Pr(Mueller Replaced by 6/30) from Prediction Markets

Source: PredictIt accessed 12/21.
Closing price 34 cents. I assume this means that there is 1/3 chance that President Trump will fire Mueller within the next 6 months. Not surprising given the President’s rabid attacks on the FBI.

19 thoughts on “Pr(Mueller Replaced by 6/30) from Prediction Markets

  1. 2slugbaits

    A more interesting prediction market would be whether or not private citizen Donald Trump is convicted of a felony after he loses in 2020. And for the trifecta make the prediction about Don Sr., Don Jr., and Jared.

    1. CoRev

      Or another interesting prediction might be if any Democratic Leaders, Clinton(s), Obama, and Pelosi are convicted before the end of the Trump administration. Or we could just wait and see how long for the “anti-Republican hatred” being displayed by so many causes the next civil war.

      This old saying: “We live in interesting times” is being trumped by “Can’t heal stupid” no matter how many healthcare bill are passed.

      Merry Christmas, all!

      1. 2slugbaits

        The big problem is that Obama, Pelosi and the Clintons didn’t commit any crimes…unless you’re a Fox News addict, in which case it would be a crime to breathe air if your last name is “Clinton.” But Trump is a different story. Two days ago we learned about an interesting case of tax fraud unearthed by the Palm Beach Post involving Mar-a-Lago.
        And there is no statute of limitations for this kind of crime:

        But as Erik Poole notes below, Trump’s astonishing weight gain since becoming President might make all of this OBE by 2021. They might have to supersize the orange jumpsuit.

        1. ilsm

          I sat through the mandatory annual training on Federal Records Act, Clinton did stuff that we were threatened with jail for!

          Then there are her ignorance excused security breeches which I received annual training each year again threat of hard time shouted in the canned training.

          Clinton is obviously too big to jail with career civilians and military serving!

          1. Menzie Chinn Post author

            ilsm: Hmm, wondering about the thousands and thousands of Executive Office of the President emails “lost” during the G.W. Bush era (since this was just after my stint in the White House, I am somewhat sensitive, as you are, given what I was told), and also the emails run through private email services — also those being run through RNC or private email services during the Trump era. Time to lock up a bunch of G.W. Bush high level aides and several high level Trump aides. At least, we should have the same investigation that Secretary Clinton has been subject to applied to these folks.

          2. 2slugbaits

            ilsm I sat through plenty of those same training sessions. But the FBI looked and relooked at the Clinton email thing and did not find any criminal acts. They found carelessness, but nothing criminal. There were some emails that were unclassified (although possibly SBU) that were classified later, but we don’t ordinarily convict people for things like that. You know, there’s this thing in the Constitution about ex post facto charges. I think most of the carelessness was due to what the training sessions call “spillage” after initially unclassified emails were sent to non-government machines and Clinton not reporting the possible spillage. But that kind of stuff happens all the time. No one goes back and reexamines ancient emails to see if they’ve been changed to classified. And remember that there was a lot of disagreement over whether or not the emails were ever classified. Generally the Executive Department determines the level of classification. In the case of the Clinton emails it was an arm of Congress (i.e., GAO) that said some of the emails should have been classified. But that’s just GAO’s opinion years after the fact and with benefit of hindsight. And GAO was not the originating agency.

            In the real world people are rarely charged with a crime for inadvertent and unintentional data breaches…not even the small fries. They might get administratively reprimanded and suspended for a few days, but no one gets charged with a crime…just as Trump won’t be charged with violating the Logan Act, which he and his team clearly did. As did Obama. As did McCain. As did Bush.

            Trump has two legal problems. The first is the possible obstruction of justice charge coming from Mueller. Trump keeps wanting to conflate that with the “dossier” stuff, but Mueller isn’t focused on the dossier rumor; he’s looking into the obstruction of justice, and that’s a completely different issue. And people do get convicted for that. The second legal problem Trump has concerns his shady financial dealings before he became President. I don’t see Trump being removed from office, but after he loses in 2020 there will be some payback and Congress and the IRS will hound him into bankruptcy. I’m sure that the Democrats will be under pressure to impeach him after they retake the House in 2018, but I think that would be a mistake. Better to investigate, investigate, investigate and investigate. Keep the pot boiling but go no further. The worst outcome for the Democrats would be to see Mike Pence become President.

  2. Erik Poole

    Also from Will Donald Trump be president at year-end 2018?

    Yes $0.71 (-0.01)
    No. $0.29

    It would appear that some of the no votes are being driven by the possibility of President Trump dying from his chosen lifestyle. Personally, I always thought that golf was bad for one’s health.

    Then Trump could be grooming his enormous, fat ass just to make the rest of us feel better.

    Happy Solstice everybody!

  3. Not Trampis

    would the ‘firing’ of Mueller change the odds of Trump being President at the end of 2018???

    Merry Christmas

  4. Chris Wilsher

    Trump can’t fire Mueller, so the odds should be zero. OTOH, the odds that Trump gets somebody to fire Mueller by 6/30/2018 are at least 50-50.

    1. Menzie Chinn Post author

      Chris Wilsher: Happy to restate as “I assume this means that there is 1/3 chance that President Trump will replace the person who can fire Mueller with someone more pliant, who then fires Mueller, within the next 6 months.”

  5. joseph

    “Trump can’t fire Mueller”

    Don’t know why people are tying themselves in knots figuring what it would take to fire Mueller. As we have seen, there are no norms for this administration. They simply do what they want and a compliant Congress just lets them.

    Rules concerning the special counsel are not law. They are simply regulations written by a previous Justice Department in 1999. They can be rewritten by the current Justice Department or the President himself. And the Trump administration has already argued that as chief executive, he is not bound by those regulations anyway.

    So Trump can simply fire Mueller. Who’s going to stop him? Not this Congress. As long as they get their tax cuts and entitlement cuts, they will go along with anything.

    We are in a whole new regime now. Do not expect rule of law to protect you.

  6. macroduck

    Let’s consider public statements of politicians as a kind of signalling. So, what and to whom are Trey Gowdy and Devon Nunes signalling?

    I suspect they are signalling Mueller than any effort to deliver an indictment against Trump will be fruitless and perhaps personally costly to Mueller. If so, and if Mueller takes those signals seriously, then waiting until after the mid-term election might be a wise choice on Mueller’s part.

    There are important other issues to consider, such as whether Congress will actually overturn the separation of powers for partisan political ends. That would set a terrible precedent, not one that a right-minded citizen would want to risk. Further reason to wait until after the mid-term election to see if the separation of powers is restored.

  7. ilsm

    Seems to me, by 30 June the Russian “influence” nothing burger will be an issue!

    Trump firing Mueller then and the resulting media storm might motivate the ‘base’ to vote against the liberal media selections.

    Russian meddling differs from other foreign powers’ buying congress and the Russians’ low budget limited to outing truth.

  8. Erik Poole

    islm: It is always nice to read the thoughts of a true believer.

    As for Russia…. Well, the first mistake the USA made was pushing NATO into the former Soviet Union countries. That was bound to blow back against US interests. I can’t imagine the additional arms sales and sales of highly subsidized agricultural products making the risks worthwhile.

    Presumably few American policy makers are aware of the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles.

    As for Russian meddling in the last election, it makes Americans look stupid and easy manipulate, i.e., weak. It also reminds us of all the times, the US state has interfered and tried to influence election outcomes around the world.

    Here is the problem with this constant reminder that the US interferes in the affairs of others. It makes you look like hypocrites. In my fireside chats with so-called ‘terrorists’ throughout the decades, it is pthis enchant for hypocrisy that makes it easier for them to target and kill American civilians and others who allegedly support American agendas.

    Perhaps you don’t mind sacrificing the lives of your fellow Americans for worthwhile policy pursuits.

    Personally, I cannot think of any resource objectives that are worth sacrificing American lives.

  9. Robj

    If I have learned anything, it is that “but her emails” covers any malfeasance by Trump or his team. Any. And one wonders why the defenders are so desperate ahead of the results. Spooge?

    I await to see if Mueller really has anything, although I would not be surprised to find Team Trump working with Russians to coordinate leakage of emails and high levels of laundering Russian cash throughout Trump enterprises.

    Oh, wait, “I’m shocked, really shocked that there is laundering going on here at Mara-Lago!”

  10. ilsm


    Clinton’s malfeasance is not less culpable because “W did it”.

    2Slugs, Army training?

    And “They [FBI] found carelessness, but nothing criminal”. is answered by ‘determining guilt’ much less addressing motive is the job jury’s job not the investigator, even those whose boss met with Bill in Phoenix tarmac.

    Or the hundreds of texts sent supporting Clinton by high ranking FBI agent associated with denying due process.

    The FBI is Justice’s version of the pentagon acquisition system, utterly inept but looks fine on surface.

    1. 2slugbaits


      2Slugs, Army training?


      addressing motive is the job jury’s job not the investigator,

      No. The concept of prosecutorial discretion is an ancient point of law. The Justice Dept has limited resources and they don’t waste time, manpower and effort on cases that they’re unlikely to win. And the FBI didn’t believe the email caper was strong enough to even get a grand jury indictment never mind a petit jury conviction.

      hundreds of texts sent supporting Clinton by high ranking FBI agent

      Those emails were anything but flattering to Clinton. The emails were pretty much equal opportunity political snark. Those FBI agents were expressing their loathing of politicians in general. They just pointed out that Trump was an especially egregious case of idiocy and self-absorption. And of course they have been proven right. In any event, they were fired long before the investigation really got going. And don’t forget about the pro-Trump FBI agents in New York that were maneuvering Comey into having to make some kind of statement a few weeks before the election. And oh BTW, those pro-Trump FBI agents are still on the payroll.

Comments are closed.