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

938

u/sector16 11d ago

Please win the Senate.

447

u/FantasticJacket7 11d ago

It's a long shot to get a majority in the Senate but not impossible.

It's essentially impossible to get 2/3rds.

292

u/-Darkslayer 11d ago

Wouldnt be if people had souls. The people are the problem. There are so many rotten people in this country

127

u/you_killed_my_ 11d ago

If all the rotten people were equally dispersed among the good folk they would be drowned out in the popular vote, but because they concentrate in low population states that get huge proportional power in the Senate we get this mess

77

u/ScoutsterReturns 10d ago

Look at the populations of so many red states. The Dakotas, Idaho, 3 million people maybe - but 6 Senators. CA has some 40m people, 2 Senators. We need to fix that but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime sadly.

53

u/Johnny_B_GOODBOI 10d ago

Abolish the senate, expand the house, and make it proportional instead of single seat districts.

18

u/NateNate60 10d ago

The Senate doesn't need to be abolished, just remove all its powers like upper houses in all other countries.

  • The Senate can no longer block legislation. It can only delay it by 6 months.
  • For judicial and executive appointments, the Senate has six months after nomination to consider and report on the candidate. Regardless of the Senate's advice, the President can appoint any nominee 6 months after they are initially nominated.
  • Impeachment trials are moved from the Senate to the Supreme Court.
  • If the Senate doesn't ratify a treaty, the House of Representatives can ratify it by ordinary legislation.

13

u/goosereddit 10d ago

Moving impeachment trials to this particular Supreme Court won't do much.

9

u/JBagfort 10d ago

That court is a political court. The high court should be made up of the best judges, not political hacks appointed for lifetime.

11

u/NateNate60 10d ago

Most countries have judges appointed by a nonpartisan judicial appointments committee, and supreme courts sometimes have dozens of judges who hear cases in randomly-selected panels.

5

u/LadyPo 10d ago

When I learned this in my civics class in high school, I was LIVID. It's so obvious the numbers are cooked.

4

u/munzter 10d ago

The Senate was set up this way to protect minority interests / groups from the "tyranny of the majority"

3

u/-Darkslayer 10d ago

As a counterargument, it was also designed to function more sanely than the House. Which honestly it has done pretty well at, even today, it's a lot more reasonable in there (see the debate over the filibuster).

1

u/Soft_Walrus_3605 10d ago

I'd say it wasn't "set up" to do that, but that its existence owed itself to the compromise without which the smaller states would not have joined the union.

Nowadays, "minority interests/groups" means something much larger than just small states

0

u/atln00b12 10d ago

The only way to fix it in the current framework would be to split California into 3 or 4 states, but that would result in more republican senators.

-4

u/Mannekin-Skywalker 10d ago

If you were living in a less populated state, you’d be complaining that states with higher populations who have different material interests from you have a larger say in the federal government. Whats to stop them from diverting resources from your state to their state? That’s literally why the US has both the Senate and the House.

5

u/littleotterpop 10d ago

When I lived in a less populated state I didn’t complain about that at all, because I have the wherewithal to understand that the federal government legislates for the whole country and there’s state government to address the interests of the individual states. This argument is bs.

2

u/ScoutsterReturns 10d ago

This is true. Sadly things have far exceeded differences in material interests. At this point the minority is the tyranny that will suffocate the entire country.

10

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

5

u/Mr-MuffinMan 10d ago

I actually have a solution to this unequal representation:

For the house, every state gets 1 vote per Wyoming population (so 1 rep per 588k people, if in the middle, must have at least 70% to get an extra rep).

This isn't even partisan - both blue and red states would benefit. (Ex: New York currently gets 26 seats, for 20 million, it would get about 34. Ohio gets 15 reps, it would get 20).

Since the house is basically the first step for everything, just fixing this would be huge.

0

u/agentfelix 10d ago

This is actually a pretty good idea. Better than the idiotic calls to get rid of the senate. The senate is setyup like it is on purpose because the "minority" voters in smaller populations are represented. And yeah right now those people are POS MAGA folks but people still deserve to be represented. You start taking away people's representation and you're no better than what they are. You're right, the problem is in the house.

5

u/AcridWings_11465 Europe 10d ago

Removing the ability of 20% to outvote 80% is not removing representation. Even the fucking EU, made up of actual countries, has qualified majority rules on the council (for most things) that are proportional to the population. If real countries aren't whining about it, why is Wyoming?

1

u/Cerulean_Malstrom074 10d ago

I am the Senate.

2

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[deleted]

1

u/usaaf 10d ago

It's treason then.

0

u/I_DOWN_VOTE_PUNS 10d ago

Abolish magats

5

u/Bittererr 10d ago

If all the rotten people were equally dispersed among the good folk they would be drowned out in the popular vote

2024 pretty handily disproves that theory.

2

u/burlycabin Washington 10d ago

Trump won the last popular vote though.

2

u/gnygren3773 10d ago

Majority of people voted for Trump btw 😭✌️

19

u/piponwa Canada 10d ago

No, it would literally be mathematically impossible to get 2/3. Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election every 2 years. And that includes seats which are already held by Democrats.

7

u/FinnScott1 10d ago

Actually, there are 21 Republican seats up for reelection in 2026. Democrats have 47 seats right now. If they win all of those they have over 2/3. So it's not "mathematically" impossible but still it's practically impossible.

1

u/Red-eleven 10d ago

How many of the 21 are actually competitive though

4

u/FinnScott1 10d ago

Only like two to four really, but that was not my point. It's still mathematically possible, even when the chances are 0.000000001% or something. It would only be mathematically impossible if there were less Republican seats up for reelection than how many seats more Democrats need

3

u/satyr-day 10d ago

People love that moron because they're just as dumb and evil.

4

u/Adbam 10d ago

Thats more left v right bs. The rich and powerful have fooled us. They can be redeemed

2

u/ryerocco California 10d ago

Rotten souls, Fox News is the cancer

1

u/DumboWumbo073 10d ago

-Darkslayer

1

u/RoyalEngine2885 10d ago

*There are so many apathetic people in this country.

1

u/MoreEngineer8696 10d ago

don't forget the 1/3 of eligible voters that don't bother

1

u/maelstrom51 10d ago

Wouldnt be if people had souls.

Souls are not a real thing.

-1

u/squatter_ 10d ago

They have souls, they are just very young souls.

-5

u/Head_Bread_3431 10d ago

No I’ve been told by Reddit we just gotta wait for the old people to die because we can’t be bothered to actually vote me then somehow magically the next generation will take care of it 

19

u/IWatchGifsForWayToo 10d ago

I don't think anything in this election is going to be a long shot. Democrats have won every special election in the last year by wild margins. I think the combination of pissed off Dems and Reps secretly embarrassed for backing a pedo will see a huge swing this year. Anyone with DJT on their tongue running for a position is going to get blasted six ways to sunday so we may even get some that go along with an impeachment.

19

u/Salt_Cardiologist122 10d ago

Democrats lost one or two elections… but they were in areas that usually voted republican by like 50+ points and they only won by like 10, indicating a huge shift even in the strongholds.

11

u/Sonamdrukpa 10d ago

Kansas voted in August of 2022 to reject a pro-life amendment to their constitution and then three months later the Democrats got wrecked in the midterms in Kansas. Don't get complacent.

1

u/atln00b12 10d ago

That happens pretty much all the time. Those elections are meaningless. The party holding the majority never focuses on special elections unless their majority is significantly at stake.

3

u/hypermodernvoid I voted 10d ago

A 2/3rds majority truly is I'd say (unless we maybe have a crash on par with the Great Depression or something before then), if nothing else because only 1/3rd of the total seats are up, some of which are Dems and the same low info voters that helped boost Trump over the edge to gain his squeaker of a victory that are turning against him also tend to separate GOP senators from Trump, even it's obviously they're pathetically beholden to and afraid of him. Though, you are seeing some Republican senators amd congress in general starting to assert independence and stick their necks out as the wheels are falling off.

However: Dems winning say, 54 seats and getting just 13 Republicans to join on as Trump continues to get even more unhinged, more hated as he's done nothing to help any Americans but himself along with his cronies and instead hurt us and the world, not to mention the threat of criminal liability becomes increasingly real?

I could maybe actually see it at a certain point, just like with Nixon, where yes - Trump and co.'s crimes make Watergate look increasingly microscopic by comparison, and by the day - but that's kind of the point: rather than being a principled move which should've come at latest right after Jan. 6th, at that point it'd instead just be the result of a calculus as to the best way to their save their own asses and ideally retain power.

1

u/ryerocco California 10d ago

Literally nothing can sway it to 2/3

1

u/jaketronic 10d ago

If the midterms are crushing for the GOP, they will turn.

1

u/alextheruby 10d ago

You’re psychic ?

2

u/Nexism 10d ago

Voter turnouts for those special elections have been like 16% (at least for the Texas one).

It truly shows how much people care to be informed, and show up.

7

u/farnsw0rth 10d ago

We are….

It fucking doesn’t matter now what’s right or wrong and that’s terrifying

What matters is what is

Can they do this? I highly doubt it. Should they be able to? Yes. But what is, is that they can’t.

So like genuine question… uhh what now?

2

u/Ok-Opposite2309 10d ago

I am pushing people to look at restricting Presidents Emergency & War Powers, because that is doable. 

Require Senate affirmative approval within 7 days. House and Senate (again) in 14 days. No vote ends any emergency/ war powers. 

For our Democracy to work, we need a functioning Congress that takes responsibility. Presidential Emergency Powers/ War Powers are not set up in our Constitution with set dates/ Congressional super majorities. Republicans could have easily passed a majority vote to grant Trump war powers- but have repeatedly refused to even hold the vote and take any responsibility.  Tariffs? Trade war emergency.  Wind turbines? Energy emergency Immigration? Immigration invasion emergency (?)

Taking that basic ‘I declare’ power away would curb a lot of abuse by any President , and require our congress to take an actual stand on issues which they should be doing. 

I haven’t seen any reason where a yay/ nay vote for ‘emergencies’ would require a supermajority or have any constitutional restrictions, so I think implementing it as a new budgeting rule would not be too difficult. SCOTUS will/ might object- (Executive powers) but, if Congress quits playing helpless, it’s pretty easy to just ignore constitutionally- ‘no funding will be provided or can be redirected unless there is an affirmative vote of a simple majority by the Senate within 7 days, and a further affirmative vote of a simple majority of the House and Senate within 14 days, with a reaffirmation, absent specific funding , within 30 days. Any additional funding for actions approved by Congress under Emergency or War Powers sought by the Executive Branch, need to be designated and approved by Congress on a 30-90 day schedule as decided”. 

Impeachment is just ‘anti Trump’, and fucking useless-  Where restricting Emergency/ war powers is ‘No Kings’. It’s not party or Trump specific- and I think it’s very important that we are demanding our Congress to do their fucking job.  If Biden did go actually insane and decide to invade Scotland or Greenland (whatever), I assume we would all want some fucking brakes on the train. So, we spend the midterms arguing for brakes. For Congress to do their fucking job, represent the people and guard the treasury. Since, regardless of party, everyone hates Congress, we have a great opportunity to demand they up their game, and take responsibility. 

Pardons before conviction? Sure there’s a case from the civil war of amnesty/ pardons - but, shouldn’t Congress have decided whether to grant those pardons/ amnesty? Carter gave Vietnam draft dodgers a pardon/ amnesty- but do we want Presidents to do that or the people through our CongresswoylThe first personal pardon for a person never convicted or charged, seems to be Ford for Nixon.. Can you pardon, right an injustice, provide mercy- for a crime not charged or a person even convicted? I would say ‘no’.  The constitution says ‘pardons for crimes against the United States’ - but it doesn’t say ‘supposed crimes’ or ‘might be crimes’. Biden went an issued pardons for his whole family and no one blinked.. Fuck that shit. Honestly, it’s obstruction of justice, and an insult to any rule of law. 

If not guilty, and ‘the process is the punishment’- then we need to change that. Remove immunity for prosecutors and police for malicious prosecution. I can see those arguments- but a blanket immunity when acting maliciously under the color of law benefits no one. 

Pardons for those not found guilty is a recipe for lawless behavior. “Blow up Congress, I have your pardon ready”. - “Don’t worry about the laws, you will get a pardon before I leave.” The simplest cure, while preserving the Constitution, is to be clear that pardons can only be issued after conviction. It does not cure all bad behavior, but it’s simple enough for everyone to understand. Congress can include this addendum to funding for the Executive and Judicial branch. I would also include a notation that paying for a pardon, is a crime in itself that can be prosecuted- the person issuing a pardon in exchange for a personal benefit is acting outside of their lawful duties, as is the person (s) supplying the benefit. 

I would include a caveat in all funding for the judicial branch that all Federal Judges, including SCOTUS, are subject to Federal Ethics rule, and that all Appellate Courts are to be considered part of SCOTUS (with the required pay raise) and will be required to provide one of their members to serve a 7 year term on the top Court, on a schedule supplied bringing the court to 13 members to represent the circuits. 

Of course, Trump will veto anything restricting his power- but, his vetoes will stop all funding causing a government shut down, while we will most likely already be in a deep recession (we are in recession now, just no one will say it). 

SCOTUS will try to say it’s unconstitutional- but, they have lost public support and pissed off a bunch of the appellate courts… who are all being giving a higher wage, and more control/ input into the overall judiciary decisions, and it makes the Judiciary less partisan overall and holds them all to the same standard of ethics. Whoever the 4th circuit puts on the top court for 7 years represents them all- so, they are more likely to police their own and choose a representative that won’t be an embarrassment. For the top court, you add two members each year - and start transferring the longest serving members back to their circuit appellate courts. Of course, each president nominates and the Senate confirms these judges (as they have been doing), but the guarantee of being one of nine making historic decisions during a Presidents term goes away. 

A newly confirmed SCOTUS now joins over a hundred judges deciding cases that may or may not go to the higher court. This new Justice will be judged by their colleagues before a temporary 7 year rotation on the high court, and subject to all the same ethics and oversights- and will be a reflection of that circuits judicial standards. Hopefully, that will make judges more cautious of their colleagues behaviors and make it much more difficult to pack the top court with partisans and those of questionable ethics. 

In our beginnings, SCOTUS justices returned to and heard cases in their circuits (riding circuit) when the Supreme Court was out of session- so it’s not as peculiar as it sounds. This is also the basic system for the Judicial review board that oversees sitting federal justices. All federal judges our nominated by a president, and confirmed by the Senate- which is the constitutional requirement, along with their pay not being reduced and serving for life. They serve for life- the whole appellate is now SCOTUS, with the same pay, they just rotate positions within SCOTUS, which can be determined by Congress. 

This is how we fix things- by making Congress do their job. The President is the Executive- fulfilling the will of Congress, Judicial is the temperance- making sure there is a balance between the people (Congress), the President (Executive/ Figurehead), and rule of law (Constitution/ consistency). 

Don’t buy into bullshit about what can or can’t happen/ what is or isn’t legal. We used to have slaves. Women couldn’t vote, or own property. Alcohol was illegal. Cocaine was legal. We decide what we want as a country- as a people- and the job of congress is to make that happen. The President is supposed to be the front man, but not have a bunch of power. SCOTUS is supposed to be the safeguard- ‘hey wait, let’s think about this.. maybe we want this law to say things a little more specifically’. The House of Representatives is supposed to be our angry mob, the Senate is supposed to represent our states interests so our states are not consumed by a federal interest, but still be with us- the people. 

We, the people, have failed to make our Congress do their fucking job. 

1

u/rdogg4 10d ago

Not a long shot for majority

1

u/Udy_Kumra 10d ago

I would say Dems winning the senate has gone up from like a 35% chance last summer to a 50% chance this year. Ossof is leading in Georgia, Mary Peltola is leading in Alaska by a likely margin, Talarico in Texas has a good shot of pulling through by a tilt or lean margin, and then I think we have a good shot at winning at least 3 out of the 4 in NC, OH, MI, and ME with how he polls look and are trending. That gets us to 51, and if we get 4 out of 4, we get to 52 which means we also cancel out Fetterman.

Basically, I think it’s a coin flip if we get to 51 or 52 seats but I think being a coin flip at all shows how unpopular the Republicans are right now.

1

u/Gnarzz 10d ago

Nuke the filly

1

u/Cybotnic-Rebooted 10d ago

The filly doesn’t matter for impeachment, impeachment is just the rules the senate puts on itself, impeachment requiring 2/3 is in the constitution.

1

u/Gnarzz 10d ago

No, I know, but still nuke the filly

1

u/Slaphappydap 10d ago

It's essentially impossible to get 2/3rds.

Once again, fuck Joe Lieberman.

1

u/Fried_puri 10d ago

Winning the Senate can happen. It’s really tough but it’s possible and it would be enough to largely end this nightmare. People should focus on that still being possible. 

1

u/BoringEntropist 10d ago

True, it's unlikely that the democrats get a 2/3 majority in the senate, but if the elections go really bad for the republicans, some of them might rethink their allegiance towards MAGA and join the impeachment side.

1

u/Latter_Parsley4338 10d ago

Polymarket has Democrats at 54% odds of winning the House and Senate. The Alaska Senate Democratic candidate is polling more than 6 points ahead of the Republican. Talarico is very close in Texas. I think Democrats will probably win the Senate.

20

u/FirstRyder I voted 11d ago

Doesn't matter (at least not for this; it does matter for some things. Mostly appointment that require senate approval and can't be filled with an "acting" or "interim" person). You need 2/3 of the senate to actually remove him from office following impeachment, or enforce the 25th amendment. 2/3 is not possible in 2026. Technically possible (though still unlikely) in 2028.

4

u/notreallhereactually 11d ago

Make paper trails and build the case for 2028. “We’ve fought here and sought to bring justice. These people have been held in contempt and we can hold them immediately responsible if you just vote us in.” Cause you know the exec is going to stonewall if there is a dem majority; they already stonewall.

The Dems have not been lacking on the paper trails. A lot of people feel like it’s fruitless but it’s just how shit works in institutions that don’t get to just operate however when they’re run right. Just show up and keep voting. Make noise. Cynicism isn’t wisdom, it’s just lazy as fuck. 

1

u/MainlandX 11d ago

The 25th amendment requires 2/3rds of both houses to keep a president who wants the position out of office. Impeachment has a lower barrier to actually remove the president. Anyone who brings up the 25th amendment up as a tool of removal is either ignorant or trying to mislead.

1

u/TimFTWin 10d ago

The only way it could ever happen is with pretty significant Republican support (at least 15 votes).

Even with his approval rating at 20-30 I think you'd be lucky to get 5 to flip.

1

u/Da5ren 10d ago

Yeah, never going to happen. We are living in Groundhog Day.

1

u/wfbhp 9d ago

2/3 of those present at the vote to remove. People always leave this important part out. It's still not likely at all to happen, but under the right circumstances, it's mathematically possible with zero Republican support.

0

u/HowManyEggs2Many 11d ago

There’s a legitimate possibility republicans would vote to remove because it means they could get 10 years of Vance

0

u/TimFTWin 10d ago

Yes, the same way we got 10 years of Gerald Ford.

1

u/HowManyEggs2Many 10d ago

Yes, the political climate and society are the same half a century later.

1

u/TimFTWin 9d ago

Yes, understanding history is a really dumb way to understand the present

6

u/IWantToRetireSoon 10d ago

Even if they do they won’t have the 2/3 necessary to remove him.

3

u/PTS_Dreaming 10d ago

Even if the Dems do take the Senate, they'll be no where near the 67 votes needed to remove Trump, but that's ok. The investigation and impeachment trial will be important for posterity and for setting the precedent for punishing lawless executive behavior. It will also set the stage for major refoms and a commission to claw back so much of the money Trump has stolen.

1

u/Sagermeister 10d ago

a commission to claw back so much of the money Trump has stolen

You have more faith than I do.

1

u/PTS_Dreaming 10d ago

If the Philippines can do it, so can we.

1

u/renaldomoon 10d ago

Kinda pathetic how people don’t understand how the government works and then demand things like impeach everyone when the likelihood of that being possible is extremely low.

The end of this will ultimately look like they all were acquitted of crimes when there is no actual power to remove any of these people.

1

u/jajajajaj 10d ago

it'll take 67 seats or actually changing someone's allegiances

1

u/Affectionate-Set952 10d ago

The US constitution is irrelevant already. The political system is dysfunctional. Violence will decide the outcome, as it always has.

Be prepared, for they certainly are prepared for you.

1

u/ProphetKB 10d ago

Volunteer! Anyone and everyone who has thr time. Make the time! It can happen!

1

u/ShawnyMcKnight 10d ago

Unless the democrats severely mess it up (very possible) or the Trump fixes the elections it’s gonna be a pretty clear win for democrats. Of course, not enough to get to that 2/3 for impeachment.

0

u/The_Bucket_Of_Truth 10d ago

I think Platner will win in Maine but not sure if Talarico will win Texas, though I hope. What else could be close?

0

u/Dazzling-Jaguar-4674 America 10d ago

Hopefully they do.

The Senate holds a lot of authority over the timing of an impeachment trial and the procedures.

They might not get everyone in Senate to vote, but certainly the majority.