The World

Apr 11, 2018

Just what does it take to end a US presidency?

People who think every new Trump scandal will be the one to end him may be in for some bad news.

Charlie Lewis — Journalist

Charlie Lewis

Journalist

It's become a common refrain: the shambolic US administration of Donald Trump encounters, in an average week, a scandal that would end a normal presidency.

Early this month, The Washington Post described "the misconduct revealed during just one day this week" as "worse than what presidents normally experience during an entire term". Meanwhile, the ABC wondered early last year, "how many controversies can Trump survive?"(correctly concluding it would be quite a few). 

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

10 comments

Leave a comment

10 thoughts on “Just what does it take to end a US presidency?

  1. peter

    Really Charlie? Trump is only into the second year of his presidency…and you’re comparing his record after 18 months to “mishaps” which occured over the course of two-term presidencies, i.e. an 8 year span. You’re seriously suggesting it’s just business as usual in the Whitehouse. Sorry, but I expect more intelligent journalism from Crikey than this.

  2. Smit

    Meanwhile Trump has forced both N Korea and China to back down.

    1. kyle Hargraves

      Crikey, in many respects is very “neo-The Guardian-isn”. That newspaper, and many others were in outright denial that Trump even had a chance to the point that an alternative view would not be contemplated.

      Chucking humility through the window I have put myself to some effort to explain, on these pages, that there is a majority (yes – contrary to assumption by some on the staff of Crikey) that actually support Trump – even if the support is a rebound from “anti-Hillary”. If he extracts just one major concession from Kim those who attempted to undermine him will have, in effect, undermined themselves.

  3. The Curmudgeon

    Remember, there is no defined impeachable offence which leads to impeachment. As was said during the Nixon era, “an impeachable offence is what Congress decides an impeachable offence is.” The more pro-Trump Congress is, the less likely is impeachment.

  4. RL

    The yanks have form using more extreme methods to remove someone from office.

  5. AR

    The Drumpfster’s body language when expectorating – in a security meeting to blow the shit out of Syria – about the authorities “breaking in” to his lawyer’s premises was a joy to behold/
    Twice at least he crossed his arms over his torso in defence which anyone who’s read Pearse knows mean “lying through your teeth”.
    Given that he has now proclaimed himself the SunKing – “L’etat c’est moi” – and deemed ”this is an attack on our country” can the FBI expect an air strike?

    1. Rais

      What’s the posture for “lying through your dentures?” (Just in case I need to do it.)

  6. kyle Hargraves

    It is an old story; no new plonk here but the behaviour makes a mockery of the Oath of Office. I think it is well known : being caught is the crime.

  7. Arky

    Weird article premise. US Presidents don’t just come and go like Australian Prime Ministers because theirs is a fixed term job under the US constitution. You know what it takes to end a US president’s term, impeachment. Which will never happen to a Republican President in a partisan congress dominated by Republicans.

    1. kyle Hargraves

      Well, four years is a long time and a heap of Congress-persons? and Senators are up for election over the intervening period. In the case of Nixon it was “open and shut” to the point the Agnew pulled the pin also. It could have happened with Clinton (only even money here) but short of the investigators discovering an act of treason Trump, for all his interpersonal skills, is in the clear.

      As an aside, when you were dealing with yet another individual you asserted “It isn’t. Trump winning office that way is an outlier which had a lot of other factors to it.”

      Actually, Arky, it was anything but an outlier but you are also correct – see my post above. Other factors did indeed contribute and not the least of which was the assumption that a lot of the polling was predicated on independent (and not co-variant) events; very dangerous!

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...