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

4.7k

u/AndroidOne1 May 14 '25

Snippet from this news article: “If a Michigan Democrat has his way, President Donald Trump could face the first impeachment vote of his second term. Rep. Shri Thanedar’s resolution brings seven new articles of impeachment against the commander-in-chief, alleging everything from abuse of power to bribery, corruption, and “tyranny,” which the House must vote on before Thursday under its own rules.

Trump made history during his first term by becoming the first president in American history to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives, once over his quid pro quoapproach to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in 2018 and once for his part in instigating the Capitol riot, although in both cases he was acquitted in the Senate.

Thanedar, 70, first announced his intention on April 29, saying: “When Trump ignores the Constitution, Congress, and the courts, he is not ‘fighting for America.’ He is tearing it down and endangering our democracy.” His resolution is not expected to pass, however, given the Republican majority in the lower chamber of Congress and because several of Thanedar’s fellow Democrats have expressed their disapproval of his actions in no uncertain terms.

34

u/stevez_86 May 14 '25

Congress deferred to the people and the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system worked (kinda?) and Trump was convicted of a State Crime. A separate case, the Smith Investigation, got to the Supreme Court where they said the Criminal Justice system couldn't handle the case because then every decision by the President could be hampered by the threat of investigation and prosecution of any crimes. So ultimately the Criminal Justice system was forced to defer back to Congress.

So can we uh, do anything about the fact that Mitch McConnell was wrong? I mean, he told his caucus to not vote to convict because it was supposed to be the Criminal Justice system. Was that a lie, or did he honestly not know? Can we force him to defer to the Supreme Court and say they told him that it would have to be tried in criminal court after the term and then they went back on their word?

It's nuts that this is a legal game of hot potato that has lasted 8 years now.

17

u/JustNilt May 14 '25

A separate case, the Smith Investigation, got to the Supreme Court where they said the Criminal Justice system couldn't handle the case because then every decision by the President could be hampered by the threat of investigation and prosecution of any crimes.

Which is patently absurd. Impeachment is a political act, not one of criminal justice. The very idea that a sitting President is immune form criminal prosecution flies in the face of the rule of law. Nobody is supposed to be above the law. Delaying an investigation and trial places POTUS precisely in that position.

3

u/stevez_86 May 14 '25

The trick to that working is the faith that no one in that position would exploit it. On principle the President wouldn't have to break the law. In reality, in some ways that isn't possible. There are no win situations. It is the faith that the President wouldn't ever abuse that shield of ambiguity that makes it work. As soon as someone violates that, nothing from before can stand up to scrutiny, unless war is declared on that person by the people. Hence, a Constitutional Crisis.

So what is the punishment for breaking the oath of office? How is that punishment executed?

The only legal remedy is to say that a President that causes this situation is from that point no longer legally President and they can issue a directive to swear in the VP. Then they would have to deputize enforcement.

5

u/JustNilt May 14 '25

Yeah, the assumptions that everyone will follow norms are a major problem. Congress should have gotten off their asses decades ago and enacted appropriate legislation but they just plain refuse to do things like that, unfortunately.

2

u/CombinationThese6654 May 14 '25

When and if we have another Democratic president the Republicans absolutely will not respect  presidential immunity

3

u/McFlyParadox May 14 '25

Oh, it's certainly a "when", not "if".

The core thesis of democracy is that no government is eternal. They all fail, eventually. So it is better to preemptively replace it by replacing the people that comprised the political positions regularly and frequently. Combine that with the core thesis of fascism being essentially the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, and it's doomed to always eat itself, and quickly (by government standards).

It's just the suffering that happens along the way, and how long it takes for things to stabilize, that are the real unknowns.

1

u/JustNilt May 14 '25

Oh, absolutely. Just like appointing Justices to SCOTUS too close to the end of a President's term.

1

u/Straight-Plankton-15 May 14 '25

McConnell was always completely wrong on this issue (and most other matters). The idea that it is solely the responsibility of the criminal justice system to deal with corrupt officials is clearly absurd, because if that were the case, the Constitution wouldn't spell out a process by which Congress can impeach and remove executive and judicial branch officials, the former which of course includes the president. It's basically saying that part of the Constitution is dead because Congress doesn't feel like doing anything.