Step one in impeachment of President:

[Stuart G]

Last edited Wed Nov 7, 2018, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

The first step, impeachment, is a formal accusation by a simple majority of the House of Representatives. This vote leaves the accused in office, while he is "tried" by the Senate.

two words...simple majority

Trump can fire whoever he wants in the executive branch. But he cannot fire Schumer nor can he fire Pelosi, or Tester. Yes he can fire Sessions or Rosenstein because they work in the executive branch.

Schumer, Pelosi or Tester were/are elected by the people as part of the legislative branch He cannot fire them because they do not work for him. He does not like them, but he cannot fire them.

Now, a simple majority..435 divided by 2 plus one is 218. Democrats have a simple majority...as of the start of the Congress in January. That is a simple majority of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Trump does not like that at all. I wonder why? But I lied, .like Mr. Trump... ..We all know why Trump does not like the fact that the Democratic Party has a simple majority Is that correct?

(sorry about typo..corrected, not 235, but 435)

[alwaysinasnit]

1. I think that the Dems will likely wait for Mueller's report before taking any action. Regardless,

there is likely to be a lot of action in the judicial system (likely SC level) before any impeachment proceeding. FWIW

[unblock]

5. the supreme court would be involved in any attempt to *indict* a sitting president

or to *try* a sitting president on criminal charges. there are questions there that have never come up and surely donnie would at least want to use that to delay the matter, at least.


but the supreme court really wouldn't be involved in an impeachment process, should congress decide to do that.
well, other than the chief justice presiding over the senate trial, that is....

[alwaysinasnit]

11. I was thinking more in terms of SC involvement when tRump fights the subpoenas that he will be

served with.

[unblock]

16. yes, all that relates more to the possible criminal charges.

not clear if mueller would even bother. he's under no obligation to subpoena donnie, especially if he's going to recommend indicting him.

a subpoena of donnie really is only necessary if mueller thinks donnie is a useful *witness* against someone *else*, and i'm not sure that's the case.

but yeah, it's possible the supreme court gets involved in that if mueller decides he really needs to pursue that. donnie is certainly not doing it voluntarily.

[alwaysinasnit]

24. I was thinking of the possible fight brewing over the Dems getting copies of tRump's tax returns. A

refusal by the IRS could initiate an action before the SC. If the Dems do more investigation and the tRump team refuses to cooperate for whatever reason, this, more that any action by Mueller, is what I would be watch for.

[Stuart G]

6. I agree completely.., let's see what happens with the publication of the Mueller report.

I didn't see it, but Mr. Trump went way off today. That is what is being said and written. Mr. Trump does not like the idea that the Democratic Party has a simple majority for whatever reasons. And there are lots of reasons too.

[berni_mccoy]

10. They may never see the report. That is the point of Trump's move.

[alwaysinasnit]

15. I have a sneaky suspicion that Mueller has a plan for that, and to protect the evidence his team has

collected.

[unblock]

2. yes, we'll be able to impeach if we really want, but not remove

as that requires 2/3rds of the senate, which we'll be even further from in january.

which then plays into the decision to impeach in the first place, knowing the senate would never remove.

[loyalsister]

37. As it stands now, impeachment ends in a victory for Trump

For him to be impeached by the house and ultimately win the argument in the Senate would ensure another term in 2020

[unblock]

38. i wouldn't go that far, but actually the question is more how will it affect people in congress.

members of congress are far more motivated by the impact of decisions on their own careers than on the impact of who becomes president.

really the question is whether or not republicans in congress who support donnie though an impeachment process will pay a price at the polls, and whether democrats who pursue an impeachment and vote to impeach or remove pay a price at the polls -- or if they pay a price for failing to do so.

at this point, i'd agree that there doesn't appear to be an upside to impeachment, but that's largely because the investigation and details of his crimes haven't been laid out for all to see.

much depends on whether mueller has something truly damning.

it's one thing for republicans to support donnie when he's "merely" obstructing justice, which can be characterized as being a tough leader fighting against an unfair investigation, blah, blah; but it's another thing if mueller has him on tape agreeing to flagrantly illegal activities, taking bribes, selling secrets to russians, selling appointments or other powers of office, or blatant tax fraud.

if he's more clearly committed crimes, it becomes more politically risky to defend him and more politically risky to fail to try to remove him.

[loyalsister]

39. I just remember that it was considered a win when the Senate didn't convict Clinton

.

[unblock]

40. Substance matters

The charges against Clinton were nothing compared to what Donnie has done.

[loyalsister]

41. Trump has convinced people he was an underdog

And his loyalists are even more committed.

[Thomas Hurt]

3. I am not familiar with the process, but I am guessing that there would need to be some...

documentation of the charges alleged...

[unblock]

9. yes, a house committee would draw up articles of impeachment.

the committee would vote to approve it and move it for a floor vote, then the whole house would vote on it. if the whole house approves it by simple majority, the president is "impeached" and the senate then holds a "trial", presided by the chief justice of the supreme court, after which they vote to "convict", which mainly means to remove from office, by 2/3rds vote.

there are some finer points, but that's pretty much it.

[still_one]

20. Sure, but the fact is impeachment is whatever the House decides it to be

[lame54]

4. we don't have the #'s...

as many crimes Trump commits on a daily basis

the math is not there

[Stuart G]

8. He have the numbers to start the process.

But he would go nuttier than he is now, and that is saying a whole lot..He is now nuttier than 100 pounds of peanuts.. OH MY....

[lame54]

12. I'm all for building a case behind the scenes but the public would not go for a fruitless fight...

they would see it as more Washington gridlock

[dlk]

7. Impeachment Requires 2/3 Senate Vote

I don’t see a successful 2/3 vote for impeachment in the current Senate configuration.

[Stuart G]

13. Yes, you are correct...it won't happen now, but the threat of the trial. (even if it would never

happen, could make Trump worse...whatever that means..)

[unblock]

14. technically impeachment is just the house's portion of the process.

you're correct that 2/3rds is needed in the senate to remove donnie from office, which they'll never do. but that part is called "conviction" or "removal".

it's possible that we might decide to impeach him in the house, knowing full well that the senate will not vote to remove him from office, if we think there's some political advantage to doing so.

[Sunsky]

17. The house impeach and the Senate convict nt

[still_one]

22. Probably not, but after his trashing of those republicans who lost in the midterms, those numbers

may have changed

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Yeah, that worked so well when they tried to get rid of Clinton...

whose popularity ultimately went up, thanks partly to that fiasco.

And remember that not long before his probable impeachment and ultimate resignation Nixon won re-election with 60% of the popular vote-- largely thanks to portraying McGovern as a feeble liberal. Study how Watergate forced Republicans to go along.

Pelosi and others who actually seem to know how things work, have learned these lessons well.

Never start a fight unless you are damn sure you can win it.

A Democratic House is a damn good start, but we can't rush into things.

[lordsummerisle]

19. I've heard it convincingly argued

that if the Senate were to fail to convict then Trump would walk away from it stronger and more emboldened than ever...

[beachbum bob]

23. Who cares about conviction? If all allegations of trumps corruption AND

Putin involvement has been aired in the public...make GOP defend it leading up to 2020. We still outnumber republicans.....and if the allegations are pretty spot on, many will abandon trump

[Yonnie3]

27. I agree.

With the proper timing and, for lack of a better word, showmanship, this could be more valuable than any campaign ad. I think the later it starts the better so that juicy details come out just in time for the 2020 campaign. Impeaching and taking it to an unwilling Senate before then might not work so well.

[still_one]

26. It depends what the Mueller report comes up with, and if very incriminating, where there is actually

evidence a working with a foreign power to interfere with our elections, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, I think there would even be enough republicans in the Senate who would say the line has been crossed a vote to convict. That is what happened with Nixon. The votes were there in the Senate so Nixon resigned, and Ford pardoned him I suspect as part of the agreement to resign

[beachbum bob]

29. If mueller is fired and the investigation ends next week...

Let republicans spend the next 2 years defending impeachment of a corrupt and soulless man.

[still_one]

34. and that action itself would trigger an investigation, and the Mueller investigation will not end.

It will continue through state attorney generals, Democrats in the House, and the real possibility that it will be made public through media outlets

[beachbum bob]

21. Senate GOP must act upon the articles of impeachment, not a choice

A trial must be held. Timetable: 16-18 months of house hearings on trump, in FULL public spotlight, and then pass articles of impeachment to senate....July of 2020 so trial is held in October of 2020...if trump is still around and is GOP nominee for president...awesome.

[brooklynite]

33. OR...16-18 months of house hearings on trump, in FULL public spotlight...

...followed by the Democrats being kicked out of House Leadership, because voters who don't care about Trump and want someone to deal with their real problems feel that the Democrats have failed them again.

[malaise]

25. Yes indeed

Correct your typo 435

[Stuart G]

30. Correction has been made...thank you

[malaise]

31. He's terrified

and he's guilty as ever

[Poiuyt]

28. I would love to see trump go down in history as having been impeached

Anything for maximum humiliation.

[brooklynite]

32. Two words: Senate Trial

If you hold a trial, that odds that the new Senate will convict him, absent compelling evidence from Mueller, are non-existent. In effect, you've acquitted him.

The new majority Republicans tried this stunt in 1998. Remember what happened?

[hughee99]

35. Do we have charges?

Since Mueller hasn't reported his findings, it seems unlikely we'd be able to use any of that until he's done.

[Garrett78]

36. At some point, I think Democrats will have to impeach even without having 67 votes for conviction.

We can't set a precedent of not impeaching when the case for impeachment is overwhelming. Force Republicans to defend non-conviction.

People point to the backlash to the Clinton fiasco. But there's a world of difference between lying about an affair and being a traitor who obstructs justice and violates court orders.

[jmowreader]

42. That's step 2

Step 1 is to find twenty Republicans who care more about this country than about standing behind that traitorous fuck.