Unless Democrats control both houses and a conviction is a real possibility this would be the ultimate stupid thing to do and would likely win the White House for MAGA in 2028. That’s not to say it would surprise me.
I think the House Dems should spend at least as much time, effort, energy, and money investigating Trump, his family, his businesses, and his cronies as Jim Jordan and James Comer spent investigating the “Biden Crime Family” during Biden’s Presidency.
And then take it from there.
With the previous impeachments, there were Republicans who said they didn’t approve of Trump’s conduct but they couldn’t vote to impeach because they were offended by how the Democrats did the impeachment. There is no avoiding that. That is a needle that cannot be threaded. There will never be a single, perfect moment where the Democrats say and do all the right things to achieve Republican support. Trump could be caught on camera doing some truly heinous stuff (and I’ll spare readers from my imagination, bearing in mind which forum I am in here) and the Republican answer will still be “hate the sin, love the sinner”.
So for a future impeachment, what can it be focused on that will at the very least expose Republican hypocrisy? Now I am well aware that no Republican has ever died or even felt bad for a moment courtesy of hypocrisy but the public doesn’t always feel the same way about it. And that would be the end goal here: turn public opinion against Trump so that his cult collapses and his power base disintegrates. Make his ultra-rich backers either flee or spend a fortune on a dementia patient who is just going to stab them in the back during an inevitable mood swing.
As for how to get there? I think dead soldiers/sailors would be a good start. Make Republicans defend the useless Iran war. There’s plenty more to be outraged about and it would be fun to see Trump impeached for everything he has done since coming down that escalator but a nice, focused impeachment would be a good start. And then do it again, on some other subject ad nauseum until he dies. And then impeach his corpse for good measure.
The problem is that the scope of his corruption is just so massive that ordinary people can’t really comprehend it. To them it can look like the Democrats are just picking on him. I saw that attitude a lot when he was facing the trials before the election. Add to that that people believe that if you are doing something wrong, you will try to hide it. Being the consummate con man, Trump knows this which is why he is so blatant about his criming. All of this very much works in the Democrats’ misfavor. To make it work, they need to focus relentlessly on one big thing. But how do they narrow that down? There is so much to choose from.
In a bit of karmic timing, there is an Opinion piece in the Boston Globe about this very subject today. I don’t know if that will be paywalled or not, so I will post some excerpts. The basic premise of his opinion is to not pursue impeachment of Trump:
One thing is certain: Impeachment is not the answer. Many members of Trump’s inner circle, notably Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and FBI director Kash Patel, could warrant removal. But any focus on impeachment misreads why the electorate has turned on the president and squanders enormous time and resources.
Impeachments should only be pursued where there is a meaningful chance of conviction in the Senate. That requires a two-thirds vote — which means as many as 15 or 16 Republicans would need to be on board. Barring unimaginable cooperation, Democrats should play offense on policy instead. Voters’ top two concerns are the economy and the future of democracy, according to a new nationwide Pew Center survey. Democrats should focus on these, and build a mandate for a program they could enact with trifecta power (the House, Senate and White House) in 2029.
Some widely popular things he suggests they focus on either passing or trying to pass to force the GOP to filibuster against:
- AI regulations with “teeth”
- Corruption reform, e.g. prohibiting members of Congress from owning and trading stocks
- Restrictions on and accountability for ICE
- Community-centered constraints on building data centers
If Democrats are able to win the Senate, he argues for eliminating the filibuster:
They will need to eliminate or rework the filibuster — the arcane rule that imposes a 60-vote requirement to move nearly all legislation — or else watch every priority die a quiet procedural death.
This won’t be easy. Any move on the filibuster will spark negative news cycles blaming Democrats for the death of Senate bipartisanship. Some centrists may be reluctant to let go of tradition. But the alternative would be far worse: Republicans could block votes on most of the Democrats’ priorities. Trump wouldn’t have to veto them. Democrats would appear unable to use the power handed them by voters. A restive base would grow frustrated.
With the filbuster removed, he argues for reforms to rescue American democracy, including the package of laws that the filibuster killed in 2021: “election reforms, anti-gerrymandering laws, and new Voting Rights Act protections.” Followed by Supreme Court reform:
If Democrats allow votes to confirm Trump’s judicial nominees, they should demand that their colleagues across the aisle pass a constitutional amendment imposing 18-year term limits on the Supreme Court, and then wait for a sufficient number of GOP-led states to ratify it before they hold any committee hearing for a single nominee.
If Republicans refuse the olive branch, Democrats can say that they offered a compromise with wide, bipartisan support, before proceeding to enlarge the Supreme Court in 2029. This isn’t about vengeance. Court reform is the necessary first step before anything else. Without it, most any policy on the Democratic wish list risks being stopped by a court that conservatives will otherwise control into the 2050s.
I’m not necessarily endorsing this approach, because I am still torn, but I thought it a highly relevant opinion for this thread, and one that offers a specific plan instead of impeachment.
They do, and they take it nowhere.
If I believed this, I’d strongly agree with impeachment without the Senate 2/3. But I see no reason to believe it.
So can the fact that those Senators endorsed Trump and then supported him in dozens of other doggy votes. Adding one more vote will not change this.
This is the only reason for impeachment without enough votes for conviction. It’s unfortunate that Jeffries may need to hand Trump and Hegseth shining Senate acquittals for the purpose of coalition management.
The second impeachment in 2021 after Jan. 6 was the first time in US history that senators from the president’s own party voted for conviction. It was not enough but, there were some. In the case of Andrew Johnson in the 19th century after the civil war, republicans held more than 2/3 of the senate. There were just barely enough votes to acquit. Nixon resigned well before the votes were actually held. He recognized the reality of his situation. No one had to actually vote against him.
In 2021, some republicans reasoned that el donald would be gone in two weeks anyway. If he messes with the midterms in some really serious way, the third time could be the charm.
They should impeach only if they get both houses. That way there will be a real trial with real testimony, even though it most certainly would not be successful. I say “most certainly” because odder things have happened in life than getting so close to a 2/3 majority in this election followed by successfully picking off a few more Republicans, but I would lay long odds against that happening.
I don’t agree that this would help much with people who are determined to see the Democrats as spineless, though. They will use the excuse that it is unsuccessful to move the goalposts and complain that they didn’t actually do anything to stop Trump.
“He’s destroying your party and you’ll get killed in 2028. Vote to convict now and you’re two years further along on your rebuild.”
Gather and publish the evidence against him. Keep turning public opinion against him with every new revelation and pressure Senate Republicans to commit to a conviction. When the votes are there, impeach.
Impeach Early. Impeach Often.
This takes a Woodward and Bernstein. Only Democrats will believe a Jeffries and Schumer.
Unfortunately, it is worse than that. Woodward and Bernstein were picked up in newspapers across the country and delivered to half or more homes. Today they would have a tiny circulation.
And a Ben Bradlee.
I expect the House to flip and I expect impeachment proceedings to start almost immediately.
I think it’s a dumb idea.
There is no way Democrats are getting a 2/3s majority in the Senate. There is no way they are getting a conviction. Not getting a conviction will be looked at as a win for Trump. Wasting time on an impeachment (or impeachments) instead of working on meaningful legislation is going to hurt them in the next election cycle.
If there was any chance of a conviction I would feel different.
That’s one of those sentences where everything before the “but” doesn’t matter. Just what were they offended by, calling credible witnesses who testified about messages sent to Zelensky about withholding aid unless he cooked up dirt on Biden? Showing videos of insurrectionists crawling over the Capitol building? I suspect the only thing that would have made them not offended would have been the Democrats not impeaching him in the first place.
Another vote in favor of forgetting the idea of impeaching Trump or his henchmen. It’s a useless, wasteful endeavor that will rally right-wing support for these poor, persecuted patriots.
Efforts to contain dangerous policies and enact positive ones (even if they’re vetoed) can limit Trumpian escapades and lay the groundwork for taking back the White House in ‘28, assuming Dems settle on a halfway decent candidate, which is a big assumption. Never underestimate Democrats’ capacity for self-destruction.
Unfortunately I think it’s a foregone conclusion. There will be plenty of Congresspeople who will want to be the face of impeachment and no Democrat will want to be seen as voting against it.
How about if the alternative was civil uprising?
I’m another one on the side of not impeaching. Go after as many of his arse licking, traiterous minions as is reasonably possible, and counter his fuckery - past and present- with legislation. Gum up the works but don’t make it appear as a direct attack on Dotard unless and until we have enough support by the public and Pubs that are also disgusted but have been afraid to act against him.
Why would there be a greater chance of civil uprising with a Democratic house?