NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER BEEN REMOVED FROM OFFICE

[MineralMan]

through constitutional impeachment and removal. Not one. The process exists, but has never removed a President. In our lifetimes, Richard Nixon resigned, rather than face the process. Bill Clinton survived the process because a 2/3 vote to remove could not be obtained in the Senate.

Given the Republican majority in the Senate, removal of Donald Trump simply would not occur, especially in an election year, which any impeachment that started today would mean. It's not a quick process at all.

The only effective way to remove a President from office is to vote for a different President during the presidential election. That method has worked multiple times. That is the process that can work in 2020, not impeachment and removal.

Here's the Wikipedia article on the subject. It's a good backgrounder on the process and history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

[The Blue Flower]

1. Andrew Johnson?

I thought he was removed via impeachment.

[hlthe2b]

2. no... acquitted by Senate

[jcgoldie]

3. He was impeached but not convicted by the senate

[A DAY IN THE LIFE]

4. No

He survived in the Senate by 1 vote.

[PBC_Democrat]

5. He was acquitted in the Senate by one vote.

People advocating the HoR impeaching will have more success if they shift their efforts to shouting at the clouds.

This is not the time to start tilting at windmills. We need to settle on a candidate with strong VP and then start hammering 45 and exposing his lies.

We need to win the hearts and minds of middle class voters.

[True Blue American]

29. I think that is why

Pelosi took impeachment off the table. Better to vote.

As Obama said,” Do not boo, Vote!”

[standingtall]

36. And Andrew Johnson lost in a primary after being acquitted by the senate

Impeaching Trump will not hurt Democrats even if there are not enough votes in the senate to remove him. Would probably just add additional negative stigma to an already toxic administration going into the 2020 election. Of the three U.S. Presidents to be impeached by the house Johnson would be the closes comparison to Trump as Johnson was impeached in his first term while Nixon and Clinton were both in their second terms and not eligible for reelection.

[onenote]

42. Not a remotely comparable situation

First, Johnson wasn't defeated in a primary. He failed to win the nomination on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention in 1868, an outcome that had less to do with his impeachment difficulties (every Democrat in the Senate had voted to acquit him), and more to do with the fact that in 1864 he abandoned the Democratic Party and ran with Lincoln on the Republican ticket (re-dubbed the "National Union Party" for the purposes of that election.

[standingtall]

45. Failing to win the parties nomination is functionally the same as losing a primary

bottom line he wasn't reelected and would've had no chance of being reelected.

[onenote]

46. Yes. But not because he was impeached.

The fact that he was impeached and then acquitted isn't what kept him from being nominated by the party he had abandoned four years earlier.

[MineralMan]

7. I see that others have answered your question.

Here's a Wikipedia article on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

[spanone]

6. Well, it's about time.

[MineralMan]

8. The current Senate will not remove Donald Trump.

The voters are going to have to do that, and that's where our attention should be focused.

[walkingman]

10. +1000 that is reality whether we like it or not. Beating Trump is the most important issue.

[spanone]

15. voting is all I can do and wish for enough damaging info that will take him down

although there is no bottom for republicons

[scrutineer]

9. Yeah, there's a first time for everything.

Not that I think it's likely.

[Iliyah]

11. Yeah, but as the media always

tell the America Public, this is not normal presidency and I agree.

And there is always a FIRST!

[FakeNoose]

12. Thanks - this needs to be said repeatedly

Like Speaker Pelosi says, Chump isn't worth the effort. We'll just vote him out anyway, and it's ultimately more effective than an impeachment would have been.

The Democratic Party will prevail.

[maxsolomon]

34. Do you have a guarantee "we'll vote him out anyway"?

I need a guarantee.

You do know it's not DU that decides, right? It's flibberdigibbets who don't pay attention to politics that tip the scales.

[FakeNoose]

38. I can guarantee one thing only

There aren't enough "yea" votes in the Senate to convict Chump.
You can take that to the bank.

[maxsolomon]

39. So, we keep our heads down and he gets re-elected.

And then what happens? Do the Dems Impeach then? Will he declare himself President-for-Life?

Go down fighting. Put the GOP Senators on record. I see no evidence that Impeachment/Acquital, for legitimate cause, will strengthen Asshole's hand in 2020.

[welivetotreadonkings]

13. Wait are you telling us all those Louise Mensch articles were wrong?

Because I thought Orrin Hatch was gonna be sworn in.

[MineralMan]

21. I've been saying that since 2016. Louise Mensch is WRONG!

Even when she guesses correctly, she's WRONG!

VOTE HIM OUT!

[Scoopster]

27. HAH!

She is a total idiot & wouldn't get a fact right if it were sitting on her face.

[maxsolomon]

14. Better do it before 2020, then, because this isn't an election year.

The Dems have 8 months.

Conviction or not, President Asshole deserves that mark on his legacy more than any other holder of that office.

The GOP and McConnell deserve that mark on their legacy, too. Refusing to convict President Asshole in the face of overwhelming evidence, after impeaching Clinton over a blowjob, should put the GOP in the minority for the rest of my life.

Instead, we'll keep our powder dry and roll the dice in 2020 with our slate of polite, conventional politicians. No risk there!

I worry that you don't respect the vast, demonstrable ignorance of the American Electorate, Mineral Man.

[bearsfootball516]

24. He understands it, but there is no other choice.

Want to impeach? Sure, watch it get only get a few dozen yea votes in the House and several hundred no votes. It would be laughed out of the House. That's reality.

[maxsolomon]

32. Where do you get "a few dozen yea votes"?

If Pelosi is for it, only 36 (few = 3, times 12) Dems would vote for it?

On the payouts to Daniels and McDougal during the campaign alone, he's impeachable.

[bearsfootball516]

33. When an effort was made a little over a year ago, it didn't even get to the floor.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-impeachment-vote-fail-282888

Even Pelosi has been extremely hesitant to say that she'd be willing to move forward with impeachment.

[maxsolomon]

37. A little over a year ago, the GOP was in charge of Congress.

2017 is history.

Pelosi doesn't mince words; everything is calculated. I don't know what her actual plans are, do you? It FEELS like she's allowing committee chairs to build a case.

[honest.abe]

25. +1!

Well stated.

[0rganism]

16. the house proceedings while drafting the articles would be entertaining

the open-door hearings would be something future generations could look to for inspiration and could give some Democratic reps the mojo they need to win in 2020. and history may look more kindly on Democrats in congress if they're willing to take on the fight, regardless of the vote forecast.

not saying impeachment has any chance of success in the turtle chamber, but there are potential up-sides to fighting for it anyway.

[MineralMan]

17. It would also be distracting.

We don't need to be distracted. We should all be focused on one thing:

VOTE HIM OUT!

[Tom_Foolery]

19. Very true, MineralMan...

Voting him and his band of idiots out is the only way. It would be the biggest insult for him to see how many people in our country absolutely despise him.

[0rganism]

22. is any legislation a distraction?

the list of things that would pass the house and die in the senate ... has grown pretty damn long in the last 4 months.

i'd expect the house to do something for the next 18 months. holding endless committee hearings that show Trump and his administration to be the planetary-scale assholes isn't just fodder for late-night comedy, it's a tradition.

i don't think we disagree here - voting Trump out in 2020 is very goddam important and by far the most likely way to end his catastrophic presidency in less than 8 years. however, we also need to hold the house and find 4-6 vulnerable Republicans to oust in the senate, which is going to be quite challenging. a rollicking good time holding hearings and drafting articles of impeachment might just give us a nice boost on retaining the house majority.

[Gothmog]

18. I do not see getting 20 GOP senators voting for removal

Without the vote of 20 GOP senators, removal is not possible

[unblock]

20. technically true, though that exact power is why nixon resigned.

he resigned for no reason other than that he was informed that he would be impeached and removed if he didn't resign.

it's a bit like pleading guilty instead of having a trial and being found guilty.




more to the point, in all three cases, both houses of congress were controlled by the opposition party.

the impeachment process doesn't seem to be viable if either house is controlled by the same party as the president.

[CousinIT]

23. IF we have a democratic election in 2020

As is, I’m not sure that Obama wasn’t the last democratically elected POTUS we’ll ever have.

[Joe941]

26. There will be a first and if not tRump then who? Impeach him!

[malchickiwick]

28. NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAD EVER SO CLEARLY BROKEN SO MANY LAWS

as the current occupant of the White House.

The point of the impeachment process is to put the man on trial in the Senate where all of the mountains of evidence of criminal wrongdoing can be presented -- to that body, sure, but also Americans from Peoria to Petaluma.

While removal would be the optimum outcome, it seems to me that it would be enough to force that third of the Senate up for reelection to take a side one way or the other AFTER all of the evidence has been seen.

[bluedigger]

30. It doesn't have to be a lengthy process.

I think a President could be impeached in less than a day if they were a clear danger to the republic, and the political will existed to do so. And there's the rub.

[Solly Mack]

31. Imbuing a president with divine rights even as we celebrate victory over a monarch.

If we view a president as someone who can't be or shouldn't be - or simply too much effort - to be held accountable - truly accountable (to include removal, criminal indictment, prison) - that somehow such would harm the country more than the crimes and abuses committed by a president - no matter the crimes and abuses (such a torture and kidnapping, for examples...or doing away with regulations necessary to keep the people safe)...that the nation would crumble from the shame of it all - then we have embraced the idea of divine rights for a leader even as we deny it.

A president is first and foremost a citizen of the country - subject to the same laws and more, as the office demands... as it is the highest office. Accountability should be equal to the potential for abuse of power for those in office.

Otherwise - we have a created a protected office, removed from the concerns of laws. Above the law.

I don't mythologize the office of president or the other two branches of government.

It's a sweet dream that the best and brightest go to Washington but reality constantly proves otherwise.

There's no shame in removing and or imprisoning a criminal president - the shame is in not doing it.

[DontBooVote]

35. Impeach his ass and let each and every Senator go on record after the evidence is presented.

[bronxiteforever]

40. 19 months until election. Too little time.

Recesses are built into the system. Even if the House votes in record time for impeachment the Senate Rs then appeal the impeachment to the US Supreme Court based on the Barr brief. That is why he is AG. I think the Court dismisses the impeachment.
Even so, we would not even get to a hearing in the Senate before November 2020 election but our House members would have to defend their participation in a process that accomplished nothing.
McConnell controls the Senate and it’s calendars.

See Bob Bauer article on how McConnell can avoid a Senate trial. Bauer was White House counsel for President Obama

Can the Senate Decline to Try an Impeachment Case?

“...in this time of disregard and erosion of established institutional practices and norms, the current leadership of the Senate could choose to abrogate them once more. The same Mitch McConnell who blocked the Senate’s exercise of its authority to advise and consent to the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, could attempt to prevent the trial of a House impeachment of Donald Trump. And he would not have to look far to find the constitutional arguments and the flexibility to revise Senate rules and procedures to accomplish this purpose.

The Senate has options for scuttling the impeachment process beyond a simple refusal to heed the House vote. The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a “trial,” and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. Senate leadership could engineer an early motion to dismiss and effectively moot the current rule’s call for the president or counsel to appear before the Senate. The rules in place provide at any rate only that “the Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses”: they do not require that any other than the president be called. Moreover, the Senate could adjourn at any time, terminating the proceedings and declining to take up the House articles. This is what happened in the trial of Andrew Johnson, in which the Senate voted on three articles and then adjourned without holding votes on the remaining eight.”

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

[MineralMan]

41. I'm not so sure they could actually pull that off.

However, it doesn't really matter, if no 2/3 majority could be found to vote to remove. With the current makeup of the Senate, I think it would be impossible to assemble 67 Senators to vote for removal. That sort of makes the entire impeachment and removal thing moot. The rest is technicalities.

Unless there are 67 votes to remove, removal will not happen. If there were 67 votes to remove, that would be enough to force the Senate to hold a real trial. A 2/3 majority can do anything in the Senate, including removing the Majority Leader.

So, the arguments might be valid, but everything depends on the will of the Senate.

[bronxiteforever]

43. I totally agree with you but McConnell will have

Plenty of room to work the procedure over. He has been rather successful at that. He has pulled of the theft of a Supreme Court seat and altered the balance of the Court for up to a generation.
But back to your original point-we need to vote and win.

[aka-chmeee]

44. But, knowing Big Orange's love of superlatives,

It would be an Honor to gift him with the "First and Only" addition to describe his exit from the office he has dishonored.

[lagomorph777]

47. Sadly true.

We also need to begin work to reduce the power of the Presidency. Way too dangerous as is.