# Impeach Trump. Now. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2017, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327 "2017-02-20T16:47:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/441 "2017-05-17T18:17:41Z")
Democrats should vote no on any use of the 25th. Impeach him and let all the dirty laundry out in the open during the tria. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/442 "2017-05-17T18:21:45Z")
For your reading pleasure, national security pundit Phillip Carter has [drafted a set of articles of impeachment](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/05/here_is_a_draft_of_articles_of_impeachment_for_donald_j_trump.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_ru). ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/443 "2017-05-17T18:27:55Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > What I meant was, could Pence invoke the 25th, and then Congress hurriedly vote and confirm Pence’s statement that “Trump is unfit,” before Trump has time to declare himself fit? Well, Pence can’t invoke the 25th unilaterally first of all. After that, it looks like you are trying to play some word games imagining that the second Trump is stripped of Presidential powers then he can no longer send a letter saying he’s competent. You could play better word games if re-read the text. Pence would be Acting President, Trump would still be President and would be able to send his letter at his leisure. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/444 "2017-05-17T18:32:52Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Democrats should vote no on any use of the 25th. Impeach him and let all the dirty laundry out in the open during the tria. Yes, arrogant and spiteful is totally the way to go. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/445 "2017-05-17T18:46:04Z")
Anyone else impressed with the President timing with news of his leaking of state secrets coming in the same news cycle as Chelsea Manning’s release for leaking … diplomatic cables. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/446 "2017-05-17T18:46:20Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Sure. Have a look at Black III B, which et alli refers to article 10 against Johnson. > > [Here’s the 10th article of impeachment against Johnson](http://law2.umkc.edu/Faculty/projects/FTrials/impeach/articles.html): > > The reality is that if a president shits on congress, shits really really orange and biggly on congress, that president risks being impeached. How does one article of impeachment disprove the presence of others against Johnson which did allege an illegal act? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/447 "2017-05-17T18:55:35Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > What I meant was, could Pence invoke the 25th, and then Congress hurriedly vote and confirm Pence’s statement that “Trump is unfit,” before Trump has time to declare himself fit? No. The 25th Amendment sets a schedule that goes like this: 1. The Vice President and the majority of the cabinet (or the majority of Congress itself) declares the President is unfit and the Vice President takes over as President. 2. The President can say he is fit at any time and resume his office. 3. The Vice President and the majority of the cabinet have four days to challenge the President’s claim and say he really is unfit even if he says he’s fit. 4. Congress has forty-eight hours to get together if it’s not already in session after receiving the Vice President’s statement from step 3. 5. Congress has twenty-one days to decide (by a two thirds majority) that the Vice President is right and the President is unfit. If they don’t do so within that time period, the President’s statement that he is fit stands by default. There are gaps in the law. It’s not clear whether the President of the Vice President will hold the office during the period between steps 3 to 5. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/448 "2017-05-17T18:56:27Z")
> [@ganthet](#): > > Please cite the specific federal statutes, since your proposition is that violating a federal criminal statute is at least a necessary precondition for bringing a particular article or sub-article of impeachment. Do you remember the scene where it dawns on Daffy Duck why HE keeps getting shot? “Ah ha! I’ve got it,” Daffy says grimly. “Pronoun trouble.” I had a similar reaction reading what you wrote. No, I don’t contend that every particular article, sub-article, or specification in an impeachment must allege a crime. (And as a reminder, when I say “must,” here I refer not to a legal requirement but to what I argue is a political reality.) I contend that an impeachment, as a whole, must contain a criminal allegation as a matter of political reality. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/449 "2017-05-17T18:56:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How does one article of impeachment disprove the presence of others against Johnson which did allege an illegal act? Why would it and who claimed it disproved their presence? And the simple fact is, the articles that do allege an “illegal act” do so in a way that clearly doesn’t quite line up with the actual criminal legislation, mostly only mimicking some turns of phrase. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/450 "2017-05-17T18:57:28Z")
Re. criminality or lack thereof. Impeachment: A Handbook, by Charles Lund Black, @37 (1974 reprint 1998) > [@](#): > > They are offenses, (1) which are extremely serious, (2) which in some way corrupt or subvert the political and governmental process and (3), which are plainly wrong in themselves to a person of honor, or to a good citizen, regardless of words on the statute books. Bricker, that pretty much sums up how Trump could be impeached for giving classified information to the Russians that would put people in danger, despite it not being a criminal act for him because as president he had the authority to do so. Doing so in front of Russian press, while banning US press, makes it even more egregious. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/451 "2017-05-17T19:00:37Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Yes, arrogant and spiteful is totally the way to go. :rolleyes: Considering the actively harmful but demonstrable successes of Republicans over the past 20 years, arrogant spite does indeed seems to be the most effective strategy in contemporary American politics. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/452 "2017-05-17T19:01:10Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Yes, arrogant and spiteful is totally the way to go. :rolleyes: To me, it’s just much more transparent and more likely that people will understand and accept the results. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/453 "2017-05-17T19:01:15Z")
Jesus, this is turning into another “Bricker, would you be in favor of a state-run UHC plan?” thread. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/454 "2017-05-17T19:04:03Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No. The 25th Amendment sets a schedule that goes like this: > > 1. The Vice President and the majority of the cabinet (or the majority of Congress itself) declares the President is unfit and the Vice President takes over as President. > 2. The President can say he is fit at any time and resume his office. > 3. The Vice President and the majority of the cabinet have four days to challenge the President’s claim and say he really is unfit even if he says he’s fit. > 4. Congress has forty-eight hours to get together if it’s not already in session after receiving the Vice President’s statement from step 3. > 5. Congress has twenty-one days to decide (by a two thirds majority) that the Vice President is right and the President is unfit. If they don’t do so within that time period, the President’s statement that he is fit stands by default. > > There are gaps in the law. It’s not clear whether the President of the Vice President will hold the office during the period between steps 3 to 5. Bummer. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/455 "2017-05-17T19:05:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How does one article of impeachment disprove the presence of others against Johnson which did allege an illegal act? Impeachment does not work that way. With impeachment, you put together whatever charges have a reasonable chance of sticking, be they based on criminal law, or somewhat analogous to criminal law, or outside of criminal law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/456 "2017-05-17T19:32:51Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Re. criminality or lack thereof. > > Impeachment: A Handbook, by Charles Lund Black, @37 (1974 reprint 1998) > > Bricker, that pretty much sums up how Trump could be impeached for giving classified information to the Russians that would put people in danger, despite it not being a criminal act for him because as president he had the authority to do so. Doing so in front of Russian press, while banning US press, makes it even more egregious. I agree he could be, as a matter of law. I argue that this simply won’r happen. I argue that the political reality is not captured by “Impeachment: A Handbook,” by Charles Lund Black. For example, does Mr. Black discuss the difference in situations when the President is a member of the same party that controls the House as contrasted with the President being a member of the party in the minority in the House? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/457 "2017-05-17T19:34:14Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Jesus, this is turning into another “Bricker, would you be in favor of a state-run UHC plan?” thread. :smack: What do you suppose happens to the cognition of readers to create this kind of result? I’d love to be able to track the precise instant they read the line and then the instant they forget they have read it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/458 "2017-05-17T19:36:58Z")
Read what? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/459 "2017-05-17T19:40:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How does one article of impeachment disprove the presence of others against Johnson which did allege an illegal act? Bricker, you’re being uncharacteristically obtuse here. Muffin, I think what Bricker is saying is that the articles of impeachment may _include_ some non-criminal stuff, but unless it _also_ includes some actual charges of criminal activity, the impeachment will never get off the ground. Is that about it? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/460 "2017-05-17T19:42:53Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > … > > These issues should be dealt with through the impeachment process - investigation, debate and deliberation, and votes. > > If Trump is still President at the end of that process, and at that time the evidence of his lack of competence is piling up, _then_ it would be appropriate for Vice President Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment… So you are arguing that if we go through and entire impeachment process, but cannot garner the 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove Trump from office that _then_ is the time to try to invoke the 25th Amendment which requires 2/3 of the Senate (not to mention the House and half the Cabinet)? That makes no damn sense and seems like a way to piss off the public. Impeach or not. 25th Amendment or not. Democrats must not do anything so stupid that they might even possibly end up worse off for their protestations. Taking a second run at removal given the first has failed seems like one of the few ways the Democrats could really shoot themselves in the foot with this one ending up looking like sore losers. Play it right, should impeachment fail, and the Democrats stand to gain mightily. They can step forward and point at the Republicans who stopped the impeachment and argue broadly to sweep the whole damn lot of them out of office. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327.md?page=24)