One of like 1000 things he's done in the last few months that was either illegal, unconstitutional, "grounds for impeachment", or corrupt. 🥱
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
1102 points (99.2% liked)
politics
24418 readers
2070 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Kendrick Lamar "It's not enough." I want him removed and charged for all the harm and civil rights violations and war crimes. No President has ever been held accountable, So you can start with him.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Keep screaming impeachment when clearly that doesn't work.....he belongs in jail ya know for being a 34 count felon rapist seditionous traitor.
load more comments
(8 replies)
No impeachments until they know they can get a conviction in the Senate, which is highly unlikely.
Besides, an impeachment only makes Peter Theil (Vance's leash holder) the president, then we're out of the frying pan and into the fire.
I would be okay with President Vance. We'd only have to deal with him for a day or two before some MAGAt offed him for daring to replace the God Emperor.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I want him actually removed from office. He was already impeached. Twice! It didn't do anything.
To get him removed from office, you have to first get the House to vote (50%) to Impeach him. That is actually doable. But then the Senate has to hold a trial and somehow get 67 senators to vote to convict him. That would take every Dem and Independent and something like 20 Republicans to vote to convict. I agree with you, but I don't see that happening.
The only other way is by using the 25th Amendment which says, in part:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Vance and all of Trump's appointed toadies would have to send a letter to the House and Senate saying Trump in not capable of being president. And even if, by some miracle that happened, the next step is for Congress to hold votes in both the House and the Senate needing two-thirds of both houses to declare that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Even if they somehow pulled that off in the House, it would still take 18 or 20 Republican senators to cross over and vote him out.
I just don't see any legislative way out of this. The Republicans in the House and Senate are simply not going to let it happen. They have too much power and no morals.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Every day the Criminal in Chief commits impeachable crimes. Every. Day.
This is just the latest. But Congress is currently packed with illegitimate, undemocratically placed criminal cronies who face no accountability while shielding their criminal collaborators from accountability. So here we are.
The US is 😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴
He opened the Pandora Box... get to a shelter...
clearly grounds for impeachment
...add it to the pile, I guess.
But considering that impeachment is a legal process and that the current administration has zero respect for or inclination to follow the law, it's not like it'll accomplish shit. Dude needs to be deposed by those who have sworn to defend the constitution from domestic threats (the military) not run through some formal process.
Impeachment is specifically NOT a legal process but a political one. Trump's second impeachment acquittal was based on impeachment being a political process, and that the criminal justice system was the correct venue for J6.
That's also why the Justice department policy on not charging a sitting president and the SCOTUS ruling that Presidents are immune from prosecution are bullshit.
I mean, in practice, I guess yeah. On paper, it's initiated by a political process, but ultimately it's a criminal investigation. The acquittal was due to the process being wrongfully politicized. In a system that actually followed its own rules, he'd have been indicted and imprisoned for the crimes he's committed against the US.
The system we have will, at best, put on a dog-and-pony show, call it "impeachment", and try to pass that off as actual justice like it did last time.
load more comments
(1 replies)
To skip congress, all they need is "something" they can use to say it is urgent. And they do have satellite activity showing a bunch of cargo trucks or what not. So they can hang thier hat on that and say it couldn't wait. That would make it pretty hard to impeach on frankly. So this call is just political theater.
Now as for should we have done it... well I can at least see both sides. Iran has been defiant in it's continued operation of it nuclear program. And all the "talks" haven't really done much. The bombing likely does slow them down at least. Of course the other side to that questions what right does the US have to say other countries can research nuclear anything.
So there really everything about this is in the gray area where logical arguments could be made and debated endlessly about.
Are you suggesting that seeing a bunch of cargo trucks on satellites means that it's would have been able to go from no nukes to functional nukes in less time than it would take comes to vote on striking? Cargo trucks and mobilization in a foreign country is absolutely not a justifiable reason to attack. Especially considering the strikes that came before and the evacuation that Iran went through in anticipation of Trump's terrorism. There's naturally going to be an uptick in activity.
There's absolutely no gray area in this one. There wasn't an imminent threat and he bypassed the constitution by bypassing Congress to attack a foreign nation.
Its not about imminent threat. The "stated" purpose of the strike was to prevent the use of the materials at the site in a bomb. (Nevermind that our own intelligence people said they were still years away originally). But under that goal, cargo trucks could move material to many different locations and make it nearly impossible to keep track of. While there is a lot of BS in there. It's an argument that can be made.
Trump pulled out of the negotiated nuclear deal.
Trump then said they’re so bad for not making a deal.
Trump then bombed them.
There’s no point here where Trump acted right.
I'm not saying he did. I am saying it can be argued endlessly in all directions. Which counters the "clearly" impeachable part. And really, he has done much less gray things he could be impeached on. This isn't going to be the one that makes it happen.
Impeachment was never the real battle it was always about Senate driven consequences. In a Republican-controlled Senate, 'accountability' is a one-way street paved entirely for Democrats. Their majority exists to shield their own from justice while weaponizing procedure against the opposition. Until that imbalance is broken, consequences will remain a fantasy reserved only for the left.
If literally anyone thinks "it's okay that Trump bombed Iran, it was the right move"...
Then couldnt you just argue that "if it was such an obviously right move, wouldn't it have been easy to get congress to approve it?"
It's illogical to on one hand say it was the right thing to do, while ignoring the fact he did it without approval.
If it was so right, then approval would've been easy to get...?
Trump fans would say he couldn't ask because they'd unfairly block him. And he's a decisive dynamic man who took initiative. Or something
I don’t disagree that bombing Iran puts us at risk of starting a war we don’t want to be involved in. However I think the public is too split on the matter to put majority support behind impeachment.
Conservative circles themselves appear divided with some saying the display of force was necessary and avoided direct conflict (minimizing operational costs), some saying the President is authorized to conduct these actions under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and some voicing dissent or disapproval altogether of this action.
The War Powers Resolution will probably be the loophole that conservative outlets use to claim that Trump has done nothing wrong. I don’t know if there’s been an exercise of this authority without congressional approval that has lead to the targeted country declaring war as a result. If this were to happen, maybe there will be clear grounds to impeach, but I don’t think the public will display a majority support for it to happen.
I agree that for practical purposes there is not the support for impeachment. But I do think that every unconstitutional thing he does should be called out with the simple but direct message that 'impeachment and removal is the only remedy to a corrupt and unconstitutional POTUS'. We should say that over and over and over so that takes on its own meaning and the public is ready for it when sentiment inevitably brings us to the point it is actually possible.