A video of his trial fell through a wormhole in the near future:
…against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, providing them aid and comfort.
With the consent of far too many Congresscritters he has turned traitors into national heroes.
Hanky-panky between consenting adults is an impeachable offense. Starting a war under false pretenses is not. Neither seems to be convictable though.
Yeah, that’s maybe the one thing he isn’t guilty of (yet).
I still think @iiandyiiii had the best answer… Violations of his oath of office. There are so many impeachable offenses that it’s kind of overwhelming, where do you start? I think you start there, then read out the laundry list.
The key thing is that this isn’t a court of law. It bears a resemblance to it; you have charges, a trial, and a verdict. In that sense, it seems very much like the criminal justice system. Except it isn’t a real court of law; the trial doesn’t happen until a simple majority vote in the House approves the charges, and then the Senate holds the trial, which concludes with another vote. So, the usual procedures and protections afforded to a person being prosecuted for a crime don’t apply. You don’t have a judge or jury, there is no appeal process, you don’t have full Fifth Amendment protection, so on and so forth. It’s a political process.
In theory, the House can charge Trump with “saying stupid things”, and if they vote to hold a trial, then Trump can be considered guilty of “saying stupid things” by the Senate, and be impeached and removed from office, and can no longer hold federal office. Now, the US Constitution says that the removal will be for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors”. It doesn’t specify what constitutes a “high crime or misdemeanor”, but the term Benjamin Franklin used was “rendered himself obnoxious”, which you can argue is what happens when you “say stupid things”.
But regardless, all of that language is really just a guide to the Senate to help them make their decision whether to convict or not. If the Senate decides that the charges are enough, then by law they are good enough. Again, it’s political. The Senate has to determine not only whether or not conviction is appropriate, but also needs to consider the consequences. If they convict based on spurious reasons, it puts their own careers in serious jeopardy during subsequent elections, but it also might start a dangerous precedent that could be abused in the future. That’s why they are careful to hold to a high standard; so high that they’ve never found a guilty verdict in 250 years, and have only had a few impeachment trials at all over that time period.
Richard Nixon was a case of copping a plea. He resigned because he would have been found guilty.
It’s gonnabe a looooonnnng trial (sadly, should be a slam dunk, over in an afternoon). And I hope Trump has to sit in the courtroom for the entire thing.
This is really important, because JD and all congress needs to be put on notice.
So his attempt to extort Ukraine and preventing them to have defensive weapons that congress approved against a country that is very hostile to us is trying to give a hostile country aid and comfort.
Treason.
Trump is trying to help a country hostil to us for a country that is friendly to us.
Exactly this. Trump swore an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” that meant nothing to him and that he’s violated in dozens of different ways due to deep-seated corruption in his entire evil regime. The bigger question is what could you not impeach him for? Almost everything he does is unprecedented, and mostly illegal.
Corruption. Lots of it. Selling pardons. Accepting bribes from foreign governments and officials in exchange for favors.
Flouting court orders. For instance, deporting people when courts have ordered him not to. Refusing to release funds when the courts have ordered him to.
Dismantling federal agencies that have been authorized and funded by Congress, without Congressional approval.
Stonewalling the release of the Epstein files, and heavily redacting the files he did release.
While we could never know for certain, all indications are that he would be found guilty, and that is why he resigned. So yes, even though Nixon wasn’t impeached, you are correct in that it was because he resigned before that could happen. He saw the writing on the wall and was convinced that it was better to get ahead of it and take action to avoid it.
Moderating:
Just a reminder, as I’ve been speaking with the OP, that this is about what Trump can and should be impeached for. Cracks about how he should be impeached for being stupid or just “evil” probably belong in the Pit. So specifics please (though Treason is both a crime and a description, so it’s fine), and let’s keep the comparisons to Nixon at a minimum, until such a time that we have any evidence that Trump is considering such a scenario.
Just a general note to the thread, so we are more clear going forward.
Russia is not, as legally defined, an “enemy” of the US, so no.
Violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Why do less or more squishy when you can go for something that the only excuse is, “Constitution? Pfff, that’s for pussies.”
Not to say that some people won’t support Trump against the US Constitution, but it’s not a great look.
How about… we don’t! Hear me out.
Dems take over House and Senate. An impeachment trial for ONE violation will last longer than when we vote for a new president. Even if impeached again, he’ll never get to a court afterwards. Dems will look like time wasters, only elected to get their revenge, lessening chances for a Dem president.
I say a House and Senate with Dem majority should go after Hegseth, Bondi, Noem, Miller, etc. Charge them criminally. Trump gets left with less idiots around him while he Ballroom Babbles the rest of his days in office.
To really get under his skin, while prosecuting his cohorts, freeze the funding for the White House renovations! Then he can say something tue for once: “The Democrats took away my ballroom!” 
He did that in 2016, when he colluded with Russia in what they themselves described as acts of war against the US. Does that still count?
Having the House and Senate doesn’t enable us to charge anyone criminally, and even if it did, Trump would just pardon them.
No, because it is only a matter of opinion – in this case, Russian opinion – that Russia is an enemy of the United States.
The most obvious way it could become factual is a U.S. declaration of war against Russia, agreed to by majority vote of both House and Senate. However, if we went to war against Russia without a declaration, and the President then made the required War Powers Act notification to Congress, that might count.
As to what we should impeach Trump for, it is up to the final few senators who get us to the needed 2/3. Today they think Trump is fine, so it would have to be something we haven’t seen yet.
If a nation considers themselves to be an enemy of the US, then they’re an enemy of the US.
Re last post, so in the hypothetical, the foreign nation declares war on the U.S., but Congress declines to take the bait and declare war in return? If that is it, criminal conviction for treason, on grounds of aiding and comforting enemies, would be unfair. Impeachment has a lower standard of proof, but I think there would be something more appropriate to charge the disloyal president with than treason.
After my last post, I wondered whether I had missed something else. You earlier wrote about:
" . . . what they themselves described as acts of war against the US."
This inspired me to write the following AI query:
“What Russian official(s), if any, said that their support of Donald Trump in 2016 was an act of war?”
I tried several AI’s chatboxes and they could not come up with names. Neither can I.
I don’t think there’s any statute of limitations, as such.
But for a more recent example: if there is strong documentation of Russian officials aiding Iran with targeting American military personnel and facilities, surely that evidence could be presented along with the evidence that Trump deliberately removed sanctions from Russia (which he did).
Also: it does seem as though Donald’s violations of the Emoluments Clause might be a possible angle. The violations are egregious and numerous—and more importantly, really cannot be spun as being Official Acts.