# Impeach Trump. Now.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327
**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:** 7
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/121 "2017-02-21T06:08:16Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> You do realize that doesn’t have to be oral sex, right?
>
> Trump’s administration defied court stays of the travel ban.
> Trump actively solicited a delegation from Kuwait to stay at Trump’s hotel.
>
> None of this is even in dispute.
>
> Add to this that Trump’s claim of handing off his business to his sons is non-credible and would be insufficient if true.
>
> We’re way past what Clinton was impeached for.
>
> Now, if Trump’s administration continues to block visas from Iraq, then at some point we can argue he has reneged on promises made to foreign DoD contractors.
> DHS is now revoking global entry for Muslim American citizens, which may be religious harassment.
>
> We’re past “policy.” Some of these are high crimes. Some are misdemeanors.
If I asked you for sections of US code for each of these alleged crimes, could you provide them?
---
### Author:  [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/122 "2017-02-21T06:30:49Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> If I asked you for sections of US code for each of these alleged crimes, could you provide them?
If you weren’t aware, “high crimes and misdemeanors” doesn’t necessarily have to translate to any violation of criminal codes.
Gross impropriety or incompetence could be gounds for a successful impeachment without having violated any criminal laws.
> [@http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html](#):
>
> Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/123 "2017-02-21T06:39:23Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#):
>
> If you weren’t aware, “high crimes and misdemeanors” doesn’t necessarily have to translate to any violation of criminal codes.
>
> Gross impropriety or incompetence could be gounds for a successful impeachment without having violated any criminal laws.
If “high crimes and misdemeanors” is just a term of art for 'anything Congress disapproves of sufficiently to impeach someone over", what’s the point of distinguishing between the two like this:
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> Some of these are high crimes. Some are misdemeanors.
---
### Author:  [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/124 "2017-02-21T07:03:12Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> If “high crimes and misdemeanors” is just a term of art for 'anything Congress disapproves of sufficiently to impeach someone over", what’s the point of distinguishing between the two like this:
From the wiki:
> [@](#):
>
> “High” in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of “high crimes” signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.
---
### Author:  [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/125 "2017-02-21T07:10:16Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> If “high crimes and misdemeanors” is just a term of art for 'anything Congress disapproves of sufficiently to impeach someone over", what’s the point of distinguishing between the two like this:
I wouldn’t distinguish between them that way based on what I just cited, but I can’t speak for foolsguinea.
It isn’t just a term for ‘anything congress disapproves of sufficiently to impeach someone over’ though. The framers definitely didn’t want that. The choice of words was deliberate and it was subject to numerous revisions until they got what they wound up with.
The section in my cite immediately before the quote I provided answers that. Before choosing “high crimes and misdemeanors” they had originally used “maladministration” but that wording, some feared, indeed could mean whatever congress disapproves of. So they changed it to high crimes and misdemeanors with the common meaning that phrase had at the time which included both criminal acts and non-criminal acts, but always acts that were grossly unfitting to the office whether based on incompetence, impropriety, corruption, etc. without any need for them to violate actual criminal codes.
> [@](#):
>
> With the convention agreed on the necessity of impeachment, it next had to agree on the grounds. One committee proposed the grounds be “treason, bribery, and corruption.” Another committee was selected to deal with matters not yet decided. This committee deleted corruption and left “treason or bribery” as the grounds.
>
> But the committee’s recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding “maladministration.” He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the Indian people brutally.
>
> Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.
>
> Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “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.”
>
> The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/126 "2017-02-21T17:01:49Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> Yes, I know: it’s a political impossibility. But dammit, that’s what Dems should demand of the GOP: put country and our alliances ahead of party, and impeach and remove Trump before he gives away a good chunk of Ukraine, or sends the EU on the road to breakup, or lets Putin grab a Baltic or three.
>
> Because by the time he actually does any of this, it’ll be too late to stop him.
>
> The latest news coming out that [solidly connects his development deals with his Russian ties](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-big-shoe-just-dropped), combined with [Trump’s attempts to destabilize the EU](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-american-experiment-in-exile), represent risks that are too great to even leave the door open to.
>
> It’s the old likelihood\*consequences formula: even if the chance that Trump will do these things is small, it’s real, and the consequences would be devastating.
>
> That’s why he needs to go. Whatever Pence’s many shortcomings may be, he is a friend and supporter of our European allies, and can be trusted to put their interests ahead of Russia’s.
>
> So even though Trump has been in office a shade less than a month as I write this, it’s not too soon to not just talk about, but demand, impeachment and removal from office. At the Republicans’ earliest convenience.
So not impeaching a guy from your own party that hasn’t really done anything that demands impeachment is putting party before country? I don’t dispute that Republicans have (and will) put party before country but I don’t think patriotism requires impeaching Trump… yet.
---
### Author:  [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/127 "2017-02-21T17:43:41Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> No, you did say that. You just weren’t aware you were saying it.
Hahahaha. You’re a hoot. Some Hillary supporters want to impeach a President without hard evidence of an impeachable offense. If they/you wish to accomplish that, they/you will need a majority of elected U.S. Congressmen. Something that the voters did not want the Democrats to have.
If you wish for the elected Republicans to commence impeachment proceedings, you’re going to have to produce hard evidence of an impeachable offense. Something you do not currently have.
FYI - Hurt feelings and I-don’t-like-this-guy are not impeachable offenses.
---
### Author:  [@mplo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mplo)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/128 "2017-02-21T17:46:24Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> Yes, I know: it’s a political impossibility. But dammit, that’s what Dems should demand of the GOP: put country and our alliances ahead of party, and impeach and remove Trump before he gives away a good chunk of Ukraine, or sends the EU on the road to breakup, or lets Putin grab a Baltic or three.
>
> Because by the time he actually does any of this, it’ll be too late to stop him.
>
> The latest news coming out that [solidly connects his development deals with his Russian ties](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-big-shoe-just-dropped), combined with [Trump’s attempts to destabilize the EU](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-american-experiment-in-exile), represent risks that are too great to even leave the door open to.
>
> It’s the old likelihood\*consequences formula: even if the chance that Trump will do these things is small, it’s real, and the consequences would be devastating.
>
> That’s why he needs to go. Whatever Pence’s many shortcomings may be, he is a friend and supporter of our European allies, and can be trusted to put their interests ahead of Russia’s.
>
> So even though Trump has been in office a shade less than a month as I write this, it’s not too soon to not just talk about, but demand, impeachment and removal from office. At the Republicans’ earliest convenience.
Unfortunately, that’s wishful thinking, since no Republicans support the idea of impeaching President Donald Trump.
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/129 "2017-02-21T18:02:37Z")
> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> …Some Hillary supporters want to impeach a President without hard evidence of an impeachable offense. …
> FYI - Hurt feelings and I-don’t-like-this-guy are not impeachable offenses.
I agree with you in that, to date, there is no known evidence that would justify impeachment procedures against Trump.
As an aside, you have to stop invoking Hillary’s name in every other post. You’re more obsessed with her than actual Hillary supporters. Keep in mind, not everyone opposed to Trump is/was a Hillary supporter, or a Democrat, for that matter.
---
### Author:  [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/130 "2017-02-21T18:04:59Z")
Roughly 40% or more of eligible American voters don’t vote in federal elections, and of those who do, many of them vote for whomever shouts the loudest outrage. The Dems lost the recent federal election because not enough Democratic leaning eligible voters got off their asses and voted, and because the Republicans out-shouted the Democrats.
By shouting outrage against Trump and the Republicans as loud and as hard as they can, including demands for impeachment, and by backing the reasons for their vociferous outrage on actual facts rather than alternate facts, the Dems will increase anti-Trump voter turnout at the mid-terms and at the next presidential election.
Moving the Stupid Republican Idea of the Day from News of the Weird to the front page, and incessantly hammering home the harmful insanity of it, will go a long way toward motivating center and left-of-center voters to get out and vote against Trump and the Republicans.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/131 "2017-02-21T18:06:28Z")
> [@mplo](#):
>
> Unfortunately, that’s wishful thinking, since no Republicans support the idea of impeaching President Donald Trump.
It may not be wishful thinking that the Dems demand that the GOP impeach Trump. In fact, I think that step of the process is a real possibility (getting Dems to demand it). I’d encourage all of you to write, call, visit your Democratic representatives and demand this of them. Go to their town halls and shout at them and boo them if they refuse. I’m sure if you work hard enough, you can get them to do this for you.
I’d do it here in Utah, but we seem to be fresh out of Dem congresscritters, so you’ll have to do it in your states.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/132 "2017-02-21T18:08:35Z")
> [@mplo](#):
>
> Unfortunately, that’s wishful thinking, since no Republicans support the idea of impeaching President Donald Trump.
Neither do Congressional Democrats. Probably because they are the ones who will have to draft the bill of impeachment, and when they are filling out the forms and get to the box saying “Reason why you want to impeach the President” there is nowhere to check that says “because he suxx and he is gonna hand over the Baltics to Putin”.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/133 "2017-02-21T18:12:20Z")
> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> Hahahaha. You’re a hoot. Some Hillary supporters want to impeach a President without hard evidence of an impeachable offense. If they/you wish to accomplish that, they/you will need a majority of elected U.S. Congressmen. Something that the voters did not want the Democrats to have.
>
> If you wish for the elected Republicans to commence impeachment proceedings, you’re going to have to produce hard evidence of an impeachable offense. Something you do not currently have.
>
> FYI - Hurt feelings and I-don’t-like-this-guy are not impeachable offenses.
But none of that is what you said. You said this:
> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> Hahahaha. A leading historian who doesn’t seem to understand how the process actually works. The dwindling number of elected Democrats in the U.S. Congress still need more seats/votes in Congress in order to proceed with an impeachment. Especially when they have no actual evidence.
Nothing in there about there not being evidence to support impeachment. You said the reason an impeachment wouldn’t occur is because the Democrats don’t control Congress. Which is the same as saying an impeachment won’t occur as long as the Republicans control Congress. And saying Trump won’t be impeached as long as the Republicans control Congress is the same as this:
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> you’re arguing that the Republicans will ignore any crime committed by one of their own.
To quote myself one more time:
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> You’re embarrassing yourself.
---
### Author:  [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/134 "2017-02-21T18:22:58Z")
In the wishful thinking department we’re still waiting for SCOTUS to decide if they will hear oral arguments to nullify the election with a writ of mandamus.
The argument is that since the Russian government interfered with the election there should be a do over. Both Austria and Ukraine have held revotes in major elections due to Russian interference so it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
The odds are slim that SCOTUS will hear the case but it is actually [on the docket](https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-907.htm) , and the word is that they should give an answer today (Feb. 21)
When that shred of hope has been exhausted, then more serious talk about impeachment will follow. But as already noted and supported by common sense, the partisan congress is not going to impeach Trump. Not now, anyway.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/135 "2017-02-21T18:24:29Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#):
>
> In the wishful thinking department we’re still waiting for SCOTUS to decide if they will hear oral arguments to nullify the election with a writ of mandamus.
>
> The argument is that since the Russian government interfered with the election there should be a do over. Both Austria and Ukraine have held revotes in major elections due to Russian interference so it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
>
> The odds are slim that SCOTUS will hear the case but it is actually [on the docket](https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-907.htm) , and the word is that they should give an answer today (Feb. 21)
>
> When that shred of hope has been exhausted, then more serious talk about impeachment will follow. But as already noted and supported by common sense, the partisan congress is not going to impeach Trump. Not now, anyway.
I was totally unaware that someone had actually brought a suit on this. Thanks for sharing.
---
### Author:  [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/136 "2017-02-21T18:53:41Z")
Impeachment? OK. I would prefer he got taken out of the White House with a big butterfly net. Straight jacket would be ok too.
A long drawn out impeachment would only anger his supporters.
Seriously, I would prefer that Trump completely loses it. It may make some of his supporters realize what a poor choice they made.
---
### Author:  [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/137 "2017-02-21T19:14:27Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Nothing in there about there not being evidence to support impeachment. You said the reason an impeachment wouldn’t occur is because the Democrats don’t control Congress. Which is the same as saying an impeachment won’t occur as long as the Republicans control Congress. And saying Trump won’t be impeached as long as the Republicans control Congress is the same as this:
(post shortened)
How do you proceed with an impeachment without hard evidence of an impeachable offense?
The OP wants to impeach Trump with no evidence of an impeachable offense. If the Democrat collective, or the elected Democrats in Congress, wish to impeach anyone without evidence, they will need a lot more seats/votes than they have now.
If you want the Republicans to impeach someone for you, you’ll have to provide actual evidence of an impeachable offense. The “Because-He-Hurt-My-Feelings” gambit isn’t evidence. Neither is kicking Hillary’s ass in a general election.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/138 "2017-02-21T19:20:25Z")
> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> Neither is kicking Hillary’s ass in a general election.
You’ve got a phone call from Hillary…_and I think it’s coming from inside the house!!_ I suggest you stay away from the closets, and don’t look under the bed.
---
### Author:  [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/139 "2017-02-21T19:43:58Z")
> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> Neither is kicking Hillary’s ass in a general election.
Well, first of all…Reagan kicked Mondale’s ass (59% of the popular vote, 525 EVs). Nixon kicked McGovern’s ass (61% of the popular vote, 520 EVs). I wouldn’t agree that 46% of the popular vote and 302 EVs counts as an ass-kicking, but a win’s a win.
Regardless: no one else in this thread, other than you, is putting forth “Trump beat Hillary” as cause for impeachment. “Crazy, erratic, corrupt, and possibly compromised by Russia” are the recurring themes. But, FWIW, while I really can’t stand Trump, and would love to see him gone, I don’t think that the evidence is on the table today to warrant impeachment.
---
### Author:  [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327/140 "2017-02-21T20:15:47Z")
> [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](#):
>
> Angry talk will scare away middle of the road people. So keep talking. Trump and his supporters will keep grinning and…winning.
What exactly do you think Trump supporters have won?
Lower taxes for the very wealthy?
Lack of health care?
A dirtier environment?
Less oversight of education?
No freedom of religion?
Fewer rights for minorities?
Fewer rights for women?
A religious government?
No freedom of speech?
What do Trump supporters think they have won, or is it all of the above? Or you _Pearl Clutching Provocateur_, I’m curious, what do you think is in it for you?
Trump doesn’t care about any of the above except the first item in my list.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327.md?page=6)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeach-trump-now/780327.md?page=8)