Will Donald Trump be impeached, and how would it work? All you need to know, explained

Revelations that Fake President Trump gave Russian officials highly classified intelligence during a recent Oval Office visit and that he allegedly encouraged former FBI Director James Comey to drop an investigation into his campaign's ties to Russia have pushed Washington into a frenzy, and some have been uttering a term that is never pleasant for a president to hear: impeachment.

Mr Trump may never face impeachment proceedings, but a growing body of US officials — notably, this group is almost exclusively composed of Democrats — have been calling for the House of Representatives to seriously consider impeachment.

Here’s what you need to know about impeachment, what Mr Trump may need to worry about, and what we’ve seen with past presidents.

What is impeachment?

Impeachment does not guarantee removal from office, but it is a serious situation for the president (or other high government official) to find themselves in, and it is the first step toward removal from office.

Technically speaking, impeachment is a formal charge of misconduct levied against a public official by Congress. It is not in any way a verdict or finding of criminality in and of itself.

How does impeachment work?

In the United States, the House of Representatives has the sole right to initiate impeachment charges against a high official in government.

The process begins with an independent investigation — this could come from the Department of Justice, from Congress itself, or from an appointed special council — which findings for the basis of charges. That evidence is then handed over to the House Judiciary Committee, which reviews evidence and writes up the Articles of Impeachment.

After debate in the House, the legislative body will vote on the Articles of Impeachment. If a simple majority votes in favour of impeachment then the president is considered impeached.

What happens next?

From there, the Articles of Impeachment are sent over to the Senate for consideration and a trial. The accused mounts their defence and the House Judiciary Committee acts as the prosecution. During the proceedings, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acts as the judge and the Senate acts as the jury.

If a two-thirds majority in the Senate votes against the President, that’s it. The President is removed from office.

The biggest names involved in the Trump-Russia investigation

Why are people calling for Mr Trump’s impeachment?

The Trump administration has been a focal point for scandal, but most calls for impeachment or suggestion that an investigation be started revolve around potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.

There’s a lot to unpack on that front: The US government has openly claimed that Russia worked to influence the 2016 election, close associates of Mr Trump had repeated contact with Russian officials during the campaign and transition period (mostly notably with Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak), and Mr Trump himself cited investigations into his campaign as a reason he decided to fire Mr Comey on national television (and memos written by Mr Comey about his interactions with the President reportedly indicate that Mr Trump asked him to stop the Russia investigation). That the president happened to convey highly classified information to Russian officials of all people (including Mr Kislyak) has only raised eyebrows further, even if it may not be at all relevant to those investigations.

The officials calling for impeachment generally cite a concern that Mr Trump is trying to squash or hinder investigations into his campaign's ties (the White House and Mr Trump have denied those accusations).

Could Trump be impeached for 'leaking' classified information to Russia?

Mr Trump’s decision to discuss highly classified intelligence with Russian officials appears to be technically within the law. As the president, he has the constitutional power to decide whether or not the US government considers information classified and he can discuss US intelligence with whomever he wants. That’s in contrast to other US officials who would likely be facing prison time if they had done what the President did.

But that’s not the only concern, as the legal blog Lawfare points out. Mr Trump’s decision to divulge highly classified information could theoretically put American lives at risk or seriously risk intelligence sharing relationships with other countries. Cooperation with other nations is an important part of US intelligence gathering — the US simply doesn’t have enough resources to compile all of the intelligence needed to operate.

Depending on why he decided to do so, Mr Trump may have violated his oath of office when he gave the intelligence to the Russians (and it’s not a criminal act to violate the oath). There are important caveats here: Mr Trump may have had a strategic reason in mind when he spoke with the Russians, for instance. Reports, though, have noted that Mr Trump seemed to be bragging to the Russians about the intelligence he has access to. If that’s the sole reason he gave up the information — an act of simple carelessness or negligence — his detractors may argue that giving up the intelligence was a gross violation of his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” and “faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States.”

Could violating his oath of office be enough for impeachment charges?

Absolutely. Three US presidents have faced impeachment or have been impeached in the history of the US. All three faced alleged oath violations in their Articles of Impeachment.

President Andrew Johnson, who became president after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, surprised many of his allies by offering amnesty to Confederate officials and by vetoing civil rights protections for former slaves. That led to a wave of anger toward him in Congress that resulted in his impeachment on grounds that included being “unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office”.

President Richard Nixon, who faced impeachment proceedings after his connection to the Watergate scandal were discovered, was said to have acted “contrary to his oath”.

President Bill Clinton, who faced impeachment after lying under oath about an affair he had with a White House intern, was said to have acted “in violation of his constitutional oath” in his Articles of Impeachment.

Has impeachment ever led to removal from office?

No. The two presidents who were impeached, Mr Clinton and Mr Johnson, were later exonerated in the Senate. Mr Nixon was not impeached because he resigned from office before the House could complete the process (though it is widely believed that he would have been impeached and removed from office had he fought the charges).

Is impeachment likely for Mr Trump?

It seems unlikely right now since the President enjoys a Congress controlled by his party, but there appears to be growing momentum behind the effort. Following the revelation that Mr Trump allegedly asked Mr Comey to stop the FBI's Russia investigation, talk of impeachment is reportedly spreading in Congress. At least one prominent Republican senator, John McCain, has compared the scandal surrounding the White House to the one that ultimately led to Mr Nixon's resignation.

But that's not to say that Republicans are going to rally around the idea of impeaching a president of their own party. Should Republicans in the House face a wave of opposition in the 2018 midterms, leading Democrats to regain control of the House, the voices currently calling for impeachment may have more sway.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-will-he-be-define-what-is-it-russia-leak-law-us-president-a7739266.html

Xlnt survey article about the impeachment proceeding itself.  But the most important thing to remember is that the impeachment process is a political, and not a legal proceeding.  (It can lead to a legal matter, but only after the president is tried and convicted in an impeachment proceeding.)

The Impeachment process leaves proceedings up to political branches, not the judiciary.  Whatever else that means, it means political considerations will be intermingled with the high crimes and misdemeanors part.  The thing that differentiates an impeachment process from simply holding another election (by the Senate) is that there in an element of wrongdoing that must be shown; but it's still a political proceeding.

So, there are two temperature guagues to be watched: the political gauge, and the high crimes and misdemeanors gauge.


You will almost never see presidential impeachment proceedings when the House and Senate are of the same party as the president, because that would be cutting their own political throats.  A party tries to get their agenda passed, and you can't do that when you are attacking one of your own powers.  This present situation is all one party here.

So, in order for one gauge to totally dominate the other (above), the case must be overwhelming.  The two legislative branches must be motivated to put aside politics and deal with the wrongdoing solely.  That can only happen when fundamental legitimacy of the American way of life is at stake.

Do Republicans care?  They have been the party of money, the party of voter exclusion efforts, the party to deny immigration because the immigrating peoples are Democratic, and the Republicans are the party that has won two out of the last three presidents by the electoral college, not democracy...in other words, the Republican party wants to change the US into an autocracy anyway. They are anti-democratic anyway.

Frankly, I don't think there is an American left in America.  The wrongdoing gauge doesn't matter any more...the political gauge predominates.

Wow. That's some shit that is gonna hit.

I don't think impeachment will ever happen but he should worry about being at the epicentre of so many scandals so early on in his presidency. How excruciatingly embarrassing, given that he came to drain the swamp. He made it more fetid - in record time too.

He will face a criminal prosecution...eventually.  But remember, he's 70-years old.

Here's the real deal: he will probably avoid impeachment, but the people around him can be prosecuted, including his daughter, sons and son-in-law.  He can be hurt--big time--in other ways.  And it's not as if they aren't participating willingly.  

Good god...what a stupid move, putting your relatives into positions of power.  Look what happens to the people around Trump...Flynn, Manafort, perhaps even Kellyanne, they're toast!

Right now, though, Trump has become an impediment to the Republican agenda. You can't get anything done in the middle of a shitstorm like this.

I go back to the long-circulated theory that this is what the GOP wanted as soon as Trump won the nomination -- to get him out of there as soon as possible and get Pence into power. Then they would be able to get to work slashing taxes for the rich and health care for the poor instead of dealing with Trump/Russia all the time. They might even be able to spin it into political capital if they can appear to be "heroically putting country before party."

Why didn't Pence run then? Or is that a stupid question? Was Trump considered more voteworthy than Pence?

Ben Reilly wrote:Right now, though, Trump has become an impediment to the Republican agenda. You can't get anything done in the middle of a shitstorm like this.

I go back to the long-circulated theory that this is what the GOP wanted as soon as Trump won the nomination -- to get him out of there as soon as possible and get Pence into power. Then they would be able to get to work slashing taxes for the rich and health care for the poor instead of dealing with Trump/Russia all the time. They might even be able to spin it into political capital if they can appear to be "heroically putting country before party."

Believe me, that is what the Republicans are working on right now. If they can get this shitstorm out of the way, they will pass legislation and then impeach the boy.

eddie wrote:Why didn't Pence run then? Or is that a stupid question? Was Trump considered more voteworthy than Pence?

Yes. He already had a base. Remember, it isn't a few men sitting in a backroom making these decisions. The primary elections are real. He ran, and he won.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Why didn't Pence run then? Or is that a stupid question? Was Trump considered more voteworthy than Pence?

Yes.  He already had a base.  Remember, it isn't a few men sitting in a backroom making these decisions.  The primary elections are real.  He ran, and he won.

Okay it's as I thought then. Just like to double-check.