# 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:** 24
**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, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/461 "2017-05-17T19:47:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Not sure, but I think you have TWO threads now where this is happening - good for you! ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/462 "2017-05-17T19:49:12Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > 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? Hurrah! At least someone gets it! It is one thing for the majority party in the House to bring up Articles of Impeachment against a president of the opposing party, but it seems highly unlikely they would tank their own party member with anything less than at least one charge that would be comparable to a criminal act. Impeachment is, after all, a political process. Takes a lot to get elected members of Congress to turn against a member of their own party. ---
**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, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/463 "2017-05-17T20:20:20Z")
I’m starting to think that politically (not what’s best for the country, just from each party’s selfish perspective), that it’s the Republicans who would be better off impeaching ASAP, and the Democrats should wait for another year. If Trump were to be impeached tomorrow, they’d have a year and a half to try to restore a semblance of normalcy before the 2018 elections, and maybe they could keep the House. On the other hand, the longer the Trump shitshow drags on, the more it helps the Democrats in 2018. That’s IF he doesn’t get us into a nuclear war first. ---
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/464 "2017-05-17T20:25:45Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > 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? Yes, exactly. Praise the Lord. You’re right - I had the Daffy Duck “pronoun trouble” realization a little after the post you replied to. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/465 "2017-05-17T20:45:34Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I’m starting to think that politically (not what’s best for the country, just from each party’s selfish perspective), that it’s the Republicans who would be better off impeaching ASAP, and the Democrats should wait for another year. > > If Trump were to be impeached tomorrow, they’d have a year and a half to try to restore a semblance of normalcy before the 2018 elections, and maybe they could keep the House. > > On the other hand, the longer the Trump shitshow drags on, the more it helps the Democrats in 2018. > > That’s IF he doesn’t get us into a nuclear war first. Depends on how much the Democrats can force the impeachment process to stretch out. Similar to the Supreme Court appointment process, there’s no deadline for action built into the Constitution. Potentially, they could stretch out the investigation and proceeding for the next 18 months, so that it’s a constant, daily headache for the whole duration, then move to vote the day after the new House is seated. ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/466 "2017-05-17T21:15:25Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > 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. There are three ways you can legally remove a President from office. The first is via election and voting him out. On that one, people can remove a President from office on whatever grounds they like. The second is via impeachment. On that one, you have to show that the President committed a crime. The third is via the 25th Amendment. On that one, you have to show that the President is unable to carry out the duties of the office. Bricker or somebody else can straighten me out on this one if I’m wrong but I don’t think there’s a set standard of proof that’s needed for an impeachment. I believe you can impeach a President for a crime you couldn’t convict him of in a court of law. So clear and convincing maybe? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/467 "2017-05-17T21:15:59Z")
I am amazed at Pelosi’s [weird adherence to reality](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pelosi-pushes-back-on-impeachment-calls-without-facts-its-hearsay/article/2623179) in this. “In other words, again, if you are talking about impeachment, you are talking about what are the facts. Not that I don’t like him and I don’t like his hair and — what are the facts?” Pelosi said. “What are the facts that you would make a case on? What are the rules that he may have violated? If you don’t have that case, you are just participating in more hearsay.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/468 "2017-05-17T21:39:18Z")
Posturing, a political ploy. By these gestures, however empty, she presents herself as unbiased and skeptical, an advantageous position regardless of personal conviction. Also, she may be maneuvering to a larger end. I think the Dems have to be pondering the advantages of a long, drawn-out impeachment struggle. It offers oodles of political goodies. Keeps it in the news, limits the impact of “Look! Shiny squirrel!” distractions. Throws a monkey retch into The Agenda, as Congressgits nervously examine the calendar. What a loverly situation! Pubbies will put up defenses and slow-walk everything they can. Dems can protest such stalling, but accede to Pubbie demands in the interest of total transparency and fairness. When your political enemy is digging his own grave, buy him a spare shovel. Those things break, you know, what with that cheap Chinese steel! ---
**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, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/469 "2017-05-17T22:29:33Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Bricker or somebody else can straighten me out on this one if I’m wrong but I don’t think there’s a set standard of proof that’s needed for an impeachment. I believe you can impeach a President for a crime you couldn’t convict him of in a court of law. So clear and convincing maybe? Absolutely. And even the statement that a crime is needed is my observation about political reality, not a legal bar. There is no legal barrier to the House passing a single article of impeachment that says: “Resolved that Donald Trump is unprepared to competently execute the office of President and is hereby impeached.” That’s legal, and it triggers the need for the Senate to try the case. And if two-thirds of the Senators vote to convict, then Trump is removed from office. That’s all the legal standard requires. The Senate adopts its own burden of proof. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/470 "2017-05-17T22:59:07Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > . . . Potentially, they could stretch out the investigation and proceeding for the next 18 months, so that it’s a constant, daily headache for the whole duration . . . Grin! Like Clinton and her email server! (I’d prefer to think our side is better than that…) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/471 "2017-05-18T00:24:44Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > No. Reread what Richard Parker wrote. Yes. The original poster said nothing about reasonable inferences. He said, in effect, that his position was too difficult to prove and therefore it was up to **Bricker** to disprove it. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/472 "2017-05-18T01:20:44Z")
No, he didn’t… He put forward evidence (sketchy and anecdotal, if you wish, but evidence.) He admitted that the evidence did not suffice to prove his point, but it was sufficient to justify it. Then he invited disproof. But he didn’t base his claim on the lack of someone else’s disproof. He based it on what he had actually seen. ---
**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 18, 2017, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/473 "2017-05-18T12:43:50Z")
It will be interesting to see, if scandals continue to dog Trump and articles like [this one](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/17/mike-pence-president-trump-238525) keep getting published, would Trump turn on Pence? > [@](#): > > The scandals clouding Trump’s presidency — including, most recently, his firing of FBI Director James Comey, his alleged leak of classified information to Russian officials, and reports that he urged Comey to drop an investigation into a top aide — have raised once more the possibility that Trump could be pushed aside and replaced by Vice President Mike Pence. > > “If what the [New York Times] reported is true, Pence is probably rehearsing,” one House Republican who asked not to be named quipped Wednesday. “It’s just like Nixon. From the standpoint that it’s never the underlying issue, it is always the cover-up.” > > The still far-fetched proposition of removing Trump from office has increasing appeal to Republicans who are growing weary of defending Trump and are alarmed by his conduct in office. But such whispers are cringe-worthy for Pence and his aides, who have made an art of not upstaging the mercurial president. Pence’s press secretary declined to comment for this article. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/474 "2017-05-18T13:56:58Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > It will be interesting to see, if scandals continue to dog Trump and articles like [this one](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/17/mike-pence-president-trump-238525) keep getting published, would Trump turn on Pence? Who’s to say he already isn’t? In fact, I suspect he’s already screamed at Pence and called him names already, on more than one occasion. But that’s about all he can do. Pence is the Vice President, stuck in that office whether he or Trump likes it or not. He doesn’t really do anything independent of Trump and he cannot be fired or removed except by impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/475 "2017-05-18T14:23:09Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > No, he didn’t… He put forward evidence (sketchy and anecdotal, if you wish, but evidence.) He admitted that the evidence did not suffice to prove his point, but it was sufficient to justify it. > > Then he invited disproof. But he didn’t base his claim on the lack of someone else’s disproof. He based it on what he had actually seen. Here’s what he said: > [@](#): > > I can’t cite something that wasn’t investigated or made public. How would I go to look at all the countries trump banned and find out whoever got killed because they had to get away. It would good if nobody died but the fact people’s lifes were put into jeapordy. Unless you can disprove my claim then despite what you say I stand by the fact people died because of his idiotic decisions. What is the evidence you see there? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/476 "2017-05-18T14:28:42Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > 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. No, right now the 25th Amendment business is being pushed by _conservatives_. And it would have to be initiated by Pence and half of Trump’s cabinet anyway. If conservatives are sincere about this, that’s their ballgame, but they should have to wait their turn because right now the players on the field are the ones investigating Trump Administration and Trump campaign wrongdoing. If conservatives want to piss off the public after a failed impeachment attempt, that’s their choice. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/477 "2017-05-18T14:46:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What is the evidence you see there? You’ve literally omitted all the portions of that post containing the evidence. ---
**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 18, 2017, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/478 "2017-05-18T14:52:15Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Who’s to say he already isn’t? In fact, I suspect he’s already screamed at Pence and called him names already, on more than one occasion. But that’s about all he can do. Pence is the Vice President, stuck in that office whether he or Trump likes it or not. He doesn’t really do anything independent of Trump and he cannot be fired or removed except by impeachment. He hasn’t taken aim at him publicly. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/479 "2017-05-18T15:04:23Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You’ve literally omitted all the portions of that post containing the evidence. He quoted the entire post. If you’re talking about the earlier one, there was no evidence (that anyone died). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/480 "2017-05-18T15:15:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > He quoted the entire post. If you’re talking about the earlier one, there was no evidence (that anyone died). For what possible reason would you consider the posts separately? The earlier post detailed his reasons for thinking that people stuck in those countries may be harmed. You’re free to disagree with the inferences being drawn. But it just isn’t a logical fallacy. Since this is a stupid little rabbit hole, I’ll leave it here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327.md?page=25)