Articles of impeachment to be filed against Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not his first failure, not by a long shot. His "administration" has basically been nothing but crises from the start.

Well, I'll agree with you on the latter part. His base gives him credit for Gorsuch, though I personally think that 'victory' goes to McConnell. But Charlottesville was his first crisis, and boy oh boy did he blow it. This would worry me if I were a Republican. It will not be his last.

Also, did you miss the part where it wasn't simply over Charlottsville, but over charges of Obstruction of Justice and the Emoluments Clause?

No. And for what it's worth, I suspect that if Trump gets impeached, it will be over his business dealings running afoul of the Emoluments Clause. But we're simply not there yet. Maybe Mueller can get us what we need, but it's likely to be a while before that turns anything up.

I'm of two minds on Trump impeachment. On the one hand, he's undeniably awful....but it's not like we suddenly get someone good if Trump goes. Pence would certainly be less embarrassing, but I'm afraid he might actually be more effective. Trump has managed to bring the entire Republican legislative agenda to a halt, even as they own both the House and Senate. That's....actually really impressive. As someone who opposes the bulk of what the Republicans want to accomplish, and who really, REALLY opposes what Pence tried to do in Indiana, should I encourage them to remove the anchor from around their neck, and replace it with a politician who might actually accomplish something? I dunno.

I mostly agree with what Fuzzy Necromancer said on this point. But I'll add that weather Trump or Pence would be the worse President is somewhat beside the point.

The purpose of impeachment is not to pick the President you want (nor is removing a President under the 25th. Amendment, which provides a means to remove a President who is unfit for office on the grounds of health). We have a procedure for that- its called an election.

Impeachment is for removing a President who breaks the law. If we want to uphold the idea that America is a country based in the rule of law, and that the President is accountable to that law (which we should, if we don't want more and more people to turn to political violence as an acceptable or the only recourse), then if we have solid grounds to believe Trump broke the law, he has to be impeached. Same for Pence, if that case can be made against him. Otherwise, no.

[LittleRaven]

Impeachment is for removing a President who breaks the law.

Uh...no. That's not what impeachment is about at all. Which is probably just as well for the country, since I strongly suspect that most presidents have broken the law and will continue to do so. There is nothing about impeachment process that is in any way related to the justice system. There are no judges, no standards of evidence, no due process. The constitution merely says that a president can be removed for 'bribery, treason, and other high crimes against the state' but it leaves the definition of the latter entirely up to Congress. They could impeach a President for putting on his pants the wrong way, if they really wanted to. And they can happily ignore the President breaking any number of laws if they so choose, because there is no court in the land that can compel the President to answer.

Philosophically speaking, Nixon was perhaps wrong when he said that 'it's not illegal if the President does it.' But practically, he was dead on the money. The Presidential pardon is absolute in the Federal realm, and while a state could theoretically level charges against him, no state could touch him while he's President.

Impeachment is a political process designed to remove a President that has overwhelmingly lost the faith of Congress. It's a grand popularity contest...nothing more, nothing less. And as such, it should (and will be) considered within a political context. Almost nobody actually cared whether or not Clinton enjoyed cigars...the Republicans felt there was political advantage to be gained by impeaching him, so they did. Everyone knew that Reagan broke the law during Iran-Contra, but there was absolutely no advantage to be gained by going down that road, so nobody did. Trump is obviously a horse of a different color, but the same rules apply. Plenty of Democrats want him gone tomorrow, and Trump has given them more than enough ammunition to at least take a few potshots. But I promise you that quite a few Democrats in Congress are wondering if he doesn't do them more good in office than he would out of it, and may well work to delay impeachment behind the scenes even if they felt obligated to vote for it in the end. And of course, he remains quite popular with a significant portion of the Republican base, so as much though they personally loathe him, Ryan and McConnell must be very cautious about how they proceed, lest they split their party in half.

[Admiral X]

Personally, I'd rather Trump stay and that the other branches of government continue to fight him on everything.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

But if this president doesn't call for Impeachment, then what the heck do we even have that tool in the toolbox for anyway? I'd be hard-pressed to find a more fitting case.

[LittleRaven]

But if this president doesn't call for Impeachment, then what the heck do we even have that tool in the toolbox for anyway? I'd be hard-pressed to find a more fitting case.

I'm sure you would be. But the fact is, as of this post, Donald Trump enjoys a 34% approval rating. That's a historic low for a President at this point in his term, but still well shy of impeachment numbers - remember, you need a majority in the House and 66 votes in the Senate. The Democrats only have 48 seats in the Senate, so even if you got them all right away (and getting Democrats to agree on things is like herding cats, though if anyone could unite them, it would be Trump) you would still need 18 Republican votes.

Now, remember that 34% approval rating? Among Republicans, it's 79%. Though I'm sure most Republican senators loathe the man, their voters still overwhelming support him, so they dare not move against him lest they lose their jobs. Securing senate votes gets even more complicated when you remember that liberals are busy cloistering themselves in urban centers, which further reduces their electoral power.

Trump isn't going anywhere until that 79% moves substantially down.

[The Romulan Republic]

Impeachment is for removing a President who breaks the law.

Uh...no. That's not what impeachment is about at all. Which is probably just as well for the country, since I strongly suspect that most presidents have broken the law and will continue to do so.

So? That just means that they got away with it, not that there weren't grounds for impeachment.

There is nothing about impeachment process that is in any way related to the justice system. There are no judges, no standards of evidence, no due process. The constitution merely says that a president can be removed for 'bribery, treason, and other high crimes against the state' but it leaves the definition of the latter entirely up to Congress. They could impeach a President for putting on his pants the wrong way, if they really wanted to. And they can happily ignore the President breaking any number of laws if they so choose, because there is no court in the land that can compel the President to answer.

To say their is no relation to the justice system and then quote the part where impeachment is designed to remove a President for committing crimes is rather absurd, as well.

Its not a conventional trial, no. But IIRC the Chief Justice presides over an impeachment (or is that an anachronism that is no longer in effect- I've been reading a lot of Civil War-era history lately).

Philosophically speaking, Nixon was perhaps wrong when he said that 'it's not illegal if the President does it.' But practically, he was dead on the money.

No, he most definitely was not.

The Presidential pardon is absolute in the Federal realm, and while a state could theoretically level charges against him, no state could touch him while he's President.

This is flatly false, and basically repeating Trumpian rhetoric.

It has not been tested weather a President could pardon himself, but it is my understanding that it is generally thought that, if it were put to the test, the Supreme Court would likely rule "no".

Pardons also do not extend to violations of state law, or to crimes committed before you became President. They also, IIRC, do not confer immunity to civil suites, or, of course, to impeachment.

So they are very far from absolute, in the Federal or any other realm.

Granted, it is unlikely, to put it mildly, that any state government would have the balls to order the arrest of the President. But once he's out of office...

Impeachment is a political process designed to remove a President that has overwhelmingly lost the faith of Congress. It's a grand popularity contest...nothing more, nothing less. And as such, it should (and will be) considered within a political context. Almost nobody actually cared whether or not Clinton enjoyed cigars...the Republicans felt there was political advantage to be gained by impeaching him, so they did.

But they still had to have a pretext (lying under oath, technically) to do it.

Everyone knew that Reagan broke the law during Iran-Contra, but there was absolutely no advantage to be gained by going down that road, so nobody did. Trump is obviously a horse of a different color, but the same rules apply. Plenty of Democrats want him gone tomorrow, and Trump has given them more than enough ammunition to at least take a few potshots. But I promise you that quite a few Democrats in Congress are wondering if he doesn't do them more good in office than he would out of it,

In that case, they are derelict in their duty, and astoundingly stupid to boot.

Because I seem to recall a lot of Democrats assuming Trump would be easy to beat last time around, and look how that turned out.

and may well work to delay impeachment behind the scenes even if they felt obligated to vote for it in the end. And of course, he remains quite popular with a significant portion of the Republican base, so as much though they personally loathe him, Ryan and McConnell must be very cautious about how they proceed, lest they split their party in half.

I don't deny the cowardice of many Congressmembers, but that has no bearing on how impeachment is theoretically supposed to be used.

[LittleRaven]

So? That just means that they got away with it, not that there weren't grounds for impeachment.

That's my point, though. Literally ANYTHING is grounds for impeachment if Congress says it is. The constitution specifies that a President SHALL be removed if he is convicted of bribery or treason, but that's it. Trump could LITERALLY shoot a baby in the street and as long as Congress has his back, he's fine....well, for as long as he's President anyway. We both agree that a President could, in theory at least, be prosecuted for state crimes once he's no longer in office.

Its not a conventional trial, no. But IIRC the Chief Justice presides over an impeachment (or is that an anachronism that is no longer in effect- I've been reading a lot of Civil War-era history lately).

The Chief Justice presides, but that doesn't really mean anything. He doesn't fill the same role that, say, a judge does. He doesn't give instructions or deliver rulings on anything...he's there to clear up technical details like 'does a vote of "not proven" constitute a vote of "not guilty."' (In Clinton's case, Chief Rehnquist decided it did.)

It has not been tested weather a President could pardon himself, but it is my understanding that it is generally thought that, if it were put to the test, the Supreme Court would likely rule "no".

We have very different understandings. Here's a good Politifact article on the subject. I think we agree on the facts of what the Constitution does and does not allow, but I think it very likely that the court would, at best, (assuming Gorsuch recuses himself) deadlock on the issue. Which out of the current 4 conservative justices do you see giving credence to the argument that there are limitations NOT explicitly laid out in the Constitution?

But they still had to have a pretext (lying under oath, technically) to do it.

No they didn't. There's no legal standard of what constitutes a 'high crime or misdemeanor.' If a majority of the House says the President has committed one, then it goes to the Senate. The President can't appeal it in any way. Perjury was the pretext they chose, but they could have impeached him for anything.

In that case, they are derelict in their duty, and astoundingly stupid to boot.

Uh, we are talking about Democrats, right? What was it Will Rogers said?

Besides, I like to think it's not so much stupidity as it is optimism. Democrats have faith in the American people. They figure that, when appropriately reminded of the alternative, Americans will pick their side. And what better reminder than Trump?

I don't deny the cowardice of many Congressmembers, but that has no bearing on how impeachment is theoretically supposed to be used.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. In Nixon v. United States they were unanimous in the view that Impeachment is a political process. That means it is always supposed to be used in a political manner....just as it's being considered right now.