Should a President ever be impeached if the odds are that he will not be convicted in the Senate?

[kentuck]

Some might argue that it would be a waste of time if he was not convicted in the Senate? It would serve no purpose. If he cannot be convicted, there is no reason to impeach.

I disagree with that line of reasoning.

It is a matter of following the Constitution and the rule of law. If a President has committed impeachable offenses, the House should impeach, regardless of what the Senate might do? It is of no concern to the House what the Senate might do.

To disregard their responsibility to impeach, in my opinion, would reflect on their ability to represent the people in the US Congress.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Yes. For the purposes of prosecution,

putting transgressions on the record, and to hold accountable the transgressor.

[zipplewrath]

2. Mixed bag

A good solid case is made for impeachment, but doesn't pass the political measure in the senate, at least there is some tradition of impeachment for cause. When the politics change, the tradition can still be there.

Johnson's impeachment set a low to medium bar for impeachment, and the senate raised it. Clinton's again set a low bar, and again the senate raised it. Nixons' would have been a higher bar, but became superfluous.

If we ever get Trump on clear charges of personally acting with the intention of undermining the US with a foreign entity, those should be brought, even if the senate won't convict.

[Demsrule86]

7. If there is evidence of criminality, and I believe there already is, he should be impeached.

[zipplewrath]

19. Can't trace it personally

I can't trace it back to him personally yet. It's damn close, and hard to believe he wasn't aware, but he's a pretty clueless twit. Really the question for me is how close to him did the Russians get. One can believe that they realized he was a twit and so manipulated him outside of his awareness. They weren't about to actually involve him with his knowledge because that'd just potentially expose them to risk. Sooner or later he'd shoot his mouth off.

[Demsrule86]

21. I agree and it has to be blatant.

[Thomas Hurt]

3. In the current divisive and corrupt political environment....

Trump will not be impeached unless a majority of the GOP caucus believes that they seats are in serious danger.

They are not about to give the GOP another black mark, no Nixon redux for the GOP. Doesn't matter how guilty Trump is.

[Hortensis]

4. Well, Kentuck, the types who enjoy spitting in the faces

of their fellow citizens to weaken a president and increase divisions in the electorate would say yes. Always. We discussed scummy political behavior on another thread. So far only the Republicans have sunk that low.

As for a principled though destined-to-fail impeachment? it might be rarely justified by HONORABLE motives and HONORABLE ends to be achieved, but the typical impatient yammering for impeachment NOW! just because it's wanted would not be honorable justification. Very much the opposite.

[kentuck]

20. I disagree...

...with your comments about "spitting", "scummy", and "yammering"...

I think you are wrong on all counts.

[LanternWaste]

5. If there's a clarity of purpose behind doing so, certainly.

If there's a clarity of purpose behind doing so, certainly.

If it's simply impeachment for the sake of impeachment, or because it merely feels righteous, certainly not.

[Demsrule86]

6. In my opinion no...don't do it. We will very likely lose the next election as the GOP did after the

Clinton impeachment. What is the point? It might feel good...but winning feels better.

[Freddie]

12. Agree

They will make Dolt 45 a martyr "persecuted" by those evil Dems.

[Demsrule86]

16. I did make on exception...and that is if Donnie is shown to be a criminal than we have no choice...

but unless Mueller indicts him...lets win elections instead. Revenge is best served cold.

[MineralMan]

8. An impeachment of a President by the House is

not unlike a vote of no confidence by a parliamentary body. It is, in itself, a condemnation. No President has been impeached AND convicted in the Senate. Bill Clinton survived impeachment. We don't know what would have happened in Nixon's case. His resignation made the point moot.

We do not know, yet, what the impact of an impeachment and conviction of a President would be. So far, it is a theoretical event.

[Stallion]

9. Yes-It informs the American Voter Who is the Final Constitutional Check and Balance

the voting public will have final judgment on Trump just as they did after Clinton's ill-advised impeachment which lead to sweeping Democratic victories in punishment for Kenneth Starr/Republican's over-reach

[blake2012]

10. of course they should. there's never an idea of what will come out later as impeachment progresses

also, isn't it kind of like you're saying House of Representatives should never pass bills if the odds are high that Senate won't pass them?

Ridiculous.

[dalton99a]

11. If it gets people to the polls, use it.

[spanone]

13. of course, otherwise the government would be complicit in whatever he was charged with

[brush]

14. By all means. If we win the House that should be the first thing on the agenda.

If the Senate doesn't convict they will still pay a big price with the electorate.

[ProudLib72]

15. Impeachment exists because Ben Franklin thought it was a better alternative to assassination

The founders also debated on the criteria for impeachment, settling on treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors against the state. “High crimes and misdemeanors” was another term that originated in British law, Chafetz writes. Ultimately, he writes, impeachment on these grounds was better for the country than than assassination. “The Constitution’s impeachment procedures make the removal of the chief magistrate less violent, less disruptive, and less error-prone than assassination.”

In the case of Bill Clinton, Chafetz argues that the founders’ thoughts about the relationship between impeachment and assassination made his impeachment impossible. “If we are to take the link between impeachment and assassination seriously,” he writes, “we should use assassinability as a benchmark for impeachability. On this view, it is precisely the fact that it was unimaginable to justify Clinton’s assassination, given his conduct, that made it unsuitable for impeachment.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/american-presidents-can-be-impeached-because-benjamin-franklin-thought-it-was-better-assassination-180961500/

So the question is, Are tRump's crimes assassinable? I vote "Yes".

[NewJeffCT]

17. It depends on when impeachment proceedings start

If Democrats can win back a majority in the House and hold public hearings where Kushner, Manafort, Don Jr and/or Eric melt down and reveal deep conspiracies with Russians and Trump and Putin, I think the tide would turn against Trump bigly.

[Voltaire2]

18. Yes.

Even if the effort fails, if “high crimes and misdemeanors” are evident, the people deserve to know all there is to know. Impeachment provides a venue the executive branch cannot shield itself from.