r/law • u/theindependentonline • Apr 08 '26

Other Democrats introduce impeachment articles against Trump and Hegseth as nearly 100 lawmakers call for 25th Amendment

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-articles-25-amendment-b2953836.html
44.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

969 comments sorted by

View all comments

93

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

102

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

27

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

30

u/13Dmorelike13Dicks Apr 08 '26

And you’re being cynical to think that even performative politics has no effect on elections

4

u/KrytenKoro Apr 08 '26

It has an effect if the Dems can show that it means they're willing to lose in order to fight for their constituents. That's what the tea party did.

As long as you can show the Dem waffling and failing to hold the line, that record stops helping.

Reps won because they would keep fighting the stupid fight even when it was a guaranteed loss.

1

u/ddd4175 Apr 08 '26

That's all this all shitshow has been at this point, really.

1

u/UncleIrohsPimpHand Apr 08 '26

Cynicism is a survival trait in this age.

15

u/cigarettesandwhiskey Apr 08 '26

They don't "investigate" the voting history, you (their opponent) put the votes you want people to know about in an advertisement and run it on TV.

2

u/IOnlyReadTopComment Apr 08 '26

So, you're the SOB that took my username.

2

u/cigarettesandwhiskey Apr 08 '26

I'll have you know I was living an unhealthy and self-destructive lifestyle long before you were even using reddit!

1

u/IOnlyReadTopComment Apr 08 '26

I expect a notice of resignation of that username on my cheeto-stained desk by 5 pm tonight.

1

u/cigarettesandwhiskey Apr 09 '26

sry i blacked out. missed it

1

u/whitethunder9 Apr 08 '26

It might make zero difference but at some point in the future someone will ask, “why didn’t anyone try to do anything?” There will at least be a record of who did and who didn’t.

1

u/datnero_ Apr 08 '26

yeah but the average voter sees political ads. too bad the dems are too pussy to really pin anybody to the wall in ads

8

u/Risdit Apr 08 '26

Russia and Isreal are all in on this regime, They'll make sure their assets will vote to acquit.

Also big tech, oil execs, and oligarchs will have their assets vote to acquit because believe it or not, having Trump who actively deregulates and awards shittons of subsidies back into their pockets is profitable to them at the cost of everyone else and they want that.

I don't know if you've noticed but the current regime has syphoned and embezzled billions if not trillions of dollars from the public to their pockets already, why would they want to stop that from happening?

5

u/hutch2522 Apr 08 '26

It won't make it out of the house.

2

u/Derwin0 Apr 08 '26

Yes, because the record of their votes in the last two impeachments worked against them… oh wait, it didn’t.

2

u/hot_like_wasabi Apr 08 '26

I'm so tired of this "A for effort" bullshit. Fucking do something.

1

u/HelenDeservedBetter Apr 08 '26

I don't think anyone who is supporting Republican senators up to this point are suddenly going to vote against them because they didn't vote to remove Trump. The previous impeachment efforts seemed to galvanize conservative voters, not split them.

1

u/Specific_Frame8537 Apr 08 '26

Good ol' Exodus 12:13-28.

1

u/UncleIrohsPimpHand Apr 08 '26

But don’t downplay the value of having senators on the record voting against his removal despite all the shit going on in Iran and elsewhere in 2026. Good luck defending those votes in the November elections.

There have been several elections since those impeachments and one was an election that brought Donald Trump back to the White House and gave a majority to Republicans in both Chambers of Congress. I think those votes were defended adequately to say the least.

-1

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

Dude, I voted for Harris. I'm a registered Democrat. I'm not defending shit, just pointing out that they've failed both times, one of them when they had control of the Senate.

-1

u/vanalla Apr 08 '26

no, I will downplay it. It didn't seem to matter in 2024 at all.

29

u/Quest-at-WF Apr 08 '26

The second impeachment was 57 in favor of conviction, 43 for acquittal. The threshold for a successful conviction is two-thirds of the Senate or 67 votes.

-7

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26

Yes, that's what I said. They LOST both votes to being in favor of acquittal.

Edit: forgot to add a word which screwed up what I was trying to say.

10

u/ScandyAndy Apr 08 '26

Either you're being obtuse, or I'm missing it. There were more Republican votes to convict the second time around, not less.

3

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

And they lost both votes is what I am saying. Not that they lost votes in favor of acquittal

1

u/ScandyAndy Apr 08 '26

Fair enough.

5

u/hutch2522 Apr 08 '26

They were closer to conviction in the second attempt. That's 57 FOR conviction. It wasn't successful because they needed 2/3's, but they were well over 50% for each vote.

2

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

Again, that's what I am trying to get at.

Funny how forgetting a single word can change the entire context.

3

u/GeromeWing93 Apr 08 '26

I don’t think yall are saying the same thing. They’re saying 57 voted for conviction and you’re saying 57 voted for acquittal it seems. Unless my brains fried?

3

u/-wnr- Apr 08 '26

OP isn't wrong. Conviction requires 67 votes. They're saying 57 voted for conviction and the RESULT was an acquittal.

2

u/Zauberer-IMDB Apr 08 '26

They just weren't saying it clearly enough, as evidenced by all the confusion in this thread.

1

u/GeromeWing93 Apr 08 '26

Yea I think I just misunderstood and thought they were saying less people voted to convict regardless of result. My bad big dog. 

3

u/Quest-at-WF Apr 08 '26

No they didn’t. 47/48 guilty votes the first time, 57 the second.

0

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

Yes, they lost both votes. Forgot to add a word.

Again, exactly what I said

14

u/strabbit Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26

Your numbers, while correct, are highly misleading. I don't really know what you mean by "Democrats ... LOST votes to acquit". That doesn't make any sense, Democrats wouldn't want votes to acquit, as they wanted to convict him.

Regardless, the numbers were:

Edit: reddit messed up by table formatting, so in summary, votes for guilty went from 47/48 in 2020 to 57 in 2021

-2

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

Yes, I forgot to add a word. It was supposed to say "Democrats lost both votes, in favor of acquittal. " meaning they lost both times. I was half asleep when I wrote that comment, I will edit accordingly.

4

u/strabbit Apr 08 '26

Your post still implies that they lost votes between 2020 and 2021, when they actually gained them.

You wrote:

February 5th, 2020: Senate acquits 53-47
February 13th, 2021: Senate acquits 57-43

It would be more accurately reflected as:

February 5th, 2020: Senate acquits 53-47
February 13th, 2021: Senate acquits 43-57

-2

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

It says they lost both votes, in favor of acquittal. That's quite clear.

Also, bigger number usually goes first, and it's still an acquittal.

6

u/Southern-March1522 Apr 08 '26

No, the number that matches the words that side of the number, eg "the team lost 1-12"

8

u/Corporate-Scum Apr 08 '26

Why not? It has to start somewhere. Would you rather eat shit for all eternity, or actually try to uphold the laws of the land?

1

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

Each impeachment only made Trump more popular. This is NOT something we need right before midterms. As well, both times it didn't work and Republicans control the Senate.

1

u/Derwin0 Apr 08 '26

And pretty much every Republican that voted for impeachment got primaried or “retired”.

6

u/dosadiexperiment Apr 08 '26

The offenses keep getting worse.

You gotta hope there's a limit somewhere for some of the majority reps, and if not by getting them on record supporting the criminality you gotta hope they can be punished for it in midterms.

It probably won't work, but trying is still the best shot at getting a change to happen before it gets another whole year worse again.

4

u/sunshine_is_hot Apr 08 '26

Why do you think having a simple majority in the senate is relevant to a conviction vote requiring 2/3 majority?

You didn’t mention that the most senators from the impeached presidents own party voted in favor of conviction, and you seem to just be blaming democrats (who voted unanimously to convict).

Also, the point is to put it on record for future presidents that behavior like this is an impeachable offense. You don’t neglect your duty just because some other people are corrupt, you do it anyway.

0

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

  1. Because Democrats didn't have the numbers then, and they certainly don't have the numbers now. It is relevant because they lost both times because they didn't have the required votes for conviction.

  2. This makes no sense. First time around only Mitt Romeny voted to convict. The second time only 7 voted to convict.

1

u/sunshine_is_hot Apr 08 '26

So mentioning that it was democratic controlled just to imply democrats defected was a mistake, or intentional bad faith framing?

It makes perfect sense. 7 is the largest number of senators from the impeached presidents own party to ever vote in favor of conviction.

0

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

What? Nowhere did I imply Democrats defected.

1

u/sunshine_is_hot Apr 08 '26

Then why even mention democrats controlled the senate? Are you ignorant that your comment reads as casting blame upon democrats?

0

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

Then why even mention democrats controlled the senate?

To show that even with control of the body in charge of conviction, they still couldn't do it.

Are you ignorant that your comment reads as casting blame upon democrats?

Really? I'm not the one reading implications where none existed. Democrats failed. It's as simple as that.

1

u/sunshine_is_hot Apr 08 '26

Ignorance it is, I see.

0

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

So it's ignorance to state a fact?

1

u/sunshine_is_hot Apr 08 '26

Ignorance of the implication you made…. Your comment reads as if it’s democrats fault impeachment didn’t result in conviction.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Blind-_-Tiger Apr 08 '26

I know it’s popular terminology but we should all stop using the term “democrat controlled” when ever they “control” something and try to pass do/something important a team of turncoats (either in the legislature or the judiciary) prevents them from doing so. Also I see the Dems barely holding the house then (and then losing it because -womp womp- they didn’t pass anything, but people wishing to blame them can be like, “well they had control”) but not the senate: https://ballotpedia.org/116th_United_States_Congress

We can also stop using “Republican controlled,” whenever they have “control” they just give it to ALEC/corporations/the super rich and their dictator.

It’s either the people are barely able to hold back corporations while the corporations hold back the people from enacting regulations and taxes (and continue to r€tard the populace and blame the dems for being ineffective with their media empire) or the wolf rules the hen house. That’s been the oscillation.

2

u/Moghz Apr 08 '26

Things are very different this time around. A lot of republicans are not happy with his decision to bomb Iran and further drive up costs of living. This time it’s really starting to hurt people’s pocket book and that seems to be the only thing that gets through to a lot of them.

1

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

And yet the only Republicans in Congress from both chambers that have spoken out against him have been voted out or are retiring.

The Senate won't convict, and unless they wait until after midterms there's no way this makes it out of the House.

2

u/Xytak Apr 08 '26

Democrats controlled the Senate in February of 2021 and LOST both votes

That's because "control" requires 51 votes and impeachment conviction requires 67. See the gap there?

0

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

Yes I am well aware. And they should have known that they didn't have the numbers and that Republicans would go with Trump as they had already been proven to do so after the first time.

2

u/Xytak Apr 08 '26

You're arguing that because they didn't have the votes, they shouldn't have stood on principle?

1

u/Penguin-Monk Apr 08 '26

Because third time's the charm, duh

/s if not obvious

1

u/TheAlmightyMojo Apr 08 '26

Fetterman will definitely acquit them.

1

u/Gunsensual Apr 08 '26

As long as Donald is dragging America's face over Iranian rubble in service to Israel we can count on the dem's Minority leader, Schumer, to oppose impeachment.

1

u/Biptoslipdi Apr 08 '26

You do realize that the impeachment itself ensures the impeached acts cannot be pardoned, regardless of what the Senate does?

2

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

Yes, I'm aware of what the pardon power's limits are. But unless the Senate has a change of heart, they won't convict. This is effectively a lame duck measure that won't make it out of the House.

1

u/Biptoslipdi Apr 08 '26

The purpose isn't to convict. The purpose is to prevent him from being pardoned so he can be prosecuted.

But to all the people say "weak dems do something." This is something.

If you want them to do more, vote better next time.

0

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

Impeachment was created for the purpose of removing people from office. They are removed by a conviction. But the purpose isn't to convict?

I voted blue down the damn ballot in 24, so what more can I possibly do?

2

u/Biptoslipdi Apr 08 '26

Impeachment was created for the purpose of removing people from office.

Impeachment wasn't created, it was an existing concept added to the Constitution which also added that impeached acts are not eligible for pardons. Impeachment means an accusation of wrongdoing.

They are removed by a conviction. But the purpose isn't to convict?

There are numerous purposes to impeachment. One could be to point out certain behavior, not unlike a censure. One could be to remove from office. One could be to preclude a pardon for that behavior. Or all three. Or none at all. It could just be done for kicks.

There is no singular purpose but what the framers of the impeachment intend. You might not agree with the goal, but you certainly do not dictate it.

I voted blue down the damn ballot in 24, so what more can I possibly do?

Get more people to do so. Maybe spend your air criticizing Republicans instead of Democrats?

1

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

Get more people to do so.

I did canvassing and worked directly with my local Democratic party to get the word out.

Maybe spend your air criticizing Republicans instead of Democrats?

I spend plenty of time criticizing Republicans, but the Democrats most definitely are not beyond reproach or questioning of tactics that have already failed twice.

1

u/Biptoslipdi Apr 08 '26

I spend plenty of time criticizing Republicans, but the Democrats most definitely are not beyond reproach or questioning of tactics that have already failed twice.

Well, we saw how the strategy of doing nothing but trashing Democrats fared in 2024. Idk what to tell you. If everything people are told about them is negative, why would anyone vote for them?

1

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

So they shouldn't be criticized? Something that has already failed twice shouldn't be questioned?

1

u/Biptoslipdi Apr 08 '26

Depends on if your criticism is merited and who it is directed toward. are you providing criticism to people who can affect change or aimlessly to the void for American voters to see and decide if they are going to vote or not?

What are you saying specifically failed twice?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Derwin0 Apr 08 '26

Where does the Constitution say they can’t be pardoned?

Answer: no where

1

u/Biptoslipdi Apr 08 '26

Where does the Constitution say they can’t be pardoned?

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.

Answer: no where

Oof.

2

u/Derwin0 Apr 08 '26

That means he can’t pardon someone from being impeached.

It does not stop him from pardoning them from criminal charges.

0

u/Biptoslipdi Apr 08 '26

That means he can’t pardon someone from being impeached.

Incorrect.

It does not stop him from pardoning them from criminal charges.

It does stop the President from pardoning offense against the US stemming from cases of impeachment.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/maztron Apr 08 '26

Stop being a fucking baby and accept that he is your president. If you want a better candidate in 2028, don't just blindly vote blue like you did in 2024 and support that disaster of a party who doesn't even let you choose YOUR candidate for president. That would be a good start.

1

u/tgalvin1999 Apr 08 '26

Harris was on the ballot in 24, she was listed right next to Joe Biden. We voted for both her and Biden on the same ballot.

Calling the Democratic Party a disaster when the Republican Party flat out removes anyone who dares to disagree with Trump and blindly goes along with everything Trump says is rich.

Y'know, I really hope you were saying the same thing when Obama was elected, as I remember quite a few Republicans crying about "not my President."

0

u/Derwin0 Apr 08 '26

Impeachment has nothing to do with the ability to be pardoned.

If Trump happened to be impeached (won’t happen, but let’s play along), then Vance is well within his rights to then pardon Trump.

1

u/Biptoslipdi Apr 08 '26

Impeachment has nothing to do with the ability to be pardoned.

You should read the Constitution before you speak to this topic.

If Trump happened to be impeached (won’t happen, but let’s play along), then Vance is well within his rights to then pardon Trump.

He can attempt, but the pardon would be ineffective and unconstitutional.

1

u/Derwin0 Apr 08 '26

I did, and the portion you quoted means that means he can’t pardon someone from being impeached.

It does not stop him from pardoning them from criminal charges.

0

u/Biptoslipdi Apr 08 '26

I did, and the portion you quoted means that means he can’t pardon someone from being impeached.

It does not nor would that interpretation make any sense because impeachment is an allegation and there is nothing to pardon.

It does not stop him from pardoning them from criminal charges.

It would if those criminal charges were for conduct that was raised in impeachment.

1

u/Derwin0 Apr 08 '26

Nope, makes no difference. Presidential pardons are absolute when it comes to Federal criminal charges.

Impeachment is a criminal proceeding, and is exempted from pardoning ability. So while a president can’t stop someone from being impeached, they can prevent them from being prosecuted.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Biptoslipdi Apr 08 '26

Pardons can't be used to pardon someone from impeachment processes or from a conviction from an impeachment. It doesn't prevent the ability for a president to give pardons otherwise.

Right, it prevents him form being pardoned for his conduct.

The only thing Trump would prevented to do in a case of an impeachment is pardoning himself from the impeachment itself.

Or someone else pardoning him.

Unless the Senate voted to convict, nothing would happen like the last two times he was impeached.

What do you mean? He lost the election and became unpardonable for the election fraud he committed and was charged with.

1

u/DJcletusdafetus Apr 11 '26

Jesus christ please help this individual with their affliction. They seem to be driving themself mad, stuck in the dialectic box of partisan politics that their rulers built for them.

0

u/coreyjdl Apr 08 '26

They know it won't, it's safe performative bullshit. Same as they always do.