House Dems Introduce Article of Impeachment

 

House Democrats introduced an article of impeachment against Donald Trump on Monday. It charges the President with “incitement of insurrection” for encouraging the crowd at Wednesday’s “Stop the Steal” rally to march to the U.S. Capitol. The ensuing riot temporarily shut down the legislative branch and resulted in deaths. The text follows (click to enlarge):

Before pursuing impeachment, the House will vote on a resolution asking Vice President Mike Pence to activate the 25th Amendment and remove Trump. If Pence does not respond within 24 hours of its passage, the House will consider impeachment.

There are only nine days left before Donald Trump’s presidential term ends.


My quick analysis is that this is all for show. If Speaker Pelosi actually wanted to remove Trump from office before Jan. 20, the House would have voted for impeachment by Friday (or over the weekend at the very latest) and delivered it to the Senate Monday. She doesn’t need to issue ultimatums to Pence, since Congress has the power to remove the President whenever they like.

Pelosi also is well aware that the Senate is out of session and Senate Majority Leader said the earliest they could reconvene is after Joe Biden’s inauguration.

 

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 100 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I am sure you are thrilled to be siding with the peole out to destroy our county. 

     

    • #1
  2. David Deeble Member
    David Deeble
    @DavidDeeble

    The incredible speed with which House Democrats have proceeded has me wondering why Germany didn’t simply impeach Hitler. 

    • #2
  3. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Thank you Jon for publishing this.

    • #3
  4. Metalheaddoc Member
    Metalheaddoc
    @Metalheaddoc

    I think Dershowitz said he couldn’t be impeached since the Senate won’t meet again until Trump is no longer President. And that they couldn’t impeach someone who isn’t in office anymore. 

    She is really trying to impeach the 70+ million who voted for him. 

    • #4
  5. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    If you want to radicalize people this is one way to do it. That and a domestic terrorism bill. People will live down to your expectations.

    • #5
  6. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am sure you are thrilled to be siding with the peole out to destroy our county.

     

    Do you disagree with me that this is all for show?

    • #6
  7. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Metalheaddoc (View Comment):

    I think Dershowitz said he couldn’t be impeached since the Senate won’t meet again until Trump is no longer President. And that they couldn’t impeach someone who isn’t in office anymore.

    She is really trying to impeach the 70+ million who voted for him.

    Yes, you can impeach someone who is no longer in office. In 1876 the Senate considered the Articles of Impeachment of President Grant’s Secretary of War who had already resigned.

    There are two remedies for the Senate to consider. First, the removal of the officer. Second, the disqualification of the officer from holding any future office.

    Neither Pelosi (or me) are trying to impeach the 74,223,744 people who voted for Trump, any more than in 1974, Congress was trying to impeach the 47,168,710 people who voted for Nixon, or in 1998 the 47,401,185 people who voted for Clinton.

    • #7
  8. Guruforhire Member
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am sure you are thrilled to be siding with the peole out to destroy our county.

     

    Do you disagree with me that this is all for show?

    I am not sure. I think this is a blood vendetta from all the down a well of hatred fear and paranoia. There is nothing that can’t be torn down to further it.

    • #8
  9. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    This is vindictive. The fact that it has no practical effect genuinely underscores its vindictiveness.

    Of course, a significant number of people will support it because a significant number of people hate Trump. Query, though, whether this might firm up sympathy for Trump among those of his voters who were “drifting” based on last week’s events.

    • #9
  10. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Guruforhire (View Comment):

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am sure you are thrilled to be siding with the peole out to destroy our county.

     

    Do you disagree with me that this is all for show?

    I am not sure. I think this is a blood vendetta from all the down a well of hatred fear and paranoia. There is nothing that can’t be torn down to further it.

    There is an alternative to Trump. See my post about Reagan’s Farewell Speech 32 years ago today. https://ricochet.com/866480/32-years-ago-today-president-reagans-farewell-address-january-11-1989/

    • #10
  11. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    House Democrats introduced an article of impeachment against Donald Trump on Monday. It charges the President with “incitement of insurrection” for encouraging the crowd at Wednesday’s “Stop the Steal” rally to march to the U.S. Capitol. The ensuing riot temporarily shut down the legislative branch and resulted in five deaths.

    . . .

    I do not think that the highlighted assertion is warranted at this time.

    I do think that it is fair, based on what we know so far, to claim that the reprehensible rioting at the Capitol resulted in two deaths. Ashli Babbitt, who was one of the rioters, was shot during the riot and died as a result, shortly thereafter. A Capitol policeman, Brian Sicknick, was reportedly hit on the head by rioters with a fire extinguisher, collapsed some time thereafter (the same day, I think), and died shortly thereafter. While it is not completely clear that Ofc. Sicknick died as a result of his injury, it seems highly likely, so I think that it is fair to attribute his death to the riots.

    I think that there is insufficient evidence, at present, to conclude that the other three deaths were caused by the riot:

    • 55-year-old Kevin Greeson reportedly died of a heart attack.
    • 50-year-old Benjamin Philips reportedly died of a stroke.
    • 34-year-old Rosanne Boyland reportedly died due to an (unspecified) medical emergency.

    My source is this news report, dated Saturday, Jan. 9.

    I think that it is important to keep the facts straight.

    The rioting was criminal and wrong regardless of the number of deaths that ensued, but I think that the death toll should not be overstated. As I have repeatedly counseled, we should avoid a rush to judgment.

    • #11
  12. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    There are two remedies for the Senate to consider. First, the removal of the officer. Second, the disqualification of the officer from holding any future office.

    Please look up Alcee Hastings and get back to me.

    • #12
  13. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am sure you are thrilled to be siding with the peole out to destroy our county.

     

    Do you disagree with me that this is all for show?

    Airlines kicking off Trump supporters. 
    Internet servers blacklisting Parler.
    De-platforming people for using the word fraud, or even patriot. 
    Classifying Trump rallies as domestic terrorist events.
    Locking people in their hotels.
    Putting people on no-fly lists for chanting USA

    This isn’t a show Jon, this is the dismantling of America. Is that what you wanted?

    • #13
  14. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    Guruforhire (View Comment):

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am sure you are thrilled to be siding with the peole out to destroy our county.

     

    Do you disagree with me that this is all for show?

    I am not sure. I think this is a blood vendetta from all the down a well of hatred fear and paranoia. There is nothing that can’t be torn down to further it.

    • #14
  15. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am sure you are thrilled to be siding with the peole out to destroy our county.

     

    Do you disagree with me that this is all for show?

     

    You want Trump removed for holding a a for show rally that was not going to change anything. You think these for show gestures matter a great great deal based on that. So even if you think it is for show, it must matter.

    So yes, I would think this would make you happy. If it does not, then I am sorry to assume it does.

    I am going to be honest though. I find the idea to be insane. We are screaming towards a Concord moment, and what you are advocating will get us there faster. Clearly, you don’t see it that way, but it is out there.

    • #15
  16. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    House Democrats introduced an article of impeachment against Donald Trump on Monday. It charges the President with “incitement of insurrection” for encouraging the crowd at Wednesday’s “Stop the Steal” rally to march to the U.S. Capitol. The ensuing riot temporarily shut down the legislative branch and resulted in five deaths.

    . . .

    I do not think that the highlighted assertion is warranted at this time.

    I do think that it is fair, based on what we know so far, to claim that the reprehensible rioting at the Capitol resulted in two deaths. Ashli Babbitt, who was one of the rioters, was shot during the riot and died as a result, shortly thereafter. A Capitol policeman, Brian Sicknick, was reportedly hit on the head by rioters with a fire extinguisher, collapsed some time thereafter (the same day, I think), and died shortly thereafter. While it is not completely clear that Ofc. Sicknick died as a result of his injury, it seems highly likely, so I think that it is fair to attribute his death to the riots.

    I think that there is insufficient evidence, at present, to conclude that the other three deaths were caused by the riot:

    • 55-year-old Kevin Greeson reportedly died of a heart attack.
    • 50-year-old Benjamin Philips reportedly died of a stroke.
    • 34-year-old Rosanne Boyland reportedly died due to an (unspecified) medical emergency.

    My source is this news report, dated Saturday, Jan. 9.

    I think that it is important to keep the facts straight.

    The rioting was criminal and wrong regardless of the number of deaths that ensued, but I think that the death toll should not be overstated. As I have repeatedly counseled, we should avoid a rush to judgment.

    Fair point. I’ve removed “five” from that sentence since the “medical emergency” deaths aren’t necessarily related.

    • #16
  17. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am sure you are thrilled to be siding with the peole out to destroy our county.

     

    Do you disagree with me that this is all for show?

    Jon, that’s a good question.

    I think that it is the most likely explanation at present.

    I think that we don’t have a historical answer to the timing question. It might be possible for the House to impeach a President (or other officer), and for the Senate to try and convict such officer, even after the officer is no longer in office. I haven’t researched the issue. According to this NBC news article, legal opinion is divided into three camps, and there is one inconclusive historical precedent.

    The three camps are:

    • There can be no impeachment or Senate trial after the officer charged is no longer in office.
    • The House cannot impeach an officer who is no longer in office, but if the House has impeached the officer while he was in office, the Senate can proceed with the trial.
    • The House can impeach, and the Senate can try, a former officer even after he is no longer in office.

    Disqualification from holding federal office is one of the possible sanctions that can be imposed upon conviction in the Senate, so the issue would not be entirely moot.

    The reported historical precedent was Grant’s Secretary of War, who apparently resigned shortly before he was impeached by the House. The Senate reportedly conducted a trial, but he was acquitted, so the precedent is inconclusive (at least, I think that this makes it inconclusive).

    • #17
  18. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Fair point. I’ve removed “five” from that sentence since the “medical emergency” deaths aren’t necessarily related.

    Didn’t I hear reports of an officer suicide this morning as well?

    • #18
  19. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    House Democrats introduced an article of impeachment against Donald Trump on Monday. It charges the President with “incitement of insurrection” for encouraging the crowd at Wednesday’s “Stop the Steal” rally to march to the U.S. Capitol. The ensuing riot temporarily shut down the legislative branch and resulted in five deaths.

    . . .

    I do not think that the highlighted assertion is warranted at this time.

    I do think that it is fair, based on what we know so far, to claim that the reprehensible rioting at the Capitol resulted in two deaths. Ashli Babbitt, who was one of the rioters, was shot during the riot and died as a result, shortly thereafter. A Capitol policeman, Brian Sicknick, was reportedly hit on the head by rioters with a fire extinguisher, collapsed some time thereafter (the same day, I think), and died shortly thereafter. While it is not completely clear that Ofc. Sicknick died as a result of his injury, it seems highly likely, so I think that it is fair to attribute his death to the riots.

    I think that there is insufficient evidence, at present, to conclude that the other three deaths were caused by the riot:

    • 55-year-old Kevin Greeson reportedly died of a heart attack.
    • 50-year-old Benjamin Philips reportedly died of a stroke.
    • 34-year-old Rosanne Boyland reportedly died due to an (unspecified) medical emergency.

    My source is this news report, dated Saturday, Jan. 9.

    I think that it is important to keep the facts straight.

    The rioting was criminal and wrong regardless of the number of deaths that ensued, but I think that the death toll should not be overstated. As I have repeatedly counseled, we should avoid a rush to judgment.

    Fair point. I’ve removed “five” from that sentence since the “medical emergency” deaths aren’t necessarily related.

    I hate any deaths for any reason. It is fair to ask if a cardio event is triggered by stress

    • #19
  20. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    There are two remedies for the Senate to consider. First, the removal of the officer. Second, the disqualification of the officer from holding any future office.

    Please look up Alcee Hastings and get back to me.

    The Report of the U.S. Senate states the following:

    The trial committee presented its report on October 2, 1989. Sixteen days later, the trial began in the U.S. Senate, with prosecution and defense given two hours to summarize their cases. The Senate deliberated in closed session on October 19, 1989. The following day, the Senate voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment, convicting Hastings, by the necessary two-thirds vote, on 8 articles (1-5, 7-9). On two articles (6, 17) the vote fell short of the required majority to convict. On article 11, the Senate voted 95 not guilty to 0 guilty. Having achieved the necessary majority vote to convict on 8 articles, the Senate’s president pro tempore (Robert C. Byrd) ordered Hastings removed from office. The Senate did not vote to disqualify him from holding future office. (Emphasis Added.)

    https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Hastings.htm

    If Trump is impeached and convicted, I would hope that the Senate would not forget to also disqualify him from holding future office.

    • #20
  21. GFHandle Member
    GFHandle
    @GFHandle

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”

    (Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

    • #21
  22. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    David Deeble (View Comment):

    The incredible speed with which House Democrats have proceeded has me wondering why Germany didn’t simply impeach Hitler.

    Well, Hitler was just Hitler. Trump is Literally Hitler.

    • #22
  23. Richard Easton Member
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    I suggest that they impeach Kamala. She encouraged people to riot last summer which included attacks on federal court houses.

    • #23
  24. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):
    Airlines kicking off Trump supporters. 
    Internet servers blacklisting Parler.
    De-platforming people for using the word fraud, or even patriot. 
    Classifying Trump rallies as domestic terrorist events.
    Locking people in their hotels.
    Putting people on no-fly lists for chanting USA

    None of those are mentioned in my posts. Pelosi is doing this for show (and fundraising).

    • #24
  25. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Fair point. I’ve removed “five” from that sentence since the “medical emergency” deaths aren’t necessarily related.

    Didn’t I hear reports of an officer suicide this morning as well?

    Yes, I believe that happened yesterday.

    • #25
  26. Richard Easton Member
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    David Deeble (View Comment):

    The incredible speed with which House Democrats have proceeded has me wondering why Germany didn’t simply impeach Hitler.

    Well, Hitler was just Hitler. Trump is Literally Hitler.

    Nancy did nothing on the bills to sent people help whose business were shut down. That might help Trump. 

    • #26
  27. GFHandle Member
    GFHandle
    @GFHandle

    I know an impeachment is a political and not a legal act, so no precedent in law is set. But still. What is going to happen to the next angry speaker at a mostly peaceful protest that turns into looting and burning? If Trump is guilty of incitement, what of these people? Or will we really buy the idea that there should be two standards of fairness? Do the Dems really think they can fool all the people all of the time? Of course, it will be hard to get the montage of the Dems defending not only incendiary speech but also incendiary acts all summer onto youtube, etc. because of the Sillycons’ censorship powers, but a way will surely be found.

    • #27
  28. Brian Watt Member
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Yawn.

    • #28
  29. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    There’s some irony in the fact that this action goes aways to explaining why there is a Trump.

    • #29
  30. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    It is a pity that the Republican leadership objected to the unanimous consent request this morning for the House to consider a Censure Resolution. That could have brought closure.

    • #30