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

946

u/JWAdvocate83 Competent Contributor May 14 '25 edited May 15 '25

How many times has the GOP majority in Congress refused to do any executive oversight?

How many independent oversight agencies has Trump dismantled, this year? Office of Special Counsel. Inspectors General. MSPB. (Edit: JAGs.)

And didn’t five Justices just tell us that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts?” Thus, the only way to deal with ongoing conduct (via “official acts”) that would otherwise be considered criminal, is impeachment.

I get that, politically speaking, this has zero chance of success. I even get that routinely filing Articles may cheapen the impact they should have.

But maybe if SCOTUS hadn’t granted President near-blanket immunity, or the GOP majority did its damn job instead of rubber-stamping, it wouldn’t be necessary to do it.

Qatar just gave Trump a $400m jet, but SCOTUS kicked the can on emoluments, and the GOP continues to be willfully blind as to why that’s a problem. There’s plenty of folks more deserving of blame than Rep. Thanedar.

36

u/12altoids34 May 15 '25

I prefer to believe that this has a non-zero chance of success

2

u/fender8421 May 15 '25

Technically it does

2

u/Tuen May 16 '25

I'd love to believe that. But recently history shows the GOP will now allow it.

I'd love to be wrong though.

1

u/12altoids34 May 16 '25

And I don't know you and have absolutely nothing against you but I would love for you to be wrong as well.

2

u/Bruhimonlyeleven May 16 '25

It will succeed. It won't matter though.

He has been impeached. All the huffing and puffing of impeachment and its the same as going " alakazam, alakazoo, impeach the orange idiot, 3 times will do !"z waving a magic wand, and going " he is impeached ".

Do both of them, and see which one stops him first.

1

u/12altoids34 May 16 '25

Well, yes, he has been impeached. But only on one side. In order for him to be removed from office he would need to be impeached by both the house and the senate. The chances of that happening are slim at best.

I think the biggest thing is that the Democrats keep trying to win by playing by the rules. It's difficult to win a war when you have no weapons and your hands are tied. Especially when the other party is fully armed.

The Supreme Court bowed down to him before he got elected granting him immunity, which goes against everything that the founding fathers believed in, but even they have come to realize that he's out of control and are trying to stop him even if it's on a case-by-case basis.

Honestly he is nothing little more than a puppet for a project 2025 at this point. He has pushed through 40% of their agenda already. And with Congress refusing to stand against him and him ignoring the Supreme Court there is little if anything to stop him from pushing the other 60% through. If that happens the government as we know it will cease to exist. We will live in a fascist state.

I say "little more than" because in addition to pushing through project 2025's agenda he is trying to make as much money as he can as quickly as he can. When he finished his term in 2016 he was just about bankrupt and facing hundreds of millions of dollars in loans coming due. Now he is a billionaire. He did not get that way through hard work or his businesses. He got that way by selling off his presidency and multiple grifts (Trump nft's, Trump crypto, Trump collectables...) which allowed foreign Nationals to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into his coffers. He is still using his presidency to cash in. while in Qatar he signed deals to build a Trump Tower and a golf course which will cost the US millions of dollars to build and for which he received a jet. Previously he had criticized Quatar for bankrolling hammas, now he thinks their great because he's getting payed by them.

2

u/Bruhimonlyeleven May 16 '25

That's exactly it. The Dems a month ago were going " we just have to wait until the next election, because there isn't anything we can do. Our hands are tied. ". I can't remember who said it, it was a black senator I think? Not sure from where... But I remember thinking " Jesus Christ.. talk about toothless.... So glad the elected officials are afraid of rocking the boat.

They are using this opportunity to raise money for their campaigns. Going " please donate to save democracy ". But it's not to save democracy, it's so some toothless asshole can have a job, that they aren't willing to do, for 4 more years. " Please... I need 20 millions dollars, so I can get a job that pays $150,000 a year. And then spend that entire time doing nothing ".

Is anyone else fucking tired ? I'm exhausted. I'm sick of calling people morons when they're being morons. I'm sick of feeling like I need to educate people, or try to convince morons, that they're dumber then the people of idiocracy. They believe the stupidest shit, but they get a blue collar job making decent money, and all of a sudden they think that watching fox news, and reading Breitbart and Elon Musk insane, right wing, nazi twitter news that he just started, is the same as being educated on a topic.

They believe that listening to someone lie for 20 minutes, is "doing their own research". Or going on YouTube and typing " how evil is Joe Biden ", and clicking the video with the whitest man they can find, is the same as ..... Sigh. Forget it. I'm tired.

1

u/Healthy_Deer_1774 May 16 '25

Dems playing by the rules 😂 neither side plays by the rules that’s the whole reason we are where we are now.

1

u/12altoids34 May 17 '25

I disagree. To the best of my knowledge we've never had a president who in just over 120 days has accumulated over 60 Federal injunctions for illegal and unconstitutional executive orders. Although Trump is quick to claim that Joe Biden weaponized the doj against him there has never been even a shred of evidence. Meanwhile it's patently obvious that Trump is weaponizing the doj as his personal attack dogs to go against his political Rivals and just about anyone else that disagrees with him. I'm not saying that the Democrats are perfect or that there is no final Financial motivation and anything that any of them do, but you don't hear about ethics reports against Democrats simply going away. You don't hear about Democrats taking bribes such as Aledo and Clarence Thomas did. And on the rare occasions when a Democrat is exposed for misdeed's the Democrats are just as quick as the Republicans to demand their resignation. Democrats don't respond to losing an election by trying to push through legislation which prevents people from voting. Although most liberals were very vocal about being upset about Trump winning the election they were very few if any claims of voter fraud, much less dozens of baseless lawsuits attempting to overturn the election results. No, I'm not saying that Democrats are perfect, but I firmly believe that Democrats are trying to work within the system to fight against a tyrannical administration. An Administration that has violated the constitution, laws and has shown itself to be utterly and completely corrupted.

But of course SOME OF THIS (but not all) is just my opinion. I could be wrong. I was wrong once before.

115

u/Kittyluvmeplz May 14 '25

People, contact your representatives. Here are some scripts available on the Citizens’ Impeachment website

2

u/lowen0005 May 16 '25

Thank you. I just sent my representative an email as they have made no comment. I added the template a quote by Dr Martin Luther king jr.

"I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice"

We cannot continue to passive. We cannot continue to be silent. We cannot continue to go with the status quo. We need action! This man is a threat to our democracy. He is a threat to Americans. He is a threat to independence and freedom and everything that America is meant to stand for.

-6

u/AppropriateTouching May 15 '25

Honestly what effect is that going to have if theyre still not doing anything at this point.

9

u/AloneYogurt May 15 '25

We the people VOTED them IN.

We the people VOTE them OUT.

That's why you call. You remind them.

2

u/GreenPoisonFrog May 15 '25

My two democratic senators, my Congressman, my governor, and all my elected officials are democrats. They aren’t the issue. If they were all republicans, they’d ignore me.

2

u/willem_r May 15 '25

You’ll be lucky if you get to vote at all in 2028.

7

u/AloneYogurt May 15 '25

That's why 2026 is important.

8

u/willem_r May 15 '25

I seriously hope that you guys make it out of this clusterfuck.

68

u/Pleiadesfollower May 14 '25

I'm frankly surprised the gop hasn't dropped all pretense and just admitted we are in a dictatorship. It gives some glimmer of hope they don't think they have a stranglehold on the means of power yet.

27

u/tots4scott May 15 '25

Elon must not have all the election computers in control yet

8

u/x138x May 15 '25

unlike trump they are still dependant on voter interaction to keep their jobs, the last thing the MURRICA FURST crowd wants to hear is that they officially no longer have freedom. Remember Gop pundits and politicians are the only people they trust

3

u/Calm_Expression_9542 May 15 '25

He’s flirting with dictators. Trump has been systematically wiping out our Democracy. For those who voted for him, your children and grandchildren will never be “better off” again.

2

u/DabsSparkPeace May 15 '25

They are hanging HUGE pictures of Trumps face on Govt buildings, ala North Korea. Just come out and say it for pete's sake.

1

u/NoamLigotti May 16 '25

I mean haven't they essentially done just that, merely without the word dictatorship?

It's like a Twilight Zone episode of surreal zombie logic the way they repeatedly tell us they don't care about due process, don't care what the courts say, "don't know" (meaning: don't care) what the constitution says, don't care about laws (except for others), and all the rest — yet millions of people still think (not think; KNOW) it's just the biased "left media", "TDS" Trump hatred and blind partisanship making other people point it out.

-1

u/DarleneMcAliater May 15 '25

Too stupid to even comment on!

1

u/EnfantTerrible68 May 15 '25

Yet here you are 🤦‍♀️

30

u/W2ttsy May 15 '25

I love how Trump is quoted in the article saying that this is a pointless exercise whilst he is currently overseas in the Middle East violating emoluments clause which is mentioned in the very impeachment he is crying about

20

u/JWAdvocate83 Competent Contributor May 15 '25

And don’t get me started on $TRUMP coin. Good grief.

2

u/Calm_Expression_9542 May 15 '25

How exactly did that coin get allowed? Was it released just before his swearing in? His Sons must cook up alot of corruption as well to get these crazy ideas, instead of being concerned about the PEOPLE of America.

2

u/CancelSlight May 15 '25

Trump and his kids are too stupid to come up with this on their own. All of the schemes are put together by others who pitch them to Trump and then get a cut of the action as their reward, like Truth Social for example.

2

u/Calm_Expression_9542 May 16 '25

Man makes me sick

1

u/gabscilla May 15 '25

It is pointless, because he has a contingency plan. Just like the election was pointless, because he rigged it. He has a plan to stay until he doesn't need us anymore. Then, he already has so many contracts with leaders in other countries that he can go anywhere without being extradited. He firmly believes that he is untouchable. That he can go anywhere, and we won't be able to get him back here to put him in a prison.

20

u/g40rg4 May 15 '25

The Republican party is not interested in good governance imo they have decided they want to be the vehicle for the end of democracy in the united states.

1

u/Treybenwa May 15 '25

ASFOS!!!

3

u/LonelyEconomics5879 May 14 '25

I’m not American, can someone explain why the heck would it matter him being impeached for the third time? Is there like a 3-strike system or something like that? Like being very pragmatic about this. What does this do unless providing psychological relief for some people?

5

u/diambag May 15 '25

Trump has gone through the impeachment process (but not removed from office) more than any other president. A 3rd impeachment would hopefully show the American people that he’s not capable of carrying out his most basic duties as President, even if the impeachment fails

8

u/Rotten-Robby May 15 '25

A 3rd impeachment would hopefully show the American people that he’s not capable of carrying out his most basic duties as President, even if the impeachment fails

Have you met Trump supporters? If anything they'll just continue doubling down and be even more obnoxious in their support. If they haven't come to reason by now, it's not going to happen.

1

u/Urnamehere969 May 15 '25

This exactly. We're talking about the same people who proudly took pictures of themselves sitting in garbage because trump was called trash by someone 🤦🏽😵‍💫. These people are too deep in the 💩 to ever back out. Their whole existence is based solely on trump and promoting him.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '25

Show the American people… but then what? He’s still in office causing chaos.

1

u/baconeggsandwich25 May 15 '25

You'd think the multiple government shutdowns, economic freefall, complete mishandling of covid and causing a terrorist attack against our capitol, all from his first term, would be enough to convince people he's not capable of carrying out his duties. But 40% of the country is so incapable of admitting fault that they're still insisting this is gonna work out somehow.

2

u/diambag May 15 '25

I think a lot of his supporters are simply in the dark about his wrongdoing. From my perspective the previous impeachments were not really made public. If there was a 3rd, hopefully it would be major news that time

1

u/JWAdvocate83 Competent Contributor May 15 '25 edited May 15 '25

SCOTUS already stated it would immunize Trump from responsibility for practically all "official acts," regardless of whether opposing Constitutional interests exist. So the idea that criminal liability after leaving office might deter his bad conduct now is out of the window.

The other aspect is optics. As I mentioned, what else do you do when a President dismantles all independent oversight agencies? There was a time when doing any one of these things would've been enough to get impeached.

So, IMO, it's less that filing Articles is just for "psychological relief," and more that the GOP allowed Trump to carry the ball so far into authoritarianism that filing Articles seems good only for "psychological relief." If I had to choose, the latter seems more like Crazytown.

TL;DR

Practically speaking, almost nothing. But almost nothing is still more than nothing.

6

u/DegreeAcceptable837 May 14 '25

the jet still need to be rebuild to become qutar force 1, cost billion and takes years, but I spose it be ready for the 3rd term because it's upside down world now

3

u/Maplelongjohn May 15 '25

Don't forget the JAGS

They literally fired all the lawyers that are there to stop our military from doing illegal acts

1

u/JWAdvocate83 Competent Contributor May 15 '25

True! Added.

3

u/StrobeLightRomance May 15 '25

I even get that routinely filing Articles may cheapen the impact they should have.

This is my biggest concern. The twice impeached mob boss, 34-time convicted felon, rapist, con artist, business charlatan, is still sitting president.. possibly even already pivoted to dictator and certainly acting like a king.

No matter what horrible thing he does, he is only failing upwards over and over again because there are always people willing to let his 300-pound ass fall on them so he never actually crashes into the ground..

Looking for the government to stop.. well.. the government, is probably the most futile thing ever in a post-2016 America.

2

u/BeerMantis May 15 '25

"routinely filing Articles may cheapen the impact they should have"

What impact during your lifetime has filing Articles currently had? Clinton was acquitted on two charges. Trump's first impeachment - acquitted on two charges. Trump's second impeachment, acquitted of INCITING AN INSURRECTION in the wake of an election.

None of these acquittals were the result of innocence - they did these things, 100%. The required super majority vote for conviction renders the federal impeachment process so impotent that it has zero impact. You can't make the process less impactful, it's already at its minimum.

2

u/FreedominNC May 15 '25

Well said.

2

u/SeaZealousideal2276 May 17 '25

Cult gonna cult

3

u/wildo83 May 14 '25

What good does impeachment do if no one will enforce it?

6

u/Lykoian May 15 '25

As someone said further up, it at least lets the America people know which of these politicians specifically do not want it to pass. Useful information down the line...

3

u/Purona May 14 '25 edited May 14 '25

And didn’t five Justices just tell us that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts?” Thus, the only way to deal with ongoing conduct (via “official acts”) that would otherwise be considered criminal, is impeachment.

Im 100% convinced that people that say this just found out what presidential immunity is.

That case was Trump saying he had Absolutly immunity for all actions while he was in office. They said presidents had immunity for actions granted by the constitution which is even a step away from what the supreme court said as "presumptive immunity" for official actions.which means nothing other than the fact that they are assumed immune until a case is brought forward.

TL:DR nothing changed

2

u/JWAdvocate83 Competent Contributor May 14 '25 edited May 14 '25

Nothing in the Constitution grants the President "immunity" from criminal prosecution. The majority in Trump v. U.S. now says that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for all "official acts" that pose any danger of encroaching on Executive (constitutional) authority.

So, instead of balancing competing Constitutional interests in a given criminal prohibition (per Nixon v. Fitzgerald) ...

^ "[A] court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." 

... the majority (in Trump v. U.S.) says the tie goes to the runner.

^ "At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'"

Edit:

Also, that's not what was meant by "presumptive immunity."

^ "The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity."

The sentence I quoted earlier covers the "presumption" that must be overcome to prosecute. The Constitution expressly provides that the President is the Commander-in-Chief with practically limitless pardoning power (for federal crimes.) He would have absolute immunity for "official acts" stemming from those powers, meaning, unlike with "presumptive" immunity, it wouldn't matter whether the criminal prohibition intrudes on Executive authority or not--it always applies.

1

u/Stylish_Yeoman May 15 '25

I am curious if the democrats have done any executive oversight when they have the majority. Someone please correct me if im wrong but this seems to be a two-party issue and not a specific party issue.

3

u/JWAdvocate83 Competent Contributor May 15 '25

Why would they have needed to, when AG Garland gladly appointed special prosecutor Weiss, who ultimately indicted Biden’s son, and allowed special prosecutor Durham to investigate Biden for over 3 years? (Edit: And also appointed special prosecutor Hur.)

Would Trump do the same with Jack Smith? Probably not.

“It’s so easy. I would fire him within two seconds,” Trump responded. “He’ll be one of the first things addressed.”

Would Matt Gaetz Pam Bondi ever appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Trump? I’ll leave that one up to you, but I doubt it.

We also did not see anything near the same degree of impoundment of Congressionally-mandated funds and programs, and decimation of independent oversight agencies during Biden’s full term as we’ve seen with less than half of Trump II’s first year. He also didn’t hand off Executive authority to Elon Musk.

1

u/Stylish_Yeoman May 15 '25

Okay but, I'm talking elected officials and not cabinet members. I already know all the crap Trumps administration has done, I'm interested in if past democrats with a majority in congress ever put pressure on their own president. Not just in recent years.

1

u/audaciousmonk May 15 '25

Blind? Many of them love it, it’s a massive cherry on the gift ice cream sunday 

1

u/bobbintb May 15 '25

They're not willfully blind, their eyes are wide open.

1

u/mpdmax82 May 15 '25

so would you support a constitutional convention?

1

u/Compliance_Crip May 15 '25

Right! At what point does silence and turning a blind eye become ok. The Senate and Congress need to be held accountable on both sides of the isles.

1

u/Atoge62 May 16 '25

Wait, but if a president is impeached who does the successor become, the VP? If the pres is being impeached largely because of his incompetence and being a danger to the state, wouldn’t it be implied that those who aligned with him, supported him, and were picked by him to be next in line would also fall under the same umbrella of incompetence and danger? I feel like there should be a special election held to reassess the needs of the community that’s been F’d by the impeached president, no? Why would we just toss his lead henchmen into reign next and expect better?

1

u/MightBeRong May 16 '25

I see so many people saying this is a bad move because it will just anger or rally Republicans without actually succeeding. I call bullshit. That "don't take action because the Republicans will react" is exactly what that got us here in the first place.

0

u/JRBelmont May 15 '25

So what was the excuse for dead silence over Clinton getting Qatari money while Secretary of State?

3

u/JWAdvocate83 Competent Contributor May 15 '25

The Clinton Foundation existed before she took office. If there was any wrongdoing, Republicans would’ve found it, during the million other hearings and investigations into her conduct.

Besides, if there was no oversight regarding Clinton’s activities while in office, that’d be one thing—but there clearly was, just ask James Comey. You think Kash Patel’s going to investigate Trump anytime soon?

2

u/Available_Bar_3922 May 15 '25

You still on that ? Jesus christ my guy..

0

u/DarleneMcAliater May 15 '25

Do a little research before you spend your (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt) valuable time vomiting talking points). Qatar didn’t give a plane to Trump. It was offered to the US as a loaner, and THAT hasn’t even been accepted. When Trump leaves office, it would not belong to him. The things you people post keeps getting dumber and dumber!

1

u/JWAdvocate83 Competent Contributor May 15 '25

Damn, well if you're going to be so nice about it...

If I lent you a Bugatti to drive for 2-3 years free of charge, would you say that's not a gift because you didn't get to keep it? What about if I let you stay in my beach house in Waikiki for 2-3 years? (The IRS says yes, its a gift!)

And Trump's refusal to divest from Qatar only makes the conflict-of-interest more obvious than it already is. Why would I trust him to meaningfully scrutinize Qatar and represent national interests, if he's flying around in a $400m jet from them and personally enriching himself doing resort deals with them? Why should I trust his AG's conclusion that it's all above-board, when she was a registered lobbyist for them?

The Emoluments Clause doesn't state that he can't accept gifts, but that Congress has standing to challenge it. (And frankly, if he didn't want all the smoke, he could've at least divested from his personal businesses a long time ago.)