President and Vice President and (I suspect) all members of the Congress, and ALL federal Judges, can only be removed from office during their term of office by a specific process.  That begins with the vote in the House of Representatives to present to the Senate its Articles of Impeachment.

Once the Articles are voted on and passed in the House, then the House "presents" the Articles to the Senate, which then has to call for Hearings and Deliberation, at great length, as to whether or not to approve the Articles of Impeachment.  It is basically a form of trial, except that the judge and prosecutor is the Senate, and they can pretty much do as they please in the course of their Hearings.  Now, if they ratify the Articles of Impeachment, then the individual, either a Judge or other Federal Officer, is "impeached."

And what does that mean?  In short, it means that the Senate can impose some punishment - of its own choosing.  It is not automatic that an Officer (including a Judge) that is Impeached is removed from office - although that is the most common outcome.  In theory, the Senate could issue a Reprimand, or a Letter of Censure.  Usually, but not always, the vote of Impeachment in the Senate is a vote to remove from office. 

Thus, as a practical matter, rumblings of impeaching the President is purely political.  Do the persons revolting in the ranks of the House have the political support, i.e. the votes, to prevail?  If the House is Republican (as it is today) and the President is Republican, then that probability is basically zero. 

If it gets past the House then the Senate has to hold its pseudo-trial.  What are the odds that the Senators are going to vote Articles of Impeachment against a Republican President when the Senate is majority Republican?  As a practical matter, the odds are zero. 

Because the process is so political, the overall odds of President Trump being impeached by the House, and that then confirmed by the Senate, is precisely zero.  That is the reality.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 hours ago, Eric Staib said:

I would expect an end to the asinine trade war and respect for our alliances as well.

I doubt that.  When Caterpillar bought Electro-Motive Diesel, the big Canadian rail locomotive builder, which had some 50% of the North American market, it got into a struggle with the Union, and ended up closing that plant.  Caterpillar moved the entire production to Indiana, building a spanking new factory to manufacture locomotives.  That was not lost on Pence, and he knows first-hand that big manufacturing enterprises that bail from Canada (specifically Ontario) will likely end up in Indiana.  Is Pence prepared to go toe-to-toe with Justin Trudeau to pirate big manufacturing plants, including the Canadian auto assembly operations?  You bet he is. 

What does Pence care about Ontario?  It's nothing to him; Canadians don't vote in US elections  (at least, they are not supposed to).  Pence will continue with tariffs on Canadian products. Including steel.  Especially steel.

[Cowpoke + 70]

It's not Trump impeachment to worry about but rather democrats gaining control and rolling back tax cuts and increasing regulations that would be more damaging to the stock market indices.

 

[Tim Turley + 27]

Trump will survive this, but it will take a while.  Mueller hasn't come up with a single "collusion" charge against Trump in 1.5 years, and has now turned his investigation to payments to a porn star (legal as in a NDA if paid with personal funds) and some sort of laundering in his dealings with Russian mafia investors (legal as long as he didn't know the source of funds).  So Mueller is trying to save face by coming up with something that will stick, just like the grand jury with Starr going after the Lewinski deal, which was way beyond the original scope, although Clinton got impeached for lying under oath.

What I don't get is, the whole deal was kicked off by Rosenstein's investigation of a fake dossier paid for by Fusion GPS and Hillary.  Why the hell isn't that investigated by Sessions?  Trump should fire Sessions now, and get the un-redacted DISA warrant out to see who was behind this.

[Qanoil + 116]

28 minutes ago, Tim Turley said:

What I don't get is, the whole deal was kicked off by Rosenstein's investigation of a fake dossier paid for by Fusion GPS and Hillary.  Why the hell isn't that investigated by Sessions?  Trump should fire Sessions now, and get the un-redacted DISA warrant out to see who was behind this.

For your consideration.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1032750590630264832.html

[Qanoil + 116]

4 hours ago, Tim Turley said:

What I don't get is, the whole deal was kicked off by Rosenstein's investigation of a fake dossier paid for by Fusion GPS and Hillary.  Why the hell isn't that investigated by Sessions?

Actually, it is being investigated.

See this 6MB infographic, file size too big to copy here.  Investigation of the fake "Fusion GPS" dossier is item #13 on the list.

[Cowpoke + 70]

12 hours ago, Qanoil said:

For your consideration.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1032750590630264832.html

I dunno, Qanoil. I have been following this stuff from the beginning and I am starting to side with the "Sessions is lost and out of his element" crowd.

I appreciate his foundational principles but I feel that he is just not that sharp in the new age. He is old time good old boy system from the years gone by. Times have changed and the "swamp" is much more adept at changing with the times than individuals.

Sessions is done, after the midterms and he does not even realize it. Just like John McCain. He has held the batton WAY past his prime and will carry it to the grave. Their own egos get in the way of party platform and Ideas. Or at least the way politics actually is in today's terms.  

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Cowpoke

[Qanoil + 116]

On 8/25/2018 at 10:20 AM, Tim Turley said:

What I don't get is, the whole deal was kicked off by Rosenstein's investigation of a fake dossier paid for by Fusion GPS and Hillary.  Why the hell isn't that investigated by Sessions?  Trump should fire Sessions now, and get the un-redacted DISA warrant out to see who was behind this.

See link below for pdf of this official U.S. Congress document dated April 18 2018.

tinyurl.com/ycbqnpp9

"Dear Attorney General Sessions, Director Wray, and Mr. Huber:

We write to refer the following individuals for investigation of potential violation(s) of federal statutes."

- Former FBI Director James Comey

- Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

- Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch

- Former Acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe

- FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Counsel Lisa Page

 

PDF attached

472EBC7D8F55C0F9E830D37CF96376A2.final-criminal-referral.pdf

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Qanoil
Attached the pdf

[Joanna + 68]

On 8/23/2018 at 8:54 AM, Stephen said:

Trump will not sit still for Impeachment. Also, with Pence in the White House, America's turn to the right will move even more quickly.

Trump has one option to pull to save his ass. Take your pick, Iran or N Korea

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 8/25/2018 at 9:49 AM, Qanoil said:

For your consideration.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1032750590630264832.html

Encouraging stories at that link.  I'll remain hopeful, but I am aware that there will be ugly ramifications either way this goes.  Lots of proof will need to be put out there and the military will need to stand loyal to the CIC.  It occurs to me that the swamp we've all heard of may be the ones outlined in the link.  And other links you provided following the above comment.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Dan Warnick

[Glenn Ellis + 57]

On 8/23/2018 at 8:01 AM, Joanna said:

I don't see it impacting the markets much. Emerging markets may actually go up since Trump would not be able to push his trade wars.

The only stock prices it will directly affect, will be in the 500 entities operating in 27 countries,we have identified, in which the president appears to own outright, or have at least 51% or controlling interest in.

It did not affect the value of the three New Jersey casinos that busted out

His mismanagement did the job !!!!

DJT would have done better, to let the Adonis mob, run them @ a profit.

"MAGA!!!!!!!"

[Stephen T. Harris, CPL + 23]

All of this impeachment talk is bs, plain and simple. The Senate would not even convict Bill Clinton when caught red handed with evidence. Back then, all of the moral outrage was from the GOP folks discussing how fornicating in the WH is more than just a sin. Their moral angst was in contrast to the Dems then, who mocked conservatives over sin, betrayal of marriage, cheating on wives, and having sex with essentially children were simply archaic and ridiculous notions from another era. So, Bill skated and life went on. Today, the very same Dems that held their noses over BC, now express moral outrage and enormous opprobrium over Trumps' occasional dalliance with Playboy bunnies and porn stars. This is an obvious double standard, a facile fake outrage and will go nowhere in Congress no matter how many Al Green's and Maxine's keep screaming about his
"high crimes." All talk about impeachment is pure political and really may even be welcomed by Trump on several levels in efforts to win re-election. As to us oil guys, there are far more issues to worry about than this.  

[youdriveahardbargain + 3]

That's so smart. Average joe's elect a pure capitalist CEO to the WH to solve the problem of wage stagnation in mid/lower level jobs and reduce the gap between the average CEOs earnings and the average joe's. I have to say, i haven't heard of a better thought out plan. Wait....oh.