# Impeachment? Then, what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 7, 2019, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331 "2019-01-07T05:22:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2019, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/61 "2019-01-07T23:41:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s the point I was making by putting Clinton and Johnson on one side and Trump and Nixon on the other. The public is able to tell the difference between a politically motivated impeachment and a justified impeachment. I hope you’re right. But Nixon was not the object of passionate worship by a segment of the voting public. I remember. I was an adult at the time of Watergate. He didn’t have a fan base. Without social media, there wasn’t that illusory sense of a personal relationship with a celebrity. I doubt if anyone would have wanted a personal relationship with Nixon. > [@cmkeller](#): > > … > > You may not be aware of this, but when he was governor of Indiana, he had a female lieutenant governor, which is the state-office equivalent of VP. Doesn’t seem to have been a major problem. > > Really, I get that people have concerns that Pence’s personal rules might put female employees or subordinates at some sort of workplace disadvantage, but there’s no reason to talk like he’s incapable of working with the opposite sex. No, I didn’t know that. Interesting. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/62 "2019-01-08T00:40:08Z")
> [@Dr.Conrad\_Shadowdale](#): > > It is perfectly clear that many of the Democrats in the House of Representatives — especially younger or more progressives members consider “impeachment of the President” a fairly high priority. > > However, the odds of actually removing President Trump don’t seem great in the Senate. > Even if the President’s action approach the “high crimes/misdemeanors” threshold, the Republicans are unlikely to vote for removal from office. > > Right? > > So, what is the Democratic/Progressive end-game? Is this all about 2020? The end game SHOULD BE to prevent moronic con men and crooks to take the reins of power. That’s the end game. You have to start somewhere. If your house is burning down, you do your best to save it, and then you leave. We should not care about political affiliation here. Crooks must be removed with great expediency. It must be shown that this shit will just not be tolerated. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/63 "2019-01-08T01:34:02Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > If the House of Representatives is not going to impeach Trump, then under what circumstances would it impeach _anyone??_ > [@DrDeth](#): > > Wait for Mueller to finish his investigation. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/64 "2019-01-08T01:47:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Donald Trump is not Bill Clinton or Andrew Johnson. Donald Trump is Richard Nixon. We impeached\* the Cox sacker\*\* because his minions cheated on his behalf to nail down the win of an election he’d have almost surely won easily without cheating, and he covered it up. That’s small potatoes compared to the crimes that any fool can see Trump has almost surely committed. - OK, we didn’t actually impeach him. But Nixon resigned in the face of imminent impeachment and almost certain conviction and removal by the Senate. Close enough. \*\* Motherfucker, Cox sacker, whatever. But too bad Rashida Tlaib didn’t have that finesse available to her. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/65 "2019-01-08T02:22:04Z")
**RTFirefly** , there is no significant evidence that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as President. There is minimal evidence at best the the President committed any such act during his campaign. Any illusions to the contrary are simply the delusions of those who are overly hopeful. As someone who is in the middle between the warring parties, I sometimes can’t help but roll my eyes at how fervently people on both sides feel about these things. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/66 "2019-01-08T02:24:01Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > Pence could never serve with a female VP. They could never be alone in a room together, for one thing. Mrs. Pence would have to have a desk next to Mike’s in the Oval Office so she could chaperone all meetings with women staffers. “Mother” would be his designate for VP!!! Oh Jeebus!! ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/67 "2019-01-08T03:38:07Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > …about a blowjob. You can try to sidestep that point as much as you like. It’s still the center of the issue. :dubious: Blowjob Bill had the option of coming clean (hehehe), and admitting to all he had done. Billy chose to lie under oath, and tamper with a witness, instead. Billy could have stopped the impeachment before there were grounds for an impeachment. Sux to be Bill. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Conrad\_Shadowdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ea924/32.png) [@Dr.Conrad\_Shadowdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Conrad_Shadowdale)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/68 "2019-01-08T03:52:33Z")
So, what if the Speaker reads the Mueller reports and the briefings from the various committees, does the math and decides that the is no chance of removing the President. Do her more assertive and progressive colleagues, having vowed to “impeach the motherfucker”, simply accept defeat? Or, do they turn on House Democratic Leadership — ala the Freedom Causus and Speaker Boehner? ---
**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:** [January 8, 2019, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/69 "2019-01-08T03:53:27Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > We impeached\* the Cox sacker\*\* because his minions cheated on his behalf to nail down the win of an election he’d have almost surely won easily without cheating, and he covered it up. That’s small potatoes compared to the crimes that any fool can see Trump has almost surely committed. Personally, I’d say using the power of a government office (especially the Presidency) to alter the outcome of an election is one of the most serious crimes possible in a democracy. Anyone can take bribes. As for Nixon having the 1972 election in the bag, how do we know what that election might have been like in other circumstances? It may be true that Nixon had an easy win in the election because he cheated. Nixon won because George McGovern ended up running against him. Muskie was considered the early front-runner; but the Nixon campaign knocked him out. I won’t say Nixon rigged Kennedy’s car but did he push the Chappaquiddick issue three years later? And after McGovern got the nomination, who was pushing the Eagleton story behind the scenes? We know that Nixon used “dirty tricks” to manipulate elections because he sometimes got caught. But we have to assume he didn’t always get caught. His people undoubtedly got away undetected with some of their dirty tricks. And those dirty tricks probably did effect the election. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2019, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/70 "2019-01-08T04:03:30Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > **RTFirefly** , there is no significant evidence that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as President. There is minimal evidence at best the the President committed any such act during his campaign. People who work for Trump are going to prison. That doesn’t happen when there’s no significant evidence or minimal evidence. Are you arguing that Trump was unaware of what was going on in his campaign and administration? That Trump’s a law abiding man who just happened to hire a bunch of people who were willing to break laws on their own initiative in ways that benefited Trump? ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/71 "2019-01-08T13:08:47Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > … > Are you arguing that Trump was unaware of what was going on in his campaign and administration? That Trump’s a law abiding man who just happened to hire a bunch of people who were willing to break laws on their own initiative in ways that benefited Trump? Nixon tried that gambit. Didn’t work out so well. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2019, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/72 "2019-01-08T14:01:28Z")
> [@Dr.Conrad\_Shadowdale](#): > > So, what if the Speaker reads the Mueller reports and the briefings from the various committees, does the math and decides that the is no chance of removing the President. > > Do her more assertive and progressive colleagues, having vowed to “impeach the motherfucker”, simply accept defeat? Or, do they turn on House Democratic Leadership — ala the Freedom Causus and Speaker Boehner? What if the LA prosecutors found OJ Simpson’s blood at the crime scene, the victims’ blood in his car, and the bloody footprints in the sidewalk coming from an expensive shoe that he was seen on television wearing? Suppose prosecutors saw all that and said, “Well, the jury would never convict. Let’s not press charges”. That would be dereliction of duty. If the Mueller report shows clear evidence of criminal activity, then the House has a duty to impeach. Simple as that. If the Republican Senate wants to go on record as not caring about high crimes and misdemeanors (if not felonies), then let them go on record as condoning criminals. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/73 "2019-01-08T14:15:14Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > FWIW, it takes a majority vote of **both** houses of Congress to confirm a VP nominee under the 25th Amendment, per Section 2 of that amendment. So the Dems would have a say in who the new Veep is, if Pence became President due to Trump not finishing his term for whatever reason. The Democrats would be hoist on their own petards if they didn’t support a non-white non-male for VP without an exceptionally good reason. You can just see the meme in 2020: “The Democrats preach equality but when push came to shove, they voted against a coloured woman.” ---
**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:** [January 8, 2019, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/74 "2019-01-08T14:38:08Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > The Democrats would be hoist on their own petards if they didn’t support a non-white non-male for VP without an exceptionally good reason. You can just see the meme in 2020: “The Democrats preach equality but when push came to shove, they voted against a coloured woman.” As if the Republicans would nominate a black woman. Hardy-fucking-har-har. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/75 "2019-01-08T15:01:24Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > **RTFirefly** , there is no significant evidence that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as President. There is minimal evidence at best the the President committed any such act during his campaign. Any illusions to the contrary are simply the delusions of those who are overly hopeful. As someone who is in the middle between the warring parties, I sometimes can’t help but roll my eyes at how fervently people on both sides feel about these things. You may want to read up on high crimes and misdemeanors. [Wiki High Crimes and Misdemeanors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors) > [@](#): > > The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, _on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office_. The above is underlined by me for the things we are pretty sure of. The last highlight is also italicized, and is important. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is both - where are the facts, and also open to interpretation. That’s deliberate. This is why Trumps attorneys do not what him questioned under oath. The man lies constantly. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/76 "2019-01-08T15:06:08Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > What if the LA prosecutors found OJ Simpson’s blood at the crime scene, the victims’ blood in his car, and the bloody footprints in the sidewalk coming from an expensive shoe that he was seen on television wearing? Suppose prosecutors saw all that and said, “Well, the jury would never convict. Let’s not press charges”. That would be dereliction of duty. > > If the Mueller report shows clear evidence of criminal activity, then the House has a duty to impeach. Simple as that. If the Republican Senate wants to go on record as not caring about high crimes and misdemeanors (if not felonies), then let them go on record as condoning criminals. I think the more interesting question is, what if the ultimate revelations of the Mueller investigation are embarrassing, but don’t truly add up to impeachable offenses? (Double caveat – 1, I suspect they will. 2, Republicans lowered the bar for impeachable offenses when they impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob. But still …) How does Pelosi quell the “impeach the motherfucker” caucus and keep the Dems focused on fighting Trump on policy? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/77 "2019-01-08T15:12:23Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > As if the Republicans would nominate a black woman. Hardy-fucking-har-har. I think he’s talking about Nikki Haley (who is Indian-American). ---
**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:** [January 8, 2019, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/78 "2019-01-08T15:12:39Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > I think the more interesting question is, what if the ultimate revelations of the Mueller investigation are embarrassing, but don’t truly add up to impeachable offenses? > > (Double caveat – 1, I suspect they will. 2, Republicans lowered the bar for impeachable offenses when they impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob. But still …) > > How does Pelosi quell the “impeach the motherfucker” caucus and keep the Dems focused on fighting Trump on policy? I have faith in Pelosi to run her caucus. Unlike Ryan and Boehner, she doesn’t have truly batshit people running rampant. The ITMs (Impeach The Motherfucker) will listen to reason. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/79 "2019-01-08T15:13:48Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > … the “impeach the motherfucker” caucus … That’s a great name for a caucus, and I hope it sticks. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2019, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331/80 "2019-01-08T15:22:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I have no doubts that the Democrats in the House of Representatives will be able to demonstrate that Trump has committed some serious crimes that justify removing him from office. But did he commit those crimes while President? That may be an important distinction for the Senate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impeachment-then-what/827331.md?page=5)