# The Trump Presidency HAS to end with Impeachment... right? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 11, 2017, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406 "2017-05-11T23:48:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**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, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/301 "2017-05-17T14:08:39Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > [Impeachment of Andrew Johnson - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson) > > #NeverForget > #Uh,WeDidForget > > Impeached for breaking a law designed to keep one guy in office, a law that came into effect just a year prior. Again, impeachment doesn’t need a serious crime, and I don’t think it needs a crime at all, just the political will. Yes. Impeached for breaking a law. You can’t point to an impeachment that doesn’t allege the breaking of a law. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/302 "2017-05-17T14:12:12Z")
Point being, there’s no “level of criminality” which the President has to attain before being impeached. You can be impeached for breaking bullshit laws or severe laws. It doesn’t matter the severity, the only matter is the political will. Once that will is achieved, they will select which law on which to impeach, and the Constitution gives them the ability to impeach on jaywalking, if they so desire. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/303 "2017-05-17T14:13:34Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > This just in : Congressman Al Green (D-Texas) has vowed to call for impeachement on the floor today. Love and Happiness, indeed! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/304 "2017-05-17T14:28:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You can’t point to an impeachment that doesn’t allege the breaking of a law. Out of a sample size of…? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/305 "2017-05-17T14:31:30Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 3- The Donald didn’t want to win and he neither wants nor likes the job. He absolutely did want to win. Yu’re talking nonsense. The idea that Donald Trump wanted to be beaten by a woman in the most famous popularity contest in the world is absolutely, flatly crazy; it is about as true as saying that two plus two is seventeen. He also likes _being_ President. I agree he doesn’t like the job, which is why, of course, he spends so much time not doing it, thereby keeping himself happy. Again, if you are sure he’ll resign before July 1, let’s make a bet. What odds would you like? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/306 "2017-05-17T14:33:48Z")
Me: “What specifically would Trump have to do for you to get on board with impeaching him?” You: “I’d need evidence rising to the level of probable cause that Trump had violated the criminal law of the United States.” I did say “specifically” for a reason, so… 1. _Any_ criminal law of the U.S.? 2. Can you think of a situation where Trump is doing enough harm to this country, but not breaking any specific federal laws, where you might support his impeachment? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/307 "2017-05-17T14:48:54Z")
[Interesting Wiki on the history and definition of “High crimes and misdemeanors”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors#United_States) as it pertains to the President of the United States. > [@](#): > > 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. > The Judiciary Committee’s 1974 report “The Historical Origins of Impeachment” stated: "‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ has traditionally been considered a ‘term of art’, like such other constitutional phrases as ‘levying war’ and ‘due process.’ The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice [John] Marshall wrote of another such phrase: > > “It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.” Anything wrong with this article? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/308 "2017-05-17T14:55:21Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Love and Happiness, indeed! I dunno. I feel like this is shootin’ the wad a little bit early, excuse the phrase. I’d let Trump just keep diggin’, since he seems to be so good at it. Nothing is going to happen at this point in time. ---
**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, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/309 "2017-05-17T15:02:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > [Interesting Wiki on the history and definition of “High crimes and misdemeanors”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors#United_States) as it pertains to the President of the United States. > > Anything wrong with this article? It’s legally on the money. Precisely accurate. (As an aside, I find it fascinating that your reverence for what dead white men thought is more fleeting than the most capricious zephyr.) I argue that as a matter of political reality, no impeachment will happen without a grounding of violation of the criminal law. This article states that the legal meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not coterminous with “criminal,” and I absolutely agree. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/310 "2017-05-17T15:05:37Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I dunno. I feel like this is shootin’ the wad a little bit early, excuse the phrase. I’d let Trump just keep diggin’, since he seems to be so good at it. Nothing is going to happen at this point in time. People have been saying this since he first began campaigning for President. Waiting for the right moment and/or waiting for Trump to implode and self-destruct has gotten us where we are today. ---
**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, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/311 "2017-05-17T15:08:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Me: “What specifically would Trump have to do for you to get on board with impeaching him?” > You: “I’d need evidence rising to the level of probable cause that Trump had violated the criminal law of the United States.” > > I did say “specifically” for a reason, so… > > 1. _Any_ criminal law of the U.S.? You did say specifically. So to be even more specific, I’d say that I’m picturing felonies and serious misdemeanors, misdemeanors in which there is a specific scienter element as opposed to strict liability misdemeanors. > [@](#): > > 1. Can you think of a situation where Trump is doing enough harm to this country, but not breaking any specific federal laws, where you might support his impeachment? A realistic one? No. Any situation at all? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/312 "2017-05-17T15:13:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > People have been saying this since he first began campaigning for President. Waiting for the right moment and/or waiting for Trump to implode and self-destruct has gotten us where we are today. I just don’t think it’s going to get anywhere right now–that’s the political reality. It’d just be a symbolic gesture. You really think anything would happen with impeachment proceedings at this moment? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/313 "2017-05-17T15:26:58Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I just don’t think it’s going to get anywhere right now–that’s the political reality. It’d just be a symbolic gesture. You really think anything would happen with impeachment proceedings at this moment? I don’t know, honestly. It would depend on whether the Senate sees each new problem he poses as something to add to a pile that has become too damn big to ignore, or as something to take the public’s mind off the previous problem. It would also depend on whether Republicans are willing to take a chance that they may not have amount of power they now enjoy if Trump is impeached. If not, then you will be waiting for the “right” amount of evidence until our sun turns red-the longer you wait, the more time you give Trump and the Republicans to dig in their heals until, eventually, the response you get will be “We _could_ go this route, but by the time we get done it’ll be time to prepare for the next election, so why bother.” ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/314 "2017-05-17T15:33:46Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I just don’t think it’s going to get anywhere right now–that’s the political reality. It’d just be a symbolic gesture. You really think anything would happen with impeachment proceedings at this moment? The practical side of it is to get as congressmen as possible on record. The purple district folks would be taking a huge chance saying they are with him now. And even the red district ones who commit to a side will likely face a primary challenge from someone on the other. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/315 "2017-05-17T16:28:17Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Is there anything on the annulments side that would make you think that ti’s impeachable? If Vlad personally gives trump a check for millions of dollars, with the memo line filled out “For letting me invade ukraine”. **Bricker** won’t answer your question or explain how the Emoluments Clause doesn’t apply. He either ignores or pooh-poohs and hand-waves away references to it, as if that is somehow invalidating. It isn’t. I don’t think most who are presently calling for impeachment literally mean it should be called for at this moment. It’s simply a short-cut way of saying that facts should be forthrightly, impartially collected, examined and a conclusion reached as to whether or not based thereon, impeachment is warranted. Many of us feel that it will be based simply on what is already known. As someone who endured the run-up to the Nixon impeachment, I can say it is a long, long, bitter, politically-fraught and exhausting process. This time it will be even worse. We didn’t have Fox “News” and other propaganda influences at work then. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/316 "2017-05-17T16:38:00Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > **Bricker** won’t answer your question or explain how the Emoluments Clause doesn’t apply. He either ignores or pooh-poohs and hand-waves away references to it, as if that is somehow invalidating. It isn’t. You are missing the point. If you think the Emoluments Clause applies, you have to be the one to show how it does. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/317 "2017-05-17T16:48:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You are missing the point. If you think the Emoluments Clause applies, you have to be the one to show how it does. > > Regards, > Shodan My specific hypothetical, to which aspenglow was responding was a smoking gun. In the case of Trump receiving a check directly from Putin, and putin specifically saying that the check was in exchange for favors trump granted with the powers of the president’s office. I take it from your response, that even in this scenario, you would be scratching your head, and asking, “Emolument’s clause? How does that apply?” I am not saying that this has happened, or that it would happen, I am just wondering when, if ever, the emolument’s clause actually kicks in. What if he gave away our nuclear arsenal in exchange for money? Is there a line, and if so, where the hell is it? Though to be fair, autocorrect completely wrecked my last post, “annulments” indeed. ---
**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:** [May 17, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/318 "2017-05-17T17:00:31Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > He absolutely did want to win. Yu’re talking nonsense. The idea that Donald Trump wanted to be beaten by a woman in the most famous popularity contest in the world is absolutely, flatly crazy; it is about as true as saying that two plus two is seventeen. He also likes _being_ President. I agree he doesn’t like the job, which is why, of course, he spends so much time not doing it, thereby keeping himself happy. > > Again, if you are sure he’ll resign before July 1, let’s make a bet. What odds would you like? I heard that he told the campaign early on that their job was to get him to finish second in the nomination. This was all a publicity stunt gone very bad. Once nominated, he couldn’t bear the thought of losing to a girl, so when the Russians came to offer their assistance, he put himself in their pocket. I’d like 10,000,000 to one odds. I’ll put up a dime. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/319 "2017-05-17T17:41:12Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’d like 10,000,000 to one odds. I’ll put up a dime. How about 5-to-1 at $10? If you’re reasonably confident he’s gone by July 1, that should not be a difficult bet for you to make. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/320 "2017-05-17T17:42:19Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I am not saying that this has happened, or that it would happen, I am just wondering when, if ever, the emolument’s clause actually kicks in. It probably has already. > [@](#): > > emolument > noun > usually emoluments > formal > > ``` > A salary, fee, or profit from employment or office. > > ``` > > SOURCE: [Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/emolument) Imagine Russia decided to rent every room in Trump’s hotel in Washington D.C. and Trump National Golf Club Mar a Lago indefinitely. Would that be a violation of the emoluments clause? Trump would certainly be profiting from that and it is impossible to see this as anything other than an attempt by Russia to curry favor with Trump. If that is a violation than them renting one room is also a violation. The fig leaf that the money is for services rendered is thin indeed. You could drive a train through that loophole. We know foreign diplomats are indeed staying at Trump properties to curry favor: > [@](#): > > About 100 foreign diplomats, from Brazil to Turkey, gathered at the Trump International Hotel this week to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel. > > \ > > “Believe me, all the delegations will go there,” said one Middle Eastern diplomat who recently toured the hotel and booked an overseas visitor. The diplomat said many stayed away from the hotel before the election for fear of a “Clinton backlash,” but that now it’s the place to be seen. > > In interviews with a dozen diplomats, many of whom declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak about anything related to the next U.S. president, some said spending money at Trump’s hotel is an easy, friendly gesture to the new president. > > “Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’ ” said one Asian diplomat. > > SOURCE: [For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to be](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?utm_term=.66c14169770d) Would the FFs be ok with that? I think not and they tried to stop it with the emoluments clause. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406.md?page=17)