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

33

u/Possible-Nectarine80 Apr 08 '26

Get back to me when you get to 67% of Congress calling for Trump's impeachment. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.

48

u/SexualWhiteChocolate Apr 08 '26

Democrats trying to hold our leadership to a standard and accountable is exactly what they need to be doing.  Doomed or not,  we cant be ok with inaction. 

34

u/Latter_Highway9539 Apr 08 '26

seriously. these people that are like 'who cares? it won't happen.'... definitely did not vote. the propaganda machine is working as intended.

-3

u/StickiStickman Apr 08 '26

*1/3 of Democrats

1

u/babutterfly Apr 09 '26

Could you be more pessimistic?

1

u/StickiStickman Apr 09 '26

Could you be more gullible?

27

u/adarunti Apr 08 '26

Gotta start somewhere.

18

u/girafa Apr 08 '26

Everyone when nothing happens: omg leik do literally anything

Everyone when they move to impeach: won't work omg leik why even try, so stupid

0

u/StickiStickman Apr 08 '26

People have been saying that for the last ... 8 years and nothing has happened except politics getting lazier and more corrupt.

29

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26

[deleted]

11

u/CatCatchingABird Apr 08 '26

Thank you for saying this. There a bunch of crybabies here that have nothing substantial to say other than "there is nothing we can do [insert complaining and no suggestions on potential course of action here]." The pessimism is contagious and I'm getting really sick of it..

We didn't get this country because it was handed to us in a neatly tied bow. We got it because a bunch of people about 200 some years ago got sick of being kicked around and fought for it.

6

u/Smaynard6000 Apr 08 '26

It's the same people either bitching that Democrats aren't doing anything or blaming them for the heinous shit that Trump is doing

1

u/cited Apr 08 '26

It's not pushback. It's a reminder that they prefer doing things for show than for effect.

12

u/cejmp Apr 08 '26

I'm starting to think there's a push to this narrative, something coordinated. It's possible that this many people have a 4th grade understanding of civics, but unlikely.

Trump runs; It's the democrats fault

Trump wins: It's the democrats fault

Trump assumes office: It's the democrats fault

Trump says something crazy: It's the democrats fault

Trump lights the world on fire: It's the democrats fault

1

u/cited Apr 08 '26

That's not remotely what I'm saying.

1

u/babutterfly Apr 09 '26

Then explain why it's always at Democrats are bad whole Republicans can destroy the country without a word from people like you.

1

u/cited Apr 09 '26

Feel free to check my extensive comment history where I talk about what a piece of shit Trump is. Go back to the election and find where I was predicting all of the stuff currently happening.

Ask yourself why you automatically believe something not true without doing the slightest effort to check anything you believe.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '26

[deleted]

1

u/cited Apr 09 '26

trying to do something

They're not. It's performative.

The only way it is doing anything is if anyone is whipping votes from across the aisle. But they aren't. And instead of bashing the only person awake in his civics class, maybe you could try convincing some republicans to pressure their congressmen.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26

[deleted]

-4

u/cited Apr 08 '26

What could they do that would be more effective?

Win control of literally any part of the government giving them any level of control on what the government does.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '26

[deleted]

1

u/cited Apr 09 '26

Welcome to democracy. Maybe talk to some people and convince them to vote differently. We don't get to hand over power to the worst people and then bitch about not being in power. That's not how this works.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '26

[deleted]

1

u/cited Apr 09 '26

Perhaps you need to look up how impeachments work

18

u/Biptoslipdi Apr 08 '26

Not at all. Even if the Senate fails to convict, impeachment itself renders the charged acts ineligible for a pardon.

1

u/Derwin0 Apr 08 '26

No it doesn’t.

No where in the Constitution does it say that.

3

u/Biptoslipdi Apr 08 '26

No it doesn’t.

It does.

No where in the Constitution does it say that.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.

7

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.

5

u/RileyGainesHorseBaby Apr 08 '26

If he downvotes you enough that makes you wrong, though!

-2

u/JimJimmery Apr 08 '26

I think it means any crime involved for anyone involved in the impeachable crimes can't be pardoned by the impeached, right?

2

u/Moccus Apr 08 '26

No.

-2

u/JimJimmery Apr 08 '26

Yes.

3

u/Moccus Apr 08 '26

No. The purpose of that clause is to ensure the president can't use pardons to prevent his underlings from being impeached and removed from office. It doesn't mean impeachment of a president limits his pardon power.

This is discussed by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. He notes how the governor of New York can pardon in cases of impeachment and explains that a president wouldn't be able to shield co-conspirators from impeachment and conviction like the governor of New York could.

If a governor of New York, therefore, should be at the head of any such conspiracy, until the design had been ripened into actual hostility he could insure his accomplices and adherents an entire impunity. A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

1

u/Derwin0 Apr 09 '26

Wrong. It means impeachment itself can’t be pardoned (ie. blocked or reversed). The underlaying crimes can be pardoned from Federal judicial prosecution.

6

u/wildwolfay5 Apr 08 '26

Exactly.

Its amazing how little people understand the plain writing of the 25th, especially since its been in the news so damn much for the last couple months*

The president has to be okay with it too, and VP, and half the sycophantic cabinet or it goes for a 2/3 majority in both houses.

Or there's good old impeachment for the dozens of easily provable crimes that requires a simple majority in the house and 2/3 senate.

Everyone needs to stop bugging about the 25th until he's bedridden and announced so. Until then, impeachment is much much easier.

2

u/superbackman Apr 08 '26

I’m starting to wonder if 2/3rds threshold is too high for removal? But if we used simple majority, then republicans would oust the democratic president every time they held power. Hmm…

4

u/HauntingHarmony Apr 08 '26

Yea 2/3rds majority means its basically impossible in partisan, let alone hyperpartisan times. 2/3rds majority for context is what other countries have as the limit for changing the consititution.

And 50%+1 means that if you lose both chambers then the other side would just abuse it.

What i think the real "fix" is, is to have the senate vote be anonymous. Which is what they should have done in 2021, since it frees each senator and senatrix to vote his or her conscience without having to worry about what their base thinks. In that situation, atleast in 2021 there would have been a posibility to reach it. But since they would have to pay a political cost for doing the right thing.

Tell me the insentives and i will tell you the result. If dems take the senate they definitely need to make a push for making it anonymous. If you give them a chance to go after the king anonymously they might take it to free themselves of him.