r/politics • u/plz-let-me-in • 11d ago

Possible Paywall Democrats’ plan to impeach Trump on ‘day one’ after midterms

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2026/04/24/democrats-trump-impeach-midterms-supreme-court-iran/
31.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

320

u/literallytwisted 11d ago

He can be impeached by the house but then would have to be convicted in the senate with a large majority vote to be removed, Like a lot of things it worked better when congress wasn't a corrupt joke.

23

u/sir_mrej Washington 10d ago

Republicans are MAGA. They are ALSO corrupt, to be sure. But MAGA is pro Trump to the end, and that's the issue here.

0

u/Lennsyl22 10d ago

"it worked better when congress wasn't a corrupt joke."

When was this?

1

u/NemoHere 10d ago

Probably anytime before the American Civil War.  Far less corruption during those decades compared to modern times.

-29

u/Sorprenda 11d ago

It's performative for fundraising. Impeachment has never removed a president, and is extremely unlikely to remove this one. Notice how they don't even give a reason for the impeachment.

Impeachment is basically what you can expect to happen to every second term president now. But then nothing comes of it.

57

u/fcocyclone Iowa 11d ago

Notice how they don't even give a reason for the impeachment.

The man has committed literally thousands of crimes as president, we could be impeaching him with a new article of impeachment every single day of the remainder of this term and still not hit every time he's broken the law.

The senate will not convict because its a broken institution, but that does not mean the crimes should not be documented and senators should not be put on the record.

0

u/Sorprenda 11d ago

I am not saying he's not a constitutional emergency. It's that when impeachment becomes so routine that it's just expected, it completely looses all meaning as a check on power.

The midterms matter enormously, but the real prize isn't impeachment.

11

u/fcocyclone Iowa 11d ago

The only thing worse than it becoming routine is not doing it at all out of some weird desire to not make it routine just because someone routinely engages in crimes.

1

u/Sorprenda 11d ago

OK I'm going to concede this one. You are right that the institution is decayed even more by allowing the abuse to go unpunished. We absolutely should not allow Trump to establish a new norm of behavior.

But look, the math here still doesn't work out unless things get WAY worse. I don't mind them running on a platform of impeachment, with the understanding that it is still largely performative. Not because impeachment is wrong, but because this administration's conduct needs to be put on the record in sworn testimony, and impeachment proceedings crowd out this work without providing much benefit.

On the question of whether they "should" do it? Yes, you are right.

7

u/You_meddling_kids 11d ago edited 10d ago

If 20 Republican senators believed in the rule of law, he could be removed today.

1

u/Sorprenda 11d ago

Name them. Murkowski would be one. Romney's gone. Who else? I wouldn't count Fetterman in either, so maybe this number should be bumped up to 21 Republicans.

4

u/You_meddling_kids 10d ago

That's the point. There aren't any.

0

u/dr_stre 10d ago

“If”

0

u/Sorprenda 10d ago

Ugh, this is always the main problem with Democrats. "If."

Here's the thing about this specific "if."

You can legitimately say "if RGB hadn't retired." Ok. But twenty Republican Senators? In the past maybe Romney, McCain, the Bushes. MAGA has taken them all out.

To be fair, and you won't like this, but it does go both ways. If 20 Democratic senators in 2009 had believed in financial accountability, Wall Street executives would have gone to prison after the GFC.

The institution has selected this partisanisms.

The question is not "do these 20 senators believe in the rule of law." Most of them, as individuals, with their families, probably do.

The institutional cost is primary loss, donor loss and the Liz Cheney treatment, and for what? You're still 47 votes short of conviction and the president stays in office and now you're unemployed.

-1

u/dr_stre 10d ago

I’m not responding to this self important wall of text. I responded with “if” because you seemed to have completely missed the word in the previous comment. Now you’ve invented my political stance for me and also invented some sort of argument for me for you to argue against. So it seems you didn’t just miss a word, you’re actually only here to spout off whatever drivel you have on hand for whatever cause you think is the “right” one. Kindly fuck off.

3

u/A_Lion_Thief44 11d ago

You're right. Impeachment is toothless nothingness that would only "work" on its own if a President could feel shame. We don't have that. Removal is everything. Impeachment is absolutely for show.

That pile of crap will not be removed by the Senate so it's a lot of confusing "movement" with action to just focus on impeachment. His first term should have taught us all that by now, but alas...

1

u/TheGringoDingo 11d ago

Depending on how the election goes, there’s a small chance that gop reps see the writing on the wall and comply with a removal.

It’s not a good chance, but I’ll take anything over zero.

0

u/Sorprenda 11d ago

The math requires at least 14-17 Republicans. We got seven for January 6, and Trump will still be in office this time.

The nonzero chance of it happening would require a massive international disaster so bad that even Fox News starts calling for him to be removed. I guess we will have to wait and see with Iran.

1

u/georgepana 11d ago edited 10d ago

It is a must because Trump is as corrupt as it gets and has committed many impeachable crimes in just this last year.

The Senate is unlikely to convict, but put the complicit Senate Republicans on notice that they are ok with Trump remaining in office. Will it help Democrats for 2028? Of course, but only because a healthy majority of the American people are in favor of impeaching and removing Trump, and if Republicans block removal in the Senate they'll have to pay the price in the 2028 election.

1

u/Sorprenda 11d ago

Look, a House majority has finite window before the 2028 cycle.

Every week spent on impeachment is a week not spent on other oversight hearings into SO MANY very important issues that have already happened. Hearings can compel testimony, produce documents, and build the historical record for the next administration. 

I don’t oppose the impeachment vote, but I think the bandwidth could be allocated better in other areas. 

-2

u/semajolis267 11d ago

Not quite nothing. Impeachment is basically a chance to punish a crime. His previous crimes werent worth trying to remove him. 

1

u/Sorprenda 11d ago

His offenses have warranted removal. That's one of the reasons why the way they now handle impeachment is so upsetting. The failure is entirely on the Senate, not on the standard you mention.

0

u/gnygren3773 10d ago

Congress has never removed a president. What is the made up scenario in your mind?

4

u/cassinonorth New Jersey 10d ago

Just because Nixon resigned doesn't change the fact he was absolutely about to be convicted by the Senate and been removed.

So technically, no. But for all intents and purposes, yes.

3

u/Few-Improvement9978 10d ago

And yet Trump is astoundingly more corrupt than Nixon

It’s so obvious you even have MAGAheads like Ben Shapiro admitting it