Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments? We couldn't care less about your politics, but you've routinely broken the rules here, often egregiously. That will eventually get your account banned if you don't fix it.
Why don't you try being constructive instead of nitpicking and reaching straight for the edge cases? Like, try offering more moderated but credible alternatives to achieve the implicit end of having governance be informed by science.
It isn't. Constructive is when you point out a problem and suggest a better alternative. If you just point out problems (especially by taking a narrow legalistic approach to casual conversation) then you're just being a pedant and undermining their substantive argument (in this case, that finding a way to derail the administration is a matter of urgent necessity). You are of course welcome to disagree with that substantive claim, but if so then it's better to do so openly than under cover of fault-finding, which is regarded by many as concern trolling.
Legislation is irrelevant. All that matters is Congress. "An impeachable offense" is anything Congress wants it to be. The Constitution is powerfully vague on this point, and in any case no court has jurisdiction to overturn a conviction.
All that matters is getting enough of Congress to think that something is impeachable. Of course, since you need a lot of Republicans to be part of it, and they're loyal to their own, it's a big hurdle. But it's a different hurdle.
Legislation and impeachment are unrelated. Trump has already committed multiple impeachable offenses. He hasn't divested from his businesses, he lies constantly to things that are easily proved lies, he's appointing family members white house positions, he's using his position as president to profit his own business by spending every weekend at a property he owns. Any one of these things qualifies as an impeachable offense.
It hasn't happened yet because "how" to do it requires republicans to vote to do it and they're not going to do that unless the public forces them to because it's their own party. The 25th amendment could happen, but only if Pence decides he's ready to dethrone Trump and can convince Trump's cabinet to get on board and together they can simply fire Trump.
Best reply so far. Might be misinterpreting, but I think that both you & the other person who replied to my above comment are taking the somewhat broad charge of high crimes and misdemeanors as allowing for just about anything to become grounds for impeachment, which just isn't the case.
Per Wikipedia, "Impeachment in the United States is an enumerated power of the legislature that allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed. Most impeachments have concerned alleged crimes committed while in office, though there have been a few cases in which Congress has impeached and convicted officials partly for prior crimes." [1]
Wording in the Constitution, "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." [1]
"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. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office." [2] Fun fact, the English version of the charge, in use since 1386, included losing a ship by neglecting to moor it as one of the offenses.
All that goes to say that legislation (law) is related, and there's some fairly specific criteria any president has to meet to be successfully impeached. There is a degree of "prosecutorial discretion," but it comes in the context of misconduct in office, as I understand it. Two sitting presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act, and Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Of the things you list, I think the divesting/time at own property are probably the strongest case. Assuming they'd go after him with the Emoluments clause, it could still be challenging, however. Lots of opinions on how broadly applicable it is [3-5].
The family thing is something I'm not personally a fan of, but I doubt it would be impeachable [6]. To quote, "Interestingly, there may be a loophole around all of this. The law says that penalty for violating this law is that the person is "not entitled to pay."" Bit later, “While it’s true that the penalty for violation of the statute is just to withhold salary or other financial remuneration from the wrongfully appointed employee, there’s also the possibility that any action taken by such a wrongfully appointed employee could be subject to legal challenge and potentially even be voidable,...”
I don't personally take the 25th very seriously. Lying is a critique that's been made of a pretty high percentage of politicians in history, I'd assume (not to be dismissive, happy to talk about examples you think are particularly egregious or w/e). "I am not a crook", "If you like your plan you can keep it", and on and on forever.
At the end of the day I don't particularly enjoy impeachment talk from either side because it feels blindly reactionary, when that energy is probably better spent directly opposing bits of policy (which is obviously happening), and in this particular instance preparing for 2018, which will be a very important midterm year. Holding our elected officials to a high standard is important, and the microscope that Trump and his admin are under ultimately benefits everyone, but I think it's also important to be selective about where and when to fight.
The point stands, there's enough that congress could impeach him at any time; if democrats were in control of congress it would have happened already as there's plenty to nail him with already.
And you should take the 25th seriously, because it's the only way that he can be outed without even committing a crime of any sort. With the 25th he can be fired for merely being incompetent by his own cabinet and VP.
He is unarguably the most incompetent and dishonest president ever to hold office in modern history. His sheer ignorance is astounding, he is utterly unqualified to hold office.
> The point stands, there's enough that congress could impeach him at any time...
No, it doesn't, as I've just pointed out why all of your listed items have legitimate legal defenses that would probably win in court. I don't take the 25th seriously because it's basically fan fiction by people who hate Trump, and is completely impractical as an actual means of impeachment.
Probably and definitely are vastly different things; there's enough to attempt to bring charges, that's all that matters. And no, the 25th isn't fan fiction, it's a legitimate means to remove a president for incompetency via his own party wanting him out of the way. I don't care if you don't take the constitution seriously, the courts do. And the 25th isn't impeachment, it's a different thing entirely.
> ...there's enough to attempt to bring charges, that's all that matters.
Considering he'd still be in office, and any later attempt to impeach would likely fall on its face due to the embarrassing failure, no, charges aren't all that matters.
Attempting to remove Trump with the 25th Amendment is a ridiculous pipe dream that will never happen. Thinking that doesn't mean I somehow don't take the Constitution seriously, but thanks for the super reasonable interpretation of my comment.
You said that; the 25th is part of the Constitution which implies quite directly that you don't take the Constitution seriously, I didn't interpret anything, words have meaning and you said directly that you don't take part of the Constitution seriously.
> Considering he'd still be in office, and any later attempt to impeach would likely fall on its face due to the embarrassing failure, no, charges aren't all that matters.
Nixon resigned on the threat of being impeached, so please lets not pretend the threat alone isn't enough to cause action. Trump could very well resign to avoid the embarrassment of even having charges brought. His ego is quite easily injured. Just because you think they need a solid indefensible case to even attempt charges doesn't mean that's what everyone thinks and quite simply isn't how the world works. You live in a country where plea deals are taken every single day to avoid the risk of even going to court; quite often in cases where the DA knows they don't even have a good case.
The only thing preventing Trump from being impeached is that it's his party in control; that's it. There's plenty to impeach him with that will hold up in court and you're simply incorrect to say otherwise.
An application of an Amendment to the Constitution is different than the entire document. Context is important, but I see you're committed to ignoring that.
> The only thing preventing Trump from being impeached is that it's his party in control; that's it.
This is objectively, factually incorrect. Nixon's case was a slam dunk, 100% win. Nothing you've presented comes even close, try harder. Yes, it is theoretically possible to push for impeachment charges with a worse case. I'm arguing that would be very stupid to do, because it wouldn't work and it would destroy potential for stronger cases in the future.
You're ignoring history; Clinton was unsuccessfully impeached, to assert that no one will bring impeachment charges unless they're sure they can win is simply objectively factually incorrect.
We're not going to agree, not remotely, so just leave it at that.
Plenty of people seem to be fine with foreign governments interfering with US elections. What is OK with people is a mystery that only continues to deepen.
An open endorsement is not at all comparable to breaking the law, stealing information, turning it into misinformation, and leaking it anonymously. You also could say that Muhammad Ali and I both have thrown punches and that Linus Torvalds and I both have contributed to FOSS projects, but what would it mean?
