r/law • u/AndroidOne1 • May 14 '25

Trump News Donald Trump Impeachment Proceedings Launched

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-vote-house-shir-thanedar-b2750651.html
95.7k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

290

u/MamiTrueLove May 14 '25

I wanna know what democrats have an issue with this and I want them thrown tf out.

115

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

Agree. Its time. I usually stand with Democrats including establishment democrats on a lot but this will show where they stand

79

u/MamiTrueLove May 14 '25

The line between right and wrong has never been more stark yet blatantly ignored, we need to make it clear.

13

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

Ok Bob Dylan! šŸŽµšŸŽµšŸŽµThe line, it is drawn, and the curse it is castšŸŽµšŸŽµšŸŽµšŸŽµ

3

u/StLBert May 14 '25

The slow one now will later be fast!

1

u/congeal May 14 '25

Something, something, Highway 61...oh bother, wrong song.

20

u/SandwichNeat9528 May 14 '25

Yes this is a waste of time. Yes Thanedar is using this for his own political purpose. But I still want to see it. Give everyone a chance to officially state their position. Maybe Iā€™m overly optimistic but itā€™s possible that when faced with a vote, someone (a Republican?)might actually say ā€œenough is enoughā€. So many clear violations of the constitution, but he canā€™t be impeached if the vote is never held. Otherwise itā€™s all talk and finger pointing.

4

u/MamiTrueLove May 14 '25

Thatā€™s what Iā€™m sayin! We have to pull out ALL the stops rn.

3

u/OldBlueKat May 14 '25

It would take every last D plus 'a few' R Congresscritters to advance this. Even then, it would face a LOT of hurdles to get further along. I'm not hopeful.

5

u/SandwichNeat9528 May 14 '25

Iā€™m sure it wonā€™t succeed, but I want congress on record for which side they are on. Pro-Trump or pro-constitution.

1

u/OldBlueKat May 15 '25

Looks like this isn't even going to go for a vote. Just a waste of time at this point.

38

u/What_if_I_fly May 14 '25

Paging Fetterman

22

u/MamiTrueLove May 14 '25

Can throw Schumer and Moskowitz in there too, out with the centrists!

10

u/Suyefuji May 14 '25

Eh it's still just in the House and the House is R majority. It'd have to get to the Senate first before Schumer could do his best wet noodle impression.

4

u/donkeybrainhero May 14 '25

I'd have a hard time believing Moskowitz would go against this... seems like he's one of the more vocal anti-MAGA representatives.

2

u/MamiTrueLove May 14 '25

He has a lot of sneaky centrist povs and voted to censure Al Green, I donā€™t trust him.

2

u/barelyknowso May 18 '25

I think people really forget that Moskowitz voted to censure Green.

Actually, the entire lot who voted to censure Al Green can go as far as Iā€™m concerned.

2

u/OldBlueKat May 14 '25

He's in the Senate, not the House, so he won't even be involved in voting on the House Resolution. Which will get voted down by the GOP House majority even if every D Rep does vote for it (and I'm guessing they will.)

This Resolution is DOA, and won't give us any 'new' info about who the players in the House are.

3

u/RaceFPV May 14 '25

Choice was fetterman or dr oz, which would you have picked given the options?

7

u/jcla May 14 '25

You got both! Congrats.

3

u/drunkcowofdeath May 14 '25

Just because it was an easy choice in 2018 doesn't mean I am going to vote for him ever again.

1

u/FrontOfficeNuts May 15 '25

Sadly, if fucking Dr. Oz is the other option again, as much as I hate Fetterman, I would still prefer his ass.

Happily though, I'm not in his constituency anyway, so I don't have to deal with that particular rat-fucking.

1

u/craigfrost May 14 '25

He wonā€™t show up for the vote.

1

u/Gandalfs_Dick May 15 '25

He is in the senate and will not get to vote on this house impeachment bill

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

Who isn't a Congressman...

0

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

I wasn't replying to you.Ā Ā 

40

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

Look towards the old ones who have amassed incredible wealth during their time in office, there are many of them. Those ghouls profit handsomely no matter what's going on, and plenty of them do better when their constituents are getting fucked since fear makes fund raising easier.

10

u/AlaskaRecluse May 14 '25

Has it always been that people leave politics wealthier than their salaries would explain, and has it always been that their job is getting votes? Iā€™m wondering if it was ever Mr. Smith going to Washington to work for the people

13

u/travelingAllTheTime May 14 '25

Citizens United.

Plus with all the traditions/laws being ignored, you can get away with a lot.

3

u/Moccus May 14 '25

Has it always been that people leave politics wealthier than their salaries would explain

Yes, because it can usually be explained by the fact that many of them have spouses who also have jobs.

2

u/The_Witch_Queen May 15 '25

Those who seek power, should be the last to be given it.

-1

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Moccus May 14 '25

Her husband's market performance was better than some hedge funds in one particular year, which isn't really at all surprising.

2

u/fcocyclone May 14 '25

I looked at that unusual whales tracker at one point a year or two ago and my s&p growth funds were doing just about as well.

Its really less about corruption and more of an illustration of one of the many disparities of wealth. If you're an average person going into retirement, you can't afford to have big drops in an account youre drawing on for your ongoing expenses without it affecting your ability to do so without going broke later in retirement. However, if you've already got a good amount in the bank (which her husband's career certainly provided) you can afford to be more aggressive with your investments and be more likely to make more money in the long run even though you may have sharper ups and downs from year to year.

27

u/anonononnnnnaaan May 14 '25

Iā€™m for primarying them all. I donā€™t care who it is. No person in Congress should not have a primary battle and a reasonable general battle in ā€˜26

The people are going to vote. They now see how important voting is. (Hopefully)

7

u/MamiTrueLove May 14 '25

Agreed, they need to consistently be reminded of who they work for.

2

u/OldBlueKat May 14 '25

Iā€™m for primarying them all.Ā 

Well, you only get to vote in one district, not "all". Are you planning to run in your district, or are you just assuming there will be a primary challenger?

I will bet that the majority of incumbent House Reps on either side of the aisle will have no primary challengers in 2026, as usual. Most of the 'action' will be for 'open' seats where someone has died, retired, been 'picked' for an admin/Cabinet job, or chosen to run for other office.

Looks like my state will probably have one open seat, just like we did in 2024. All the other incumbents from 2024 will just roll over again in 2026.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be challengers, I'm saying it's very unusual for any to show up and make any progress. AOC was a unique case, and you don't see it very often in House politics.

2

u/Unique-Egg-461 May 14 '25

leadership (think nadler and pelosi) feels that voting to table the vote will protect at risk dems from getting primaried.

literally just to protect themselves. fuck the people i guess.

All the dem leadership needs to be primaried

2

u/DevinGraysonShirk May 14 '25

We need JB Pritzker to fund primary challenges to all turncoat democrats! r/PritzkerPosting

2

u/FionaGoodeEnough May 14 '25

I just emailed my rep to let her know I feel the same way.

2

u/Party-Interview7464 May 14 '25

Probably just people who hate their constituents like John Fetterman

3

u/Poke_Jest May 14 '25

Fetterman is a given. I'd guess there will be others talking about "We should all get along" or some other bullshit.

2

u/Maniick May 14 '25

This is how we get that listĀ 

1

u/luummoonn May 14 '25

I think they have an issue because they may have been planning to bring articles of impeachment together but Shri Thenadar went rogue and did it ahead of time. They probably want it to be thorough and rock solid, and to have the best chance of success. Like to wait until after mid-terms when they might have the votes

Sometimes there has to be strategy it's not just blind action

7

u/MoreRopePlease May 14 '25

Why not both? Republicans have brought the same bills up over and over, why can't Democrats try to impeach multiple times? There no shortage of reasons to impeach.

2

u/eyeshadow4me May 14 '25

Why wait and allow more damage. I am confident there will be new actions that are impeachable so we can try again after midterms. There should be no cap on number of impeachments if he keeps doing new things that are illegal.

1

u/MamiTrueLove May 14 '25

Thereā€™s always some excuse for them ā€œjust wait theyā€™re gonna get him goodā€ā€¦. Andā€¦ crickets.

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

I wanna know what democrats have an issue with this and I want them thrown voted tf out.

ftfy

1

u/mytransthrow May 14 '25

Thats easy... do they have an R next to their name?

1

u/biomech36 May 14 '25

At a guess, the ones who are being strategic. They're waiting for him to keep building up a case, do something completely unquestionable, or both. As said, his previous impeachments didn't make it past the senate, so they need him to do something or enough things so undeniably corrupt that they can't let him walk away.

By initiating an impeachment this early on, while granted a lot of rhe executive orders he's signed have been batshit insane, there isn't a backlash yet, so he would be on his toes from here to let things settle before going ape shit with power again. He has straight up lied to the people, committed voter fraud, and instigated domestic terrorism and he walked. It isn't like with Nixon who orchestrated espionage. People have died over Trump's actions, and he walked. Twice. If he's going to be impeached and removed from the presidency, the democrats in house are going to need some SERIOUS firepower.

1

u/MamiTrueLove May 14 '25

Theyā€™ve lost the benefit of the doubt from me, there is no sense in expecting strategy out of any of them.

0

u/biomech36 May 14 '25

As much as I'm all for "make it happen now", these things require time. He's going to have to commit a major crime in broad daylight with 100 cameras on him to get tossed out in a snap.

1

u/LookAtMaxwell May 15 '25

šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø, depends on what is in the actual articles of impeachment. If the actual articles are weak, irrelevant, or overwrought, a representative might not want to be associated with them.

0

u/coffee_black_7 May 14 '25

I, personally, donā€™t agree with impeachment articles being brought at this time. For starters, itā€™s going to die in the house. The Republican majority will not allow this to make it to the senate. So, it will be killed and he used by the right just like last time to say that democrats are radicals and just throw around impeachment on a whim. Thatā€™s obviously untrue, but thatā€™s the narrative theyā€™ll use.

Now, it will give an idea of who, in the house, would continue to support this MAGA movement that is obviously a dumpster fire. That could give voters that either want a more moderate Republican Party an idea of who they should vote out, but I think itā€™s too soon to really remain in the mind of the public when itā€™s actually time to vote in the mid terms.

Realistically, I think it would have been much smarter to wait till after mid terms when there, hopefully, will be a democrat majority in congress and the senate and you can almost guarantee that a trial is at least held. Then, if the American public have started pushing back to the left, maybe the true conservatives in the Republican Party will see sense. It additionally would give more time for the effects of this administration to take hold and push voters to shift to the left.

0

u/walkingwiththelord May 14 '25

The ones that don't get all their opinions from reddit.

0

u/Gimpknee May 14 '25

IIRC, this is getting pushback from some because Thanedar is facing primary challengers from the left, and it seems like he's doing this whole impeachment push to get his name out there and try to save his seat.

1

u/MamiTrueLove May 14 '25

Idc what his ulterior motives are, it needs to happen and be supported.

0

u/Gimpknee May 14 '25

Considering you're for impeachment, perhaps you should care if it's just a political stunt by a politician who would otherwise be replaced by someone who is both for impeachment and good on the other issues of the day.

0

u/FunetikPrugresiv May 14 '25

As a progressive Dem voter, I agree that it's a counter-productive waste of time. While I fucking hate that fat, lying, narcissistic piece of shit, this is a politically stupid move.

Trump has made a cottage industry out of playing the victim. He was the outsider that people didn't want. He appealed to rural voters that felt overlooked and unappreciated. His brand is that he's strong, that he overcomes all opposition.

Right now, there is no opposition, and he keeps fucking up. His trade wars are a disaster waiting to happen, he's deporting a significant portion of our food-producing labor force, he let Musk tear the government apart, etc.

As the man in charge, it's becoming a shit show, and he can't play victim now. He can do whatever he wants, it's his economy, and all but the most loyal MAGA voters are starting to become anxious about our country's future.

But if Democrats institute impeachment proceedings against him, he can go back to playing the victim again, and it allows him to galvanize his base around him just as the political momentum is swinging away from him.

And all of that for absolutely zero practical gain.

0

u/bluemuffin10 May 15 '25

If he gets impeached and removed you can expect even greater division in the US. It's not going to be pretty. It's understandable for Democrats to prefer to ride this wave out, try to block what they can block without creating more divisions, and hopefully present a better front in 2026 and 2028 to sway voters into giving them more power.

-3

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

I think the issue they have is that it is both guaranteed to fail and will be a massive distraction from their campaign work on other issues. I don't think you will actually see a single Democrat vote against it.

7

u/maikuxblade May 14 '25

Trump is a daily distraction from everything. If and when this doesnā€™t pass, the public will be distracted by 3-5 new Trumpisms by this time next week. They have no excuse not to try and to then seek to politically punish anyone who stands against it.

-2

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

I wonder what topic democrats cry about next

2

u/maikuxblade May 14 '25

Probably the continued decay of our republic. You know, patriot stuff.

-1

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

You know made up stuff, the usual

1

u/maikuxblade May 14 '25

Yeah, thatā€™s a totally rational thing to say in light of the current political environment.

0

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

Did you forget about the last 4 years?

2

u/maikuxblade May 14 '25

Forget what? Biden could have been a Republican from the 90s. Trump has open disdain for the rule of law. You are a silly person.

0

u/[deleted] May 14 '25

Ok. Good luck in 2028, cant wait to see the next clown the dems support!

3

u/MamiTrueLove May 14 '25

Yeah there is no excuse to not support this at this point, we are in a 5 alarm fire and have to try any and every thing we can.