On Wednesday at 9:00 AM EST, the U.S. House of Representatives, controlled by Democrats, plans to vote on an article of impeachment against President Donald Trump. The article they introduced today was for “incitement of insurrection” following last week’s riots at the U.S. Capitol. On Tuesday evening, they’ll also vote on a resolution urging Mike Pence to invoke the 25th amendment as a means to removing Trump from office. 

Personally, I think the Democrats are doing the right thing here: For themselves, the Republicans, and the country. How this helps them is obvious: Trump committed an impeachable offense by using rhetoric that encouraged rabid supporters of his to go bananas and storm the Capitol. The Democrats have branded themselves as not being afraid to take on Trump and hold him accountable. By impeaching him on Wednesday, they’ll keep their base of voters happy. 

By first urging Trump to resign and Pence to invoke the 25th amendment, they’re also not coming off as though they are rushing this. Their message to the White House has been “We’re putting the ball in your court for the next 72 hours but if you don’t do the right thing, we’ll snatch the ball from you and take matters into our own hands for the sake of the country.” That way when they do impeach Trump on Wednesday, they can say “Hey, there were other options on the table, but you chose to ignore them. Now we have to do this.” 

There’s also the added advantage of forcing Republicans to put their money where their mouth is and actually go on record with how they’ll vote. If Republicans screw this up, they could make matters even worse for themselves than they already are. 

As for how this helps the Republicans, the Democrats are giving them another opportunity to repudiate Trump. If Trump gets convicted by the Senate after inauguration day, that will allow the Senate to then, with simple majority, vote on whether or not Trump can hold federal office again. Stripping Trump of his powers to ever hold Federal office again has to appeal to the Republicans. It allows them to officially move on from him, circle the wagons, and heal as a party. So, in case you are wondering why impeachment can still work after Trump leaves office, that’s why. There’s the opportunity to formally ban him from ever holding federal office again. Something that has been done before with other federal officials who’ve been impeached after their terms are done. E.g. Judges. 

As for how this helps the country, it sends a firm message to future candidates that they can’t get away with what Trump has done. That there is a line that can be crossed and that the United States of America won’t allow treason to go unpunished. 

It should be interesting to see how this all shakes out. I can’t believe I’m writing about impeachment again! Crazy times for sure. 

House Democrats plan to vote Wednesday to impeach TrumpHouse Democrats plan to vote Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told Democrats on a caucus call Monday, setting up an impeachment vote one week after rioters incited by Trump overran Capitol police and breached some of the most secure areas of the US Capitol.www.cnn.com

Republicans are uninterested in holding trump accountable. They refused to accept any responsibility for encouraging him for the last four years. No they have instead learned that they can get away with even more lies than they were previously spewing. USA is in some serious trouble. It’s heading towards a minority party ruling indefinitely and at some point that party will be ruled by a dictator. That’s where it’s been heading for a while now and I see no changes forthcoming.

You could be right, though I do think what Trump has done has finally done him in. Lots of Republicans are FINALLY distancing themselves from him.

USA is in some serious trouble. It’s heading towards a minority party ruling indefinitely and at some point that party will be ruled by a dictator.

Sounds possible, with help from corporations who by and large have no use for actual democracy. But since communism isn't the solution, then what is the middle of the road and how to get there?

It is legal for Congress to impeach him, but I think that it would have been illegitimate for Pence to have invoked the 25th amendment. Technically speaking, the language of the 25th amendment does not apply to this kind of a situation.

It is my opinion, that America is headed towards an oligarchy. This direction is taken by those who want to ignore what laws actually say and let judges (or in this case, Pence) invoke whatever policy they want regardless of what the words of the law actually say. The so-called "living constitution" philosophy opposes the democratic process and would destroy the separation of powers.

Do you think Citizens United is helping drive us toward oligarchy?

They haven’t given up on his tactics. Most haven’t called him out. Most haven’t said most of what he says is lies. They continue gerrymandering to an extent never seen. It’s still heading in the wrong direction. USA democracy is in very serious trouble.

Have to get back to where you were in the 70s and 80s and 90s.

Good argument.

Are they basically a Christian group trying to get Christianity back into politics?

I'm not familiar with them.

My argument holds for any group, conservative or liberal, who wants to circumvent the separation of powers and give a few people the ability to determine what is law without a democratic process for changing the law.

For example, there is a democratic process for changing what the constitution says. It requires the participation of the elected legislators of the various states. Although that process is slow, it is democratic. Some people want to replace it by allowing SCOTUS to change tha constitution by calling it a "living constitution." That process is not democratic.

What I am discussing is not about the policies determined by amendments but rather the process by which the laws are changed.

It is legal for Congress to impeach him, but I think that it would have been illegitimate for Pence to have invoked the 25th amendment. Technically speaking, the language of the 25th amendment does not apply to this kind of a situation.

I wonder, what exactly are you basing your position on?

In my opinion, the phrase "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" is at least a bit unclear. More specifically, the 25th amendment does not clarify what "unable" is supposed to mean. The fact that, according to an earlier paragraph, the president can also declare himself "unable" suggests that this must be something quite a bit less drastic than, say, a coma, a stroke or any sort of hostage situation.

Just looking up the 25th amendment on Wikipedia, it seems as if this is actually not an oversight but by design. Quoting from that page (link below):

John Feerick, the principal drafter of the amendment,[3]:xii,xx[4]:5[9] writes that Congress determined that "a rigid constitutional definition [of the terms unable and inability] was undesirable, since cases of inability could take various forms not neatly fitting into such a definition ... The debates surrounding the Twenty-fifth Amendment indicate that the terms unable and inability are intended to cover all cases in which some condition or circumstance prevents the President from discharging his powers and duties ..." [3]:112 A survey of scholarship on the amendment found

no specific threshold – medical or otherwise – for the "inability" contemplated in Section 4. The framers specifically rejected any definition of the term, prioritizing flexibility. Those implementing Section 4 should focus on whether – in an objective sense taking all of the circumstances into account – the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties" of the office. The amendment does not require that any particular type or amount of evidence be submitted to determine that the President is unable to perform his duties. While the framers did imagine that medical evidence would be helpful to the determination of whether the President is unable, neither medical expertise nor diagnosis is required for a determination of inability ... To be sure, foremost in [the minds of the framers] was a physical or mental impairment. But the text of Section 4 sets forth a flexible standard intentionally designed to apply to a wide variety of unforeseen emergencies.[4]:7,20

Among potential examples of such unforeseen emergencies, legal scholars have listed kidnapping of the president and "political emergencies" such as impeachment. Traits such as unpopularity, incompetence, impeachable conduct, poor judgment, or laziness might not in and of themselves constitute inability, but should such traits "rise to a level where they prevented the President from carrying out his or her constitutional duties, they still might constitute an inability, even in the absence of a formal medical diagnosis." In addition, a president who already manifested disabling traits at the time he or she was elected is not thereby immunized from a declaration of inability.[4]:21n63,22n67

I'd say that the items "political emergency", "incompetence", "impeachable conduct", "poor judgment" and "laziness" (the latter of which "ris[ing] to a level where they prevent the President from carrying out his or her constitutional duties") definitely apply.

Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Twenty-fifth Amendment ( Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution deals with presidential succession and disability. It clarifies that the vice president becomes president if the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office, and establishes how a vacancy in the office of the vice president can be filled.en.wikipedia.org

I'm not familiar with them.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I am speaking about the Supreme Court decision that Obama mentioned critically in a State of the Union address. It enabled a flood of corporate and union cash into political campaigns.

10 years after landmark Citizens United Supreme Court decision, record cash flooding US electionsTen years ago this week, the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v FEC, a landmark ruling that unleashed billions of dollars into American election campaigns.abcnews.go.com

A billionaire such as Bezos or Musk could buy up news outlets throughout the country and use their money to swing an election one way or another, that would be a democratic process regardless of what you or I think of such a strategy.

However, the idea that the Constitution can be changed by only five people is not a democratic process.

One can certainly argue the 25th amendment wasn’t intended for this type of situation and was more about physical/mental incapacity. That said, I do think one could also interpret it the other way.

As for impeachment, the case is very clear. One interesting side note I learned is even if Trump isn’t convicted by the Senate, congress can still vote to convict him by simple majority of violating the 14th ammendnent for inciting an insurrection against the U.S., barring him from ever holding federal office again. Pretty interesting detail there.

One interesting side note I learned is even if Trump isn’t convicted by the Senate, congress can still vote to convict him by simple majority of violating the 14th ammendnent for inciting an insurrection against the U.S.

Congress can refuse to seat someone and use this as a reason. I have no idea how it would be applied to the President unless a court ruled him as disqualified and it was upheld.

Yeah, I’m under the impression it might have to go through the courts. Good point.

Trump has officially been impeached for a second time by the House of Representatives. First president to be impeached twice. Crazy times.

Final vote tally-Yea 232 Nay 197. 4 Not Voting (All Republicans). All 222 Democrats voted Yea along with 10 Republicans. Nancy Pelosi has gaveled the vote. Trump has been impeached.

I like that many Republicans who voted no, at least still public ally said he’s to blame for what happened but that impeachment wasn’t the way to go. I’d like full discosure on who in the Republican Party have public ally said he’s to blame.

None of this would even have to be discussed if the Republican Party all came out and said most of what Trump has been saying was lies and we were mistaken for not saying it sooner. We were wrong and we apologize to the American people.