Article of Impeachment filed against Trump

[knapplc]

This won't succeed in a Republican-controlled House, but it will force House Republicans to put their names on a document defending Trump, which could be important in the 2018 mid-terms.

 

 

House Democrat files article of impeachment against Trump

 

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) formally introduced an article of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday that accuses the president of obstructing justice during the federal investigation of Russias 2016 election interference.

 

This is the first time a lawmaker has offered an impeachment article against Trump, and comes despite concern among Democrats that taking such aggressive action against Trump will create backlash against the party.

 

A majority vote in a House now controlled by Republicans is required to impeach a president. Republicans have a 24-seat advantage.

 

Sherman argues that Trumps abrupt firing of James Comey as FBI director in May amounts to obstructing justice and "high crimes and misdemeanors" amid the probes of whether Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian government to swing the election.

 

He cites Comeys allegations that Trump pressured him to drop the FBIs investigation into ousted former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn, as well as Trumps shifting story on why he fired Comey.

 

White House officials initially pointed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosensteins memo criticizing Comeys handling of the FBIs investigation into Hillary Clintons use of a private email server. But Trump later said in an NBC News interview that the Russia probe was on his mind when deciding to fire Comey.

 

In all of this, Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office, the article of impeachment states.

 

Shermans article is unlikely to succeed in the GOP-controlled House.

 

The California Democrat said that he hoped introducing an article of impeachment would serve as a warning to the Trump White House and establish a legislative vehicle in the unlikely event Republicans endorse forcing Trump out of office.

[Nebfanatic]

I'd go after him on his business entanglements too, but that's just me.

[NM11046]

I thought there was a Texas representative that also put articles forth a few weeks ago ....

[ZRod]

I'd rather he not do this right now. We could wait until the investigtion by Muller wraps up. The Dems cannot afford to leave any doubt that Trump should be impeached.

[BigRedBuster]

I'd rather he not do this right now. We could wait until the investigtion by Muller wraps up. The Dems cannot afford to leave any doubt that Trump should be impeached.

I agree, this is way too early.

 

If/when this does go through, Muller's investigation needs to be complete and the evidence so clear that even many of his supporters realize he needs to go.

[Nebfanatic]

Right. Trying to impeach on Russia allegations seems a little premature at this point. Patience...now impeaching for emolument would be a different story

[Red Five]

Now this is the definition of a "Nothing Burger"

[JJ Husker]

Maybe Sherman picked the 6 month to 1 year time frame in the Huskerboard impeachment timing poll

[zoogs]

Hm, I don't know. My first thought was, what in the world took so long?

[JJ Husker]

Hm, I don't know. My first thought was, what in the world took so long?

I sort of agree but for it to get through the house there will have to be overwhelming and unavoidable evidence that the repubs can't hide from.

 

I don't know the rules on this I guess. Can the Senate start impeachment proceedings, or is it just a house thing? Seems it would stand a better chance in the senate. Still it probably is a bit premature. If they make too many runs at it, it just provides him the opportunity to poo poo it later when it is more substantial.

[Danny Bateman]

Articles of impeachment must originate in the House. They'd have to be confirmed but the Senate. That hasn't ever happened. Clinton and Andrew Johnson were the only two ever impeached by the House.

I think you'd still need 2/3 majority in the Senate, which seems implausible given the current political climate. I don't know if you could come up with ~18 GOP Senators with that kind of spine. They'd be really ticking off the base.

 

All of this is a moot point until Mueller completes his investigation, and he'd have to find some really bad stuff for them to go forward on this. They won't dare let this get in the way of their agenda.

[RedDenver]

Articles of impeachment must originate in the House. They'd have to be confirmed but the Senate. That hasn't ever happened. Clinton and Andrew Johnson were the only two ever impeached by the House.

 

I think you'd still need 2/3 majority in the Senate, which seems implausible given the current political climate. I don't know if you could come up with ~18 GOP Senators with that kind of spine. They'd be really ticking off the base.

 

All of this is a moot point until Mueller completes his investigation, and he'd have to find some really bad stuff for them to go forward on this. They won't dare let this get in the way of their agenda.

Not quite. The House issues articles of impeachment, but the Senate doesn't confirm them. Next the Senate then has a trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. From Wikipedia:

At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him or her from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

[Danny Bateman]

 

Articles of impeachment must originate in the House. They'd have to be confirmed but the Senate. That hasn't ever happened. Clinton and Andrew Johnson were the only two ever impeached by the House.

 

I think you'd still need 2/3 majority in the Senate, which seems implausible given the current political climate. I don't know if you could come up with ~18 GOP Senators with that kind of spine. They'd be really ticking off the base.

 

All of this is a moot point until Mueller completes his investigation, and he'd have to find some really bad stuff for them to go forward on this. They won't dare let this get in the way of their agenda.

Not quite. The House issues articles of impeachment, but the Senate doesn't confirm them. Next the Senate then has a trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. From Wikipedia:

At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him or her from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

 

 

Well said my friend. Poorly worded on my part.

[TGHusker]

I agree wt others - too early. Get the investigations concluded. Go to the plate wt a heavy bat that has a chance to knock the ball out of the park wt the weight of evidence.

[TGHusker]

Politico asks "Is Trump Fit (physically) to be president

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/is-the-president-fit-215385