now this isnt me saying im pro trump,if i was old enough i would vote aginst him in every election he ran in,and imo he is the worst president weve had sence nixon.

However trying to impeach him and members of his cabinet rn is atlest very preformative for a few reasons.

-First off,even if the incompetent members of his admin like RFK and Hesgeth are removed...Then what? theres nothing preventing him from just reominating another person who is as bad or incomptent into the role,weve seen this happen multiple times during his first term..

And second of all,the reason why i say the attempts to impeach him are preformative,is because lets be honest.the democrats know DAMN WELL there impeachment bills arent going to pass.

The republicans hold a govmernet trifictea rn,.And impeachment to my knowledge requires 2/3rds of both chambers to vote in favor of it.And 2/3rds of a Republican controlled congress are NOT voting to remove him.So the attempts to do are extremly preformative and quite frankly,time wastley,as they are going to fail regardless.
overall if Democrats do want to impeach trump,they need to wait untill 2027/after the 2026 midterms to do so.if they hve a majority in both chambers then maybe thatd be good idea.but for now,they need to stop wasting valueable time on preformative and wastefull impeachment bills and focus there efforts elsewhere.

  • I understand what you're saying in the sense actually removing Trump isn't going to happen so in that way it is performative.

    However, in the event our democracy survives, I think it it is important to get our federal representatives on the record as to whether they support this convicted felon, pedophile, rapist, racist or if they did whatever they could to get him out.

    I also understand what you're saying, but it's happened twice, most are already in the record. When the average American hears that for a third time he's getting impeached, especially after the first two turned into nothingburgers, most roll their eyes or the word "impeachment" loses weight.

    But he's done more impeachable shit since then which should not be ignored and thereby normalized.

    I totally understand that, but unfortunately many people don't.

    It's been normalized because liberals and Democrats have been crying wolf every week for the last ten years.

    There is explicitly a double standard for him as evidenced by both him and Biden misappropriating classified documents and the DoJ letting Biden slide but charging Trump.

    During his trial about defrauding banks for loans, the banks testified in his defense.

    It's so bad that liberals are crying over dead cartel members.

    Imagine a world where "it's a witch hunt" wasn't on the table. He probably wouldn't have a 46% approval rating.

    It’s important to distinguish between the act of having the documents and the act of refusing to return them. You’re right that many officials (like Biden and Pence and others) have found classified papers in their possession after their time in office, but they turned them over voluntarily as soon as they were discovered.

    The DOJ's case against Trump wasn't just about possession, it was about the refusal to comply with subpoenas and the alleged efforts to hide boxes from his own lawyers. The law generally treats cooperation differently than it treats obstruction. Claiming it's a double standard assumes that the cases were the same or at least closely related. The outcome and actions were different because the situations were different.

    For the bank trial, the point was that the law prohibits submitting false financial statements regardless of whether the bank minded. It's still against the law to do so even if the bank was okay with it.

    Please answer two questions yes/no.

    • Is there a case or impeachment made against Trump that was thrown out or he was found not guilty where you didn't think "He got away with it"?

    • Do you think this newest impeachment will go anywhere?

    Is there a case/impeachment where you didn't think "he got away with it"? I guess... no?

    I think we have to distinguish between "getting away with it", that implies innocence, and the cases being dismissed on procedural grounds. I think the cases would have to be seen through to completion with a verdict before you can really answer that questions. None of the major recent cases, like the classified documents in Florida or the election interference cases in DC and Georgia, reached a "not guilty" verdict. They were dismissed or shelved primarily because of the DOJ policy against prosecuting a sitting president and the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity. To me, a case being dropped because of a defendant's job title is very different from a case being dropped because the evidence was weak.

    Do you think this newest impeachment will go anywhere? In a literal sense, No.

    Given the current makeup of the House and Senate, these resolutions are largely symbolic. They'll get shelved or voted down. Whether they are "meaningful" depends on if you view impeachment as a literal tool for removal or a formal way for the opposition to register a constitutional objection. In terms of actually removing Trump from office, the math just isn't there.

    That's kind of my point with the crying wolf though.

    Your view is that he's either found guilty or he got away with it. There's no version of any conspiracy theory about him where you're like "nah, he didn't do that"

    I think my point was that the public opinion and the outcome of legal proceedings are two very different things. With what information is available to the public I think that it's very understandable to assume that Trump is guilty of the crimes he was charged with surrounding the election and classified documents cases. However, we all also have to acknowledge that the fact no legal proceeding was completed means that we can't truly claim one way or the other without it.

    I mean, if we're talking about true conspiracy theories then I'm sure there's some that I'd agree he didn't do. I just don't go out looking for conspiracy theories in general so I don't have any to list here. In an effort to answer your question, whether or not Trump raped a bunch of underage girls might be the closest. I think it's clear he had lots of connections with Epstein, his story often doesn't check out, and he has a history of abusive or perverted opinions on women but so far, there's no single piece of evidence that says he did rape children.

    Except possession of classified documents is a felony. Biden intentionally took classified documents home and illegally retained them for years. 

    Excerpt from the Special Council Report:

    With one exception, there is no record of the Department of Justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. The exception is former President Trump. It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.

    Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.

    I'm running on the assumption that you believe Biden and Trump both did the same thing and only Trump being charged proves some kind of double standard. In that, I completely disagree. If your belief is that Biden should have also been charged with something then I actually might agree with you. If we charge low-level officials for accidently mishandling classified documents then we should hold everyone to that same standard.

    He isn’t saying they are the same, he is saying that the act of retention of classified documents is a felony in and of itself. So while Trump certainly continued to commit crime and rightly deserved prosecution, Biden who factually committed a lesser crime received no prosecution.

    It was a politically motivated double standard that arose for Trump initially on a technicality where formers presidents were traditionally granted clearance to retain classified documents, however Biden refused to grant for Trump.

    Hence had Biden given the clearance there would have been no crime to speak of for Trump. While no such clearances were traditionally granted to former Vice presidents.

    My understanding is that ex presidents can be granted access to current classified information as some kind of advisor to the current president. That's also granted while in secure facilities. I believe Trump's first term was the end of the tradition for that advisor role. I'm not surprised the same would be done for him under Biden.

    Can you provide cases where an ex-President was allowed to take classified information with them though? Genuine question.

    That is incorrect, Biden specifically targeted Trump by barring him as Trump would later in turn did the same.

    “In 2021, then-President Biden barred then-former President Donald Trump access to intelligence briefings, arguing that Trump could not be trusted because of his "erratic behavior."

    “Since returning to office, Trump on Friday said he was doing the same to his predecessor, blaming Biden for setting the precedent and ending a courtesy traditionally provided to former presidents.”

    https://www.npr.org/2025/02/08/nx-s1-5290912/trump-revoke-biden-security-clearance-history-explainer

    And to answer your question, pretty much every administration since Reagan was allowed to do it with prosecution.

    “Mark Bradley, the director of the National Arhive’s Information Security Oversight Office, told the House Intelligence Committee the office has found boxes of classified information in unclassified containers from every administration since the Reagan Administration, according to a report…”

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/05/17/not-just-trump-and-biden-every-administration-since-reagan-mishandled-classified-records-national-archives-finds/

    The DoJ didn't say that Biden was allowed to do it.

    The DoJ said that they weren't prosecuting because he's an old forgetful man.

    Like that's our justice system.  If you're old and forgetful you get a free pass to do cri- OH I GET IT NOW WHY TRUMP KEEPS BEING FOUND NOT GUILTY OF ALL THE CRIMES HE GETS ACCUSED OF 🤯

    Reagan kept classified diaries at his home from his time as President until he died.

    I believe what Biden did and what Trump did are substantially similar. But there’s a lot of irrelevant fluff in the report. If it was a normal investigation and not Biden, the FBI would have gotten a search warrant for all of his properties. The FBI gave Biden special treatment by waiting for his permission to do their searches. Sitting down for a voluntary interview is not a reason to avoid prosecution when someone’s committed a crime either. Whether there was obstruction should be irrelevant to the charges on retention of classified information. 

    If we're saying that everyone should be held to the same standards then I agree. If Joe Smith brings home classified documents from his tenure and is charged for it, then being a VP or ex-President shouldn't matter. I agree with that much.

    Now I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that under the Espionage Act, prosecutors have to prove 'willful retention.' I imagine that cooperation is some level of evidence that retention was accidental whereas obstruction shows something willful.

    Can we agree that Biden should have been prosecuted at some level for documents under the espionage act, and at the same time, Trump should have been charged with the same, with the addition of lying and obstruction?

    This is one of the first lines of the Hur report. Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. No, I don’t see any credible evidence it was accidental on the part of Biden.

    So, the both-sides-bad argument? smh

    Trump refused to turn over the classified documents that he knowingly sequestered and even claimed they belonged to him.

    Who cares if the bank testified on his behalf? The victims were the people of New York because he wasn't paying his taxes.

    The fact that people like you will continue to carry water for a convicted felon, rapist, racist is the problem.

    There is explicitly a double standard for him as evidenced by both him and Biden misappropriating classified documents and the DoJ letting Biden slide but charging Trump.

    There isn't a double standard. The standard is "bring them back when you're told to". Biden did, Trump refused.

    Interesting.

    Because the DoJ said they weren't prosecuting because Biden was a forgetful old man, not because he was cooperating...

    Using one single potential legal defense raised as your summary of a 388 page report, classic.

    Report from Special Counsel Robert K Hur

    Several defenses are likely to create reasonable doubt as to such charges. For example, Mr. Biden could have found the classified Afghanistan documents at his Virginia home in 2017 and then forgotten about them soon after. This could convince some reasonable jurors that he did not retain them willfully. When Mr. Biden told his ghostwriter about finding ''all the classified stuff downstairs," his tone was matter-of-fact. For a person who had viewed classified documents nearly every day for eight years as vice president, including regularly in his home, finding classified documents at home less than a month after leaving office could have been an unremarkable and forgettable event. Notably, the classified Afghanistan documents did not come up again in Mr. Biden's dozens of hours of recorded conversations with the ghostwriter, or in his book. And the place where the Afghanistan documents were eventually found in Mr. Biden's Delaware garage-in a badly damaged box surrounded by household detritus-suggests the documents might have been forgotten.

    In addition. Mr. Biden's memory was significantly limited, both during his recorded interviews with the ghostwriter in 2017, and in his interview with our office in 2023. And his cooperation with our investigation, including by reporting to the government that the Afghanistan documents were in his Delaware garage, will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting willfully - that is, with intent to break the law-as the statute requires.

    Another viable defense is that Mr. Biden might not have retained the classified Afghanistan documents in his Virginia home at all. They could have been stored, by mistake and without his know ledge, at his Delaware home since the time he was vice president, as were other classified documents recovered during our investigation. This would rebut charges that he willfully retained the documents in Virginia.

    Given Mr. Biden's limited precision and recall during his interviews with his ghost writer and with our office, jurors may hesitate to place too much evidentiary weight on a single eight-word utterance to his ghostwriter about finding classified documents in Virginia, in the absence of other, more direct evidence. We searched for such additional evidence and found it wanting. In particular, no witness, photo, email, text message, or any other evidence conclusively places the Afghanistan documents at the Virginia home in 2017.

    In addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute. When Mr. Biden told his ghostwriter he"just found all the classified stuff downstairs," he could have been referring to something other than the Afghanistan documents, and our report discusses these possibilities in detail.

    We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning,elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.

    We conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict, and we decline to recommend prosecution of Mr. Biden for his retention of the classified Afghanistan documents.

    So, again - no double standard. They don't think they can convince a jury that Biden did it intentionally. Trump, on the other hand, flagrantly refused to give them back, which makes it really hard to convince a jury that you didn't mean to have them there.

    I mean the summary is "Trump is accused of things every two weeks and the vast, vast majority of the accusations are proven false or baseless"

    Like how many impeachments would this make and how many have stuck?

    The entire Russia gate was a "nothingburger" which is a term a CNN news anchor used to describe it. Even your overlords know it's bullshit.

    Hur’s report is legally nonsensical and reads like it was written by Biden’s defense attorney not a prosecutor. The possibility someone might come across as a well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory is not a valid legal defense. If his point was Biden was no longer mentally fit to stand trial, or showing obvious signs of dementia, then Biden should have obviously been removed from office under the 25th amendment. If Biden was mentally fit to stand trial and didn’t have dementia, he obviously should have been charged.

    The possibility someone might come across as a well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory is not a valid legal defense.

    No, but it's a reason a jury might acquit, and that's something a prosecutor should consider when deciding whether to bring charges.

    Except Biden didn’t do that. You’re told to hand over all classified documents when you leave the SCIF. If Biden has turned over all classified documents when he was told too, they never could have ended up in his garage.

    Getting people on the record is cool and all but like... we already know where everyone stands lol. Republican voters literally don't care about any of that stuff, they proved it twice now

    The real issue is Dems keep playing by rules that don't exist anymore while the other side just does whatever they want

    If playing by the rules Means trying to get your political opponents thrown in jail and charging their lawyers and campaign advisers with weird ass shit to get them thrown in jail…. That is not normal people.

    that is true,and thats why i didnt rly have a problem when the democrats tried to do it the first time in his 2nd term,but now it just feels like a waste of time as they already know most of congress isnt voting in favor of it.

    Like I said, I totally feel ya. And it does come at a cost because when Trump is acquitted by the Senate, MAGA gets to claim it was all a hoax.

    That said, I still think it's important for the historic record.

    Not even trying to punish Nixon for his crimes is what launched one criminal Republican administration after another and got us Trump and possibly the end of American democracy.

    We can't stop fighting his bullshit no matter how futile it seems.

    Trump and Nixon are the only criminals, dude...

    Treating every Republican like a Nazi got us one who the shoe actually kinda-fits....

    I get that point even if it fails it still puts everyone on record and forces people to own their votes later on that part does matter to me

    This is the most important reason. Even if Trump refuses to step down, the day will come when he is no longer in power. In the aftermath, step 1 of healing is going to require public trials for his toadies/supporters, prison sentences, education programs, etc., much like denazification after WW2. There will have to be measures for both right-wing politicians and the public, until these views are effectively cleansed from our democratic discourse.

    Doing that requires that you have records of where as many as possible actually stood. A voting record for impeachment proceedings can form an important piece of evidence when officials are put on trial and sentenced, along with prior legislative votes, public voter registration records, and other things of that nature.

    If the people that made this all possible can’t be undeniably shown to be complicit, they can’t be held responsible and punished, and then these beliefs will be allowed to continue existing in the minds of half country. We need a record of where people stood at the height.

    Massive surveillance of what people believe and say, imprison people for those beliefs and have "re-education" camps until they conform to what you want.

    Yeah, you're definitely not the Nazi.

    While understandable, I feel a better effort would be to put energy, resource, and time into fixing the institutional and social failings that allow for someone like Trump to exist and take power. Many people like to zero in on how terrible and evil a person Adolf Hitler was (and I won’t question that either) but often times, I’ve seen many discourses not going into much detail about the circumstances and environment that allowed someone like Hitler and the Nazi party to exist in the first place. The US, in some aspects, are quite guilty in being an influence to Nazi ideas (such as how Native American treatment and old Jim Crow laws inspired Nazis to come up with their racial laws against Jewish people) as well as supporting/aiding governments with supremacist ideologies (such as the current Indian government that is fielded by the Hindutva supremacist movement).

    Glad you went Hitler first cuz he's the perfect example of a democrat-ish government thinking that appeasing an aspiring fascist might turn out good.

    This is exactly why we need to fight him on every front possible.

    If the fascists win at least it will go down in history (until they erase it) that we at least tried a little bit.

    Remember, it isn’t just fighting such leaders directly. A good way to steal power from those types is to alleviate the issues that make such people likable. Remember that Julius Caesar’s appeal to the people was partly made possible because of the Roman Senate’s inability to alleviate the issues the people have demanded the them to help but didn’t (such as food shortages and housing).

    The best way to have people’s faith in the institutions restored is having those same institutions providing relief and aid to the dire needs the people are dealing with.

    Impeaching him tells people like me who have voted both ways in elections that democrats don’t believe in actual democracy. This country like it or not voted who they wanted as president. Let them be the president and stop trying to deter them. The country wants to get rid of illegals, it is what it is. These past few months have started to make me realize democrats don’t care about democracy and want to do it via immigration via eventual amnesty or since they know we have amnesty. There are children of immigrants in congress who hate this country

    Well the things Trump is doing are illegal and worthy of impeachment. He supporting the violation of numerous constitutional rights. That is text book sedition

    "He supporting the violation of numerous constitutional rights. That is text book sedition"

    No, that's not "textbook sedition." Sedition is a conspiracy to overthrow the government.

    Violating the constitution is overthrowing the government. The constitution is the highest governing authority in the US. Trumps actions show that he wants his authority to override that of the constitution, so yeah sedition

    "Violating the constitution is overthrowing the government"

    No, it isn't. It's bad, but it's not the same thing as overthrowing the government.

    Yes it is sedition includes attempting to hinder or impede US law of which the constitution is the highest. Trump is definitely guilty of sedition. And I do think willfully attempting to violate the constitution is sedition. What if Trump said the entire constitution is no longer valid wouldn’t that be sedition?

    Show me what he has done that’s illegal. Even pelosi said he hasn’t done anything impeachable 

    It’s a long list. How about issuing an executive order that said the children of immigrants don’t have birth right citizenship which is directly contrary to the constitution. Or when he had students deported for exercising non-violent free speech which is a violation of equal protection in the 14th amendment and the first amendment. Not to mention the broad violations of due process which are continually being carried out by ICE which is under direct executive control. Violations that even the conservative Supreme Court said were illegal.

    Tell me this. Is there anything Trump, or another president, could do, that would make you think impeachment was the right response?

    Yes, no lawyer but I thought Biden should have been impeached for the way he handled the border. It was like he wanted all of these people to come into the country. Trumps handling on Venezuela right now is going down a path that if he takes it further I’d want him out on the basis of why do we care about Venezuelans right now when the country is struggling

    Edit: just realizing you called him a rapist, you really think he raped that girl who sued him? The one who did know the year it happened, said rape was sexy years after the fact, and didn’t bring it up during the first term

    I called him a rapist. I know you'll probably claim it wasn't "rape" under the NY civil code because he didn't use his dick.

    But yes, I believe he absolutely stuck his fingers up a woman's pussy without her consent which meets the dictionary definition of rape so yeah, he's a rapist.

    This is a behavior Trump is literally on tape bragging about.

    Also, Trump had the chance to testify on his behalf and refused to. And yes, that can be held against you in a civil suit.

    I didn't call him a rapist, that was someone else, but he has been accused of sexual misconduct from groping to rape by 28 women, and there is no question he entered underage girls' dressing areas while running Miss Teen USA.

    I think it's interesting that the things you would impeach presidents for are not crimes. How a president chooses to handle the border is their prerogative, within the bounds of law. Also interesting what you say about Venezuela. You don't seem concerned about the actual war crimes being committed by destroying boats and firing on survivors, but you would impeach for something that is not a crime, choosing to get involved with Venezuela, not because it would be illegal, but because you don't want it to happen. It seems your view is that impeachment is not for addressing high crimes and misdemeanors, but rather, for punishing a president you disagree with.

    [removed]

    Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

    Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

    If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

    Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

    Get that but it still feels like noise since everyone already knows where they stand and nothing changes

    Listen to yourself for a moment. "In the event our democracy survives"?? You've been fear mongering so hard you actually think the systems in place for decades will be upended because you dislike who won.

    Like if I incited an insurrection, told a state representative to find votes for me and then filed 60 lawsuits trying to overturn an election I lost?

    [removed]

    You don't want to talk about how conservatives have been claiming Democrats are literal demons and out to destroy America for over 40 years?

    Don't blame ya, buddy.

    Have fun covering for your pedo president.

    Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

    Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

    Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

    If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

    Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

  •  And second of all,the reason why i say the attempts to impeach him are preformative,is because lets be honest.the democrats know DAMN WELL there impeachment bills arent going to pass.

    This is such a silly reason to not do something. When you're in the minority, you should be advancing legislation that fails. You try to propose legislation, the minority votes for it, the majority votes against it, it fails, and the voting public gets to decide how they feel about the votes that their elected officials cast.

    And you know what, at least some moderate voters who voted Republican probably would like to see Hegseth removed, and they might be paying attention to how their representative votes on this. And what an absolute gift to the GOP and a slap in the face to those voters to just not even try. The representative from this district gets to straddle both sides of the issue, paying lip service to said voters concerns, but never having to actually cast a vote at all.

    As for trump just replacing incompetent appointees with more incompetent appointees (who need to be confirmed by a Republican Senate btw), he can do that, but it absolutely has consequences. Even if Trump's not running again, the clowns who rubber stamp his appointees might have elections coming up.

    Let the process run, even if the outcome is very likely. But make the majority actually cast the votes and run their reelection campaigns with their record. Don't let them completely dodge accountability.

    The majority of the general public don't vote based on the voting record of the elected officials during their previous term. I doubt the average voter has any idea on the specific names voting for or against specific legislation.

    I mean, political ads get blasted over the airwaves constantly. Obviously not everyone is aware of everything, but it's not like nobody knows or cares about their representatives' voting records during a reelection campaign.

    Political ads are more about promises for what they will do, rather than about voting records.

    I don't think that's true of negative attack ads?

    The argument is pretty flat to begin with. We should do nothing, because he's not going to see the consequences of his actions. Impeachment is a check to abuse of office. He has been abusing it, and should be impeached, regardless if he doesn't get removed.

    you do make a fair argument to an extent,but democrats have to use their position in the minority to do more then just try to impeach turmp.

    most voters already know that their republican congress officals wont impeach trump by this point,so instead of wasting time on impeachment,democrats need to propose bills on stuff the average american care about,such as medicare,healthcare,etc etc,not trying to impeach a president whos party has a goverment trifecta

    Americans don't care about healthcare. Or are clearly too stupid to figure out which party can actually make it more affordable.

    Democrats in the minority constantly introduce healthcare legislation. They just don’t control the agenda.

    Examples (not exhaustive):

    Medicare for All bills (Jayapal, Sanders, others) have been introduced multiple times.

    Lowering the Medicare eligibility age (to 60 or 55) has been proposed repeatedly.

    Prescription drug price caps and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices were Democratic priorities long before any partial version passed.

    Public option bills have been reintroduced session after session.

    ACA expansion, protection of pre-existing conditions, and Medicaid expansion incentives are routine Democratic legislation.

    The Republicans response:

    1. Democrats introduce bills

    2. Republicans block them

    3. Republicans say “Democrats didn’t do anything”

    4. Right-wing media repeats it

    5. Low-information voters absorb it

    Most voters do not follow legislative proposals, committee blocks, or procedural votes. They hear headlines.

    I'd way rather hear headlines about Dems impeaching Donald for something obviously problematic than hearing headlines about another health care bill being ignored.

    I don't think you can really explain how your strategy differs from what the Dems are currently doing, except you think they should avoid attempts that draw attention to Donald's problematic actions

     most voters already know that their republican congress officals wont impeach trump by this point

    I think you're underestimating the amount of weasel room republicans have in moderate swing districts. I think having the actual vote in record matters. If you don't have to put your name on a vote, it's way too easy to play both sides here.

     instead of wasting time on impeachment,democrats need to propose bills on stuff the average american care about,such as medicare,healthcare,etc etc,

    Aren't those votes going to fail too though? I don't see how any of those pass your above criteria either. But yes, they should also do that, and the nice thing about being in the minority where your bills fail or don't get taken up at all is it's pretty easy to do a lot of them. Propose all the things you want, and make the Republicans act (or not) on them.

    Whata the difference between a bill that won't pass to impeach and a bill that won't pass to reform healthcare in your eyes? They both rally support and generate media coverage for the minority party. Why not do both?

  • It may be performative but is not entirely a waste of time. That message it sends gives our country some dignity we could use in this nightmare.

    If you impeach a person twice, and then the public still rejects that and elects that person a second time, then yeah, it is a waste of time. Now when all you do is demand that the members of their administration resign, then it is boy who cried wolf over and over and over.

    I wish my party would focus on pushing for real legislation that fixes issues, not playing politics like extending temporary subsidies with the exact amount of time to use them in the next presidential election.

    My healthcare should not be used as a political tool.

    The best thing Democrats can do right now is get the fuck out of Trump's way, let him destroy the republican party with their dog shit policies.

    It is like raising kids: you can tell them "don't do that" as much as you want, but the best lesson they learn comes when they do precisely what you told them not to do and have a negative experience.

    fair point,but imo there are much more effective ways to send messages then spamming impeachemnt bills that get shot down every couple of weeks.

    Like what?

    focusing on winning elections,driving up and reforming party stragety,and proposing bills tht will benifit majority of americans that acc have chances of passing,if people see the democrats acc doing shit instead of mass spamming impeachment bills tht fail every time,then they will be more likely to support the party/see more as the party thats anti trump.

    They can do all of those things and continuously try to impeach. I think they should do it every single day possible, regardless of what anyone thinks. It reinforces the desire of the people, who currently have no other recourse in this mess. We want him out, so submit those articles of impeachment every damn day, let each one fail, and submit it again.

    you do realize that spamping the impeahcment bill will make it loose the power/agency at all right? impeahcment is important because of how rarely it is used.So if democrats did your idea of impeching every day,there threats of impechemnt would loose all its weight.

    ALSO you do know a good chunck of americans to put it frankly,do not like jd vance right?.So assuming impeachemnt did impass we would be stuck with vance as president,who is extremly unpopular and would continue majority of what trump is doing rn.

    Public education taught us how difficult an impeachment is from day 1. But it doesn't mean because it's hard no one should try. Name a more impeachable president to hold office. Because he's got the lead by miles

    Yeah and a 34 time felon usually spends at least 1 night in jail, so none of that shit means anything anymore. we impeach him his cabinet will go down with him

  • overall if Democrats do want to impeach trump,they need to wait untill 2027/after the 2026 midterms to do so

    They do want to impeach him again, but they also want Republicans to go on record defending him before the mid term vote.  They think he's wildly unpopular because of his policy and Republicans who stand up for him will be at a disadvantage in the election.

  • Firstly, politics is all about performance.

    More importantly, having these votes matters regardless of whether or not they pass for a few reasons, the biggest of which being that it requires elected officials to put their name beside an actual, firm stance.

    Let's do a hypothetical. Let's say the House tries to impeach RFK Jr. for harming the American public health system. This vote, of course, fails. Now let's say some time later a new disease pops up. Maybe it jumps from pigs to humans at a meat-packing plant in Texas or something. A lot of people get sick and die. Let's say it becomes clear that this disease would not have had a chance to cause these problems, or that we would have been able to get a handle on it with little trouble, had RFK Jr. not done the exact things that the articles of impeachment described. By having the vote, the people are able to see which politicians, specifically, knowingly, and concretely, voted in favor of letting him do it. It provides ample ammunition for opponents, and ties the elected officials to the cabinet officers' actions in perpetuity. They can't run from it or say, "Well I didn't know," because it would be very easy to show that, yes, they did know.

  • It might be preformative (sic) but that doesn't mean that it's a waste of time.

    The MoC's who are preforming are trying to show their dislike and outrage and disgust with T, which they hope will help them win the next election. Many GOP members did something similar by voting to eliminate Obamacare, even though they had no chance of actually making that happen.

    And unlike repealing Obamacare, impeaching T is actually possible.

  • [deleted]

    im talking about the ones that have been intrdouced recently by Shri Thanedar,and Al green.

    Ah, I’m out of the loop, didn’t even know that was going on. I’m deleting my post.

  • There are pretty much three ways out of this mess we’re in:

    1. Impeachment

    2. Voting him out

    3. Coup

    A coup is not a good thing, there’s pretty much no way that doesn’t end horribly. Military coups lead to military dictatorships, and a civil war would kill millions to tens of millions of people. So, unless things get really, really bad, a coup is probably not a net positive.

    As far as voting him out goes, that’s not possible for another 4 years. That’s 4 years that he has to consolidate power and rig the elections as much in his favor as much as possible, or 4 years to try to setup a situation where elections or cancelled without us being able to do anything about it.

    To be clear, we still need to vote against him, even if the election is rigged, because the more people that try to vote him out, the more he has to work to rig the election, which means the more likely he is to fail or the more likely it is to be obviously illegitimate, but we should also be doing whatever we can here and now.

    That leaves the option of impeachment. I’m not saying it’s a perfect option or especially likely to happen, but trying to get the votes to remove him from office is probably the best thing we can try to do right now. Maybe this doesn’t mean directly impeaching him right now, but conversations behind closed doors should be had to see which Republicans would be willing to defect and remove Trump from office, because that’s our best hope right now.

    In both previous impeachments of Trump, there were Republicans in the Senate that did break across party lines to vote to convict. There are most likely still a few Republicans willing to, in this case, do the right thing, if there’s significant enough of a scandal for them to vote for it, they’re just outnumbered by the ones who aren’t.

    As far as impeaching cabinet members goes, new cabinet members have to be approved with the advice and consent of the Senate. If you have enough votes to remove a cabinet member like Hegseth or RFK Jr from office, you’d presumably have the votes to stop Trump from appointing someone with the same issues at least. So no, removing RFK Jr from office isn’t completely pointless because that’s still a check the Senate has on the presidency.

    All of these calculuses also change pretty drastically if Democrats win back a majority, or even a supermajority, in one or both houses of congress. Right now, we’d need 5 House Republicans and 20 Senate Republicans in order to remove Trump from office. If Democrats were to win a 60% supermajority in both houses in the midterms (admittedly unlikely), this number would be brought down to just 7 Senate Republicans.

    For context, 7 Senate Republicans voted to remove Trump from office the last time he was impeached.

    The last thing I’ll note is that the more time Congress spends discussing Trump’s impeachment, the less time they discuss implementing all these horrible policies, and as others have mentioned, it’s good to have a record of who is for and who is against this kind of bullshit for upcoming elections.

  • Considering Democratic members of Congress don't have formal power to do much of anything (given the trifecta you mention) how can this or really anything be a waste of time? You say they are "wasting valuable time" but are they? They can't pass anything into law. What could they do with their time that isn't a waste of time?

  • The republicans hold a govmernet trifictea rn,.And impeachment to my knowledge requires 2/3rds of both chambers to vote in favor of it.

    It only requires a majority vote in the House and 2/3 of the Senate.

    And 2/3rds of a Republican controlled congress are NOT voting to remove him.So the attempts to do are extremly preformative and quite frankly,time wastley,as they are going to fail regardless.

    There is value in getting Republicans on record as having opposed it. You have to think to the future. I believe there will come a time when Republicans will be running away from the Trump legacy as hard as they did from Bush's. They'll all be pretending they were Never-Trump Republicans, or would've been (for the younger generations).

    I absolutely guarantee you that if Dems fail to impeach him we will hear some version of "I thought Trump went too far in his second term and would've voted to remove him if Dems had held a vote!". Or "I didn't know everything Trump was up to - Dems didn't even know, or they would've impeached him!"

    they need to stop wasting valueable time on preformative and wastefull impeachment bills and focus there efforts elsewhere.

    Such as? Republicans are calling all the shots in Congress. There's arguably nothing else they can do.

  • Especially for how little Republicans have done, everything they do is mostly performative leading up to elections. Though performative actions do help in elections, otherwise Congress wouldn't bother.

    If you're in a heavy democrat district, you can use your vote to impeach Trump to try and demonstrate you hate Trump more than your opponent, particularly in races which are less about ideas and more about "My policies are whatever is against Trump".

    Another one recently was a vote to condemn socialism. Absolutely zero policy determined there, but it speaks a little to both Congressional and national elections if most of one whole Party can't bring themselves to condemn socialism.

    It's also not entirely meaningless in that democrats have established precedent here. If the reasons for the vote are mostly meaningless or at least based on lies, it becomes established that whenever the majority of Congress or at least just the House is of a different party than the president, they'll have a vote for impeachment.

  • There is no way to impeach him right now anyway with republican majority in house and senate, and he’s going to win the midterms bigly after everyone gets their tariff dividend and housing continues to go down. By the midterms gas will be under a dollar and all the factory construction will be in full swing with more Americans employed no one will vote against that. Unfortunately the democrats keep pushing the worst policies in American history and it gives him no competition at all. His only competition is himself. Inflation is down and in 26 groceries will come down just in time for the midterms and he’s going to get supermajorities in federal and state congresses. Then he’s gonna go after his enemies which will make what Biden did seem like child play and with the national guard and military he will quash any violent protesters and insurrectionists so fast they will have almost no impact. If you are a leftist, prepare to have the worst 3 years of your lives.

  • yeah i totally get why it feels like theater when the math is so brutal, but i used to think the same and then watched the jan 6 hearings flip a bunch of folks in my red county. even when removal fails, the process itself forces ugly stuff into daylight-remember how trump’s first impeachment made 10 house republicans vote yes and scared mcconnell enough to leak that “i hate him” tape?

    the bigger thing is that letting corruption slide sets precedent. when kavanaugh lied under oath and nothing stuck, it normalized more of the same. re-nominating cronies costs capital too; devin nunes got bounced from intel chair after the ukraine stuff and never really recovered. plus investigations feed the 2026 campaigns-dem candidates are already running ads on rfk’s horse paste buddies.

    honestly curious, do you think oversight hearings without impeachment would land different, or is it all just noise till the votes flip?

  • > First off,even if the incompetent members of his admin like RFK and Hesgeth are removed...Then what? theres nothing preventing him from just reominating another person who is as bad or incomptent into the role,weve seen this happen multiple times during his first term

    part of impeachment proceedings are documenting what they did. subpoenaing records and testimony.

    one of the functions of congress is investigation.

    I think impeaching President Trump for posting on social media that he thought members of congress should be executed isn't reasonable. I think impeaching President Trump for saying on social media that he thought a judge should be impeached isn't reasonable.

    but, investigation and impeachment for misconduct, even when those impeachment votes have no chance to succeed, is reasonable.

  • the reason why i say the attempts to impeach him are preformative,is because lets be honest.the democrats know DAMN WELL there impeachment bills arent going to pass.

    The point is to get the rest of the Rs on the record supporting these scumbags. Trump will be gone eventually, but far-right politics isn't going anywhere, and most of the GOP are still going to be around in 2026 and onward. Most people, I think, expect the GOP that remain to distance themselves from Trump when he goes (same as they did in 2021), but getting them on the record voting to support him, his goons, and his politics makes it much harder for them to do that.

    This is about ensuring they wear the badge of Trump around their necks whether they want to or not.

  •  First off,even if the incompetent members of his admin like RFK and Hesgeth are removed...Then what? theres nothing preventing him from just reominating another person who is as bad or incomptent into the role,weve seen this happen multiple times during his first term..

    If that many gop senators actually voted to remove it’d mean they had enough of the outrageously incompetent ones and he needs senate approval 

     And second of all,the reason why i say the attempts to impeach him are preformative,is because lets be honest.the democrats know DAMN WELL there impeachment bills arent going to pass.

    What kind of logic is this haha, the other branch isn’t going to do their job, so why do ours? 

  • Performative isn't always bad though.

    In doing a thing that is itself performative we can still trigger other people to change their way of thinking. We can make people uncomfortable by making them say a thing. We can have our words resonate in unexpected ways.

    I do get what you're saying and I don't mean to totally dismiss your view, in politics it's probably better to be effective than morally correct.

    But pragmatism just isn't always satisfying. And there's nothing wrong with trying to impeach the impeachable.

  • [ Removed by Reddit ]

  • Trump isn't the only president that acts like an azz. Nixon had an issue or two, Kennedy couldn't keep his pants zipped, Clinton loved cigars, and Obama went on an apology tour to nearly every nation on this planet. For those of us that voted for Trump, many knew exactly what they were getting. Trump was not unheard of before all this. Why did we continue to vote for him? Because even with all his numerous flaws, he was still a better choice than a democrat.

  • You can’t ignore the damage this President and his administration have accomplished in a years time. Not attempting to hold them accountable is just a signal for the next narcissistic leader to try to turn our democracy into a dictatorship. The message must be loud and clear, the government works for all the people not just a select few. We must demand that those traitors, all of them are put before our courts and convicted of high crimes.

  • You're right that getting them removed isn't going to happen and wouldn't fix things anyway. This is about future elections, getting the evidence on the record and making Republicans vote to defend each other despite it.

    Yes, we need more Democrats to get rid of those people. This is part of the plan to get more Democrats in office. So, yes, it's performative, and it's politics, but there is an actual goal that they're working toward.

  • I mostly agree with you on the numbers—removal isn’t happening with a GOP trifecta, and everyone knows it. Where I disagree is that impeachment is only performative. It also creates a formal record, forces evidence into the open, and sets boundaries for what’s considered acceptable behavior. That said, it shouldn’t be the main focus right now; oversight, courts, and elections probably matter more in the short term.

  • And second of all,the reason why i say the attempts to impeach him are preformative,is because lets be honest.the democrats know DAMN WELL there impeachment bills arent going to pass.

    Swing district Republicans who do not support these impeachments will be attacked on that premise during midterm elections. Without impeachment, they're let off the hook because they can campaign on plausible deniability.

  • If democrats sweep the midterms it can absoloutly happen and would slow down the destruction of the constitution. It could also save many many lives by stopping the illigal war hes clearly starting over oil.

    As of now they dont have the votes. But even the blind are starting to feel his bad policy hurt them. And there is a big election less than a year away.

  • Has Trump committed impeachable offenses? Obviously, yes.

    If you're a member of congress, it is your duty to uphold the law and impeach him. We're lead by cowards.

    yes that is true,however if you acc read my post you would notice that i said that they should only try to impeach trump after the midterms/in 2027 if they acc have the numbers to do so.

    because if they keep impeaching without hving the votes to do so the republicans and trump are gonn stop giving a fuck about there threats to impeach and continue to do stuff thats impechable.As the impeachment threats/bills would loose all of their agency.

  • I think the reason it does matter is because it forces many of the representatives to showcase officially which side they land on these issues. It’s like with the Epstein files, before the dems had the votes to release them, they were still going to force a vote on it so that the republicans have to undeniably show they are against releasing the files.

  • My question would be, when do you think it wasn't performative, all this outrage ?

    The politicians are whipping you into a frenzy over Trump to make you into a loyalist. Their own voting patterns and the corruption behind the laws they pass is the real democrat not the fake outraged actor face they put on.

  • And impeachment to my knowledge requires 2/3rds of both chambers to vote in favor of it.

    No. Impeachment requires a bare majority of the House, one half plus one.

    Conviction in the Senate following an impeachment in the House requires 2/3rds of that chamber.

  • It’s not performative and a waste of time. It’s downright counterproductive and EXACTLY what Trump needs right now.

    The Democrats need to do the one thing they have consistently failed to do since 2015: LET TRUMP HANG HIMSELF!! He will destroy his own base if you just leave him alone and stop martyring him.

    He has already lost the independents and swing voters because of Gaza, Epstein, and Venezuela. And now, he’s even losing moderate conservatives and bit by bit even MAGA itself because of the absolute hypocrisy behind his Rob Reiner comments. Stop making him look like a victim to his base. Leave him alone and he will expose himself as a fraud.

    Instead of worrying about Trump, the democrats need to focus on winning back the center, and in particular white male voters. A lot of them have already turned against Trump but still won’t support democrats because of their rhetoric for the past decade. Instead of vilifying them constantly, now is the time to bring them back (many were Obama voters before turning to Trump) If they blow it, then those voters will just support the next republican.

  • WITH THE SHEER VOLUME OF POLITICIANS & CELEBS ON UTUBE, ABSOLUTELY LAYING OUT THE REMOVAL AND IMPRISONMENT OF DONALD TRUMP, I'M WONDERING IF HE KEELS OVER IN THE PROCESS?

    THANK YOU GOD ! ! !

  • It's about integrity, and accountability. Everything needs to be on paper. Otherwise, Democracy is degraded.

    Let's put it this way: years of Republicans "performative" politics has worked.

  • What do you mean by "focus [their] efforts elsewhere"? As you point out Republicans hold a trifecta, so what specifically do you want Democrats to do?

  • I agree with the only exception of RFK jr which would just get replaced by a "boring" republican health secretary which would be a huge improvement

  • If Dems win big in 2026 they can impeach without needing Republican votes, and they can be the deciders on who gets in next

  • Holding people accountable and enforcing the law, especially at the highest levels of power, is never a waste of time.

    Impeaching him is not holding him accountable.

    It doesn't even remove him from power, let alone confiscate his ill gotten gains, jail him or put his corpse on a spike.

  • Congress has attempted to impeach and remove Trump at least 13 times so far. So I’m forced to agree.

  • OH, IT'S ON LIKE DONKEY KONG AND TRUMP CAN'T FIRE ANY JUDGES.

    LIFE IS GOOD !

    THANK YOU GOD ! ! !

  • Well. . That viewpoint could readily extend to all of politics. Now we do nothing at all....

    Well there was that time y'all stormed the capitol in 2018, I can yee you trying it again.

    Don't give up! 127,651st times the charm. Surely this will mean the end of Trump's administration.

    I did no such thing.

  • IMO the current situation is beyond the comprehension of the framers of the constitution.

  • People need to be on record. At some point there will be enough votes

  • I think its clear at this point that the function of the government is to strategize how best to bleed the American people so billionaires and corporations can become even richer.

  • Did you proofread this post?

  • It is worse than pointless when it is baseless and has no chance.

  • why the remove the GOAT president???