This. ^^^
I doubt a vote would even come to the Senate around March 2028. We see how long it takes already. And currently, he actually could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and not be convicted. So why bother?
There’s 0 chance of removal baring the biggest midterm wideout in the history of the country. However, you impeach anyway to signal the seriousness of the moment. How can you sway public opinion if you don’t pursue the remedy that’s available? “If his conduct is so serious, why isn’t he being impeached?”
Or, you can take the Chuck Schumer tact and send strongly worded letters while waiting for net approval ratings to fall to some arbitrary threshold, ensuring that you accomplish nothing beyond getting a short window of attention in the news cycle followed by well-deserved mockery on the talk show circuit and maybe Jon Stewart doing an impression of you if you cut on a Friday.
Personally, I’ll all for impeaching presidents who break the law, ignore the Emoluments clause, use the office for personal enrichment, and incite insurrections because even if the Senate won’t vote to convict, you will at least get the names of people who won’t convict and remove him on record.
Stranger
Agreed — if the remedy is truly available.
If Democrats have the votes at some point, a congressional censure resolution may make sense. But do not hand a guilty man the vindictation of a senate acquittal.
Failing to impeach the most corrupt president in history has already watered the process down to being completely pointless. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it again.
I was just about to share this, thanks for saving me a gift link! 
After the last three attempts at impeachment (Clinton, Trump x 2) I came away thinking we’d have better luck at the ballot box. Impeachment takes too long and has backfired too many times to be an effective tactic.
Impeachment is very unlikely since the chances the Democrats take the House back is less likely daily. They are consumed with infighting and running out of money.
Sure, they could turn things around and get a House majority and 2/3s of the Senate and get a conviction. Anything is possible at this crazy point in our politics but I’m not holding my breath.
For clarity, which one? Impeach the president or water down the process?
Intensely galling, but with TACO/flip flopping 45/47 there’s always a chance that things might not get as bad. I’ve seen naff all evidence of that possibility with JD, though maybe the Pope is capable of jerking that bridle.
Keeping Trump occupied fighting impeachment is productive. And politically, it would help the Democrats begin to dig themselves out of the hole they’ve dug, letting them seem like passive doormats to both their own base and the Republicans. It would be an example of them actually standing up for something for once.
As for actually doing anything productive, as said that’s impossible so long as the Republicans control the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Presidency. Best they’ll be able to do is slow down - but not stop - the Republicans doing even more damage.
You might want to get yourselves a better mechanism than impeachment, which is a political process mascarading as a judicial one and which wouldn’t meet the ECHR test of a fair & impartial tribunal here.
We are even less likely to be able to do that than we are to be able to actually impeach Trump, I’m afraid.
House impeachment and Senate conviction don’t put a person in legal jeopardy. All that happens is a removal from office and a disqualification from holding an office in the future. I don’t think ECHR standards apply. In U.S. politics, despite some terminology in common, impeachment is not regarded as a judicial act.
Impeach, as many times as he’s earned it.
Yup. That would be monthly though. But we have to do what is right and let the pieces fall where they may. Getting him legally out of the White House is what’s right.
If Vance follows in his footsteps, impeach him too. They need to know that we mean business. Well, we need to show that we mean business. Right now the bad guys are just ignoring the good guys. That’s not how law and order should work.
The one thing we know he believes is that he’ll do or say anything that he thinks will advance his career. I know his handlers think they have him on a leash, but I’m disturbingly curious to find out what he’d do if he does end up as president, and finally has real power in his own right, that he doesn’t have to kiss someone else’s butt to keep.
It’s that, the 25th amendment, or civil war. Impeachment is by far the best mechanism of the available ones.
This is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Whether the act is political or judicial is irrelevant as far as the ECHR is concerned. If the act (or the legislation that enables it) affects the impeached person’s human rights in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, then the European Court of Human Rights has jurisdiction to hear it. An ECHR judgement has already obliged at least one EU member state to amend its constitutional provisions concerning impeachment, even though that state’s impeachment process (like the USA’s) was the responsibility of the legislature and not the judiciary.
It is absolutely relevant insofar as it provides a basis of comparison for how other Western countries treat impeachment and removal from office.
Don’t need any comparisons. Why would we need comparisons? We know what Trump is.
I don’t see how rights enter into a procedure for removing a politician from office. Nobody has a right to be the President.
Although it can be better sometimes to have a procedure for removing a politician that’s overtly political, without even the judicial window dressing. You impeach a politician because they’ve done something heinous. You recall them (or hold a vote of no confidence, or whatever) because you just don’t like their policies.