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.

> I don't take the 25th seriously

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.