Impeachment

More Impeachments! Dumping Bad Presidents Should Be No Big Deal

"Somehow we've decided that the one job in America that gets the most job protection is the one where you actually get nuclear weapons," says the Cato Institute's Gene Healy.

|

We're told impeachment is a nightmare, a coup d'etat, and a dangerous distraction from the business of government that will cause national trauma and the next civil war.

Don't believe it.

"If there is any country on earth that's pretty comfortable with the idea of getting fired, it's America," says Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute and author of Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution's Impeachment Power. "Somehow we've decided that the one job in America that gets the most job protection is the one where you actually get nuclear weapons, which doesn't seem at all sensible."

"Some of the same people who talk about the wisdom of the framers talk about the impeachment power as if the framers just decided to hardwire a doomsday device into the Constitution," he adds. But the framers "saw impeachment as a necessary constitutional safety valve…it's not something you want to use on a weekly basis, but it's nice to have around when you need it."

Read Healy's cover story in Reason's February 2020 issue, "Don't Freak Out About Impeachment."

Produced and edited by Meredith Bragg.

Photo credits: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom; Michael Reynolds—Pool via CNP/MEGA/Newscom; Stefani Reynolds—CNP/Sipa USA/Newscom; Saul Loeb/picture alliance/Consolidated/Newscom (edited); Christopher Brown/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Stefani Reynolds/CNP/Polaris/Newscom; Stefani Reynolds—CNP/Sipa USA/Newscom; CHUCK KENNEDY/KRT/Newscom (edited); Robert Visser UPI Photo Service/Newscom; Courtesy of CNN/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Dennis Brack/Newscom; SplashNews/Newscom; Steve Pellegrino/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Watchara Phomicinda/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Megan Jelinger/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Pacific Press/Sipa USA/Newscom; SCNG/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Adam DelGiudice/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Jack Kightlinger/picture alliance/Consolidated/Newscom; Benjamin E. "Gene" Forte/CNP/Polaris/Newscom; Ron Sachs/CNP/Polaris/Newscom; Pete Souza/Photoshot/Newscom; Pacific Press/Sipa USA/Newscom; CHINE NOUVELLE/SIPA/Newscom; Album/Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY

NEXT: Here's the One Book All the Democratic Candidates (and President Trump) Should Read

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “”saw impeachment as a necessary constitutional safety valve…it’s not something you want to use on a weekly basis, but it’s nice to have around when you need it.””

    Except it’s being used for no valid reason.

    And, ironically, one of the people voting for the articles was one of the few officials who was impeached and removed from his office.

    1. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    2. The more impeachments, the better.

      1. Many of those reasons are, of course, quite legit.

        1. Hey, how did the floor votes go on those impeachment articles?

          I’ll wait while you look it up.

          1. Gene Healy is too busy backing up reason criticisms.

        2. So you’re comparing suggestions of impeachment to multiple actual impeachment bills voted on and an actual impeachment. Totally the same, totally.

          1. Actually, there’s not much substantial difference between an impeachment bill that was voted down and a suggestion of impeachment. Someone bothered to write up a bill.

            1. Really? Commenting that someone should be jailed for that vs actually calling the cops are EXACTLY the same??? That’s some pretty sick thinking going on there.

              1. Did you accidentally reply to the wrong comment? How did your reply relate in any way to what I wrote.

        3. Yes, there are many legitimate reasons, but they are never used, as that would expose to many corrupt House Reps and Senators to censure and impeachment too. Safer to use made up, partisan, illegitimate, false accusations.

    3. No valid reason like….to protect the constitution from those who would trample it?

      Head so far up there can’t breathe huh?

      1. You mean the Democrats who want to limit political speech, want to force people to perform services that go against their religious beliefs (laws forcing healthcare workers to offer and perform abortions, laws forcing business owners to participate in gay marriage, laws that threaten churches with reprisals if they dare preach against anything sacred to the LGBTQ+ population), want to force people to give up their 2A rights, who seem to think using the 5A right is obstruction of justice, who determined guilt before they even investigated and now claim it’s the president’s job to prove he is innocent (rather then their job to prove he is guilty)? I can go on, by why bother? You’re only using the Constitution as a talking point, you really don’t care about it if it’s your party destroying it.

  2. Also, no concerns about the House obstructing the Senate in this fiasco by “indicting” Trump but refusing to allow a trial to exonerate or condemn him?

    1. The call them “Show Trials”, not Finale Trials.

    2. No worse than Obama nominating someone then the Senate refusing to have a hearing at all huh?

      1. What was that douches name again?

        Trump is getting to replace RBG and Beyer in the next 5 years.

      2. Nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to vote or even hold hearings.

      3. Yeah, pity for you that McConnell was only using the powers that Harry Reid put in place while following the precedent on Supreme Court nominations that Joe Biden supported when it was Republican nominees.

        Fuck you and your fake outrage. I hope Trump’s next appointment to the Supreme Court happens a week before the election and the GOP jams it through just to remind people like yourself that you lost and your opinions mean jack shit. That’s the world you created…now you get to live in it.

    3. Nobody has refused to allow a trial. Congress is going on holiday break, some Harvard professor proposed not delivering the impeachment articles to the Senate, Pelosi gave vague answers to reporter’s questions about the timeline, and some reporters have been trying to fill up column-inches.

      1. Poor Mikey. The House has zero power over the US Senate to conduct an impeachment trial/vote.

        1. It appears the Senate is going to hold a democrat campaign disrupting impeachment trial.

        2. Your comment implied that I have a side in the impeachment battle between Democrats and Republicans. I’m a non-partisan libertarian and don’t care whether Trump is removed from office or not.

          1. There’s that lie again.

        3. 1789….No dude. You need to get the dork’s name right.

          He calls himself Neutral Mike. And then when the Reason community calls him out for his bullshit, he changes to Non-Partisan Mike.

          Personally, I find his alter ego Mike Liarsen far more entertaining.

          1. It’s more important to worry about my neutrality than Mitch McConnell’s. Got it.

            1. Mitch McConnell doesn’t lie about being neutral.
              Pretty fn sad that a politician has more integrity than you, Mike Laursen

  3. Look ideally it should be but it won’t be and will be treated as the worst thing ever again by all the right thinking people again the second a democrat takes office.

    1. It is as if the Democratic leadership has double standards.

      1. Yeah- only happens on one side there eh comrade?

        1. One would think you’d care about your own side getting it right first, but nah.

          1. Maybe, just maybe it’s possible wearingit doesn’t have a side in the Republican vs. Democrat wars. Seems not having a side should be the default assumption about anyone posting criticisms of the Democrats or Republicans on a libertarian website without the commenter having to attach a Standard Libertarian Disclaimer to every comment stating that they are non-partisan.

            1. Wearing it has never criticized the Democrats and always seems to take their side on every issue he/she/it comments on. Kind of like you!

              1. Maybe that’s because we haven’t been discussing the Democrats. It’s a Republican administration right now.

                1. Which makes your support for show trials a secret police libertarian?
                  Lol

  4. More idiotic takes from the band of idiots.

  5. Where were these articles when Obama was droning us citizens without due process?

    1. Impeachments were bad then. Now they are good.

      Don’t ask questions.

      1. Yet they were good then but not now huh dumb1789 eh?

      2. Poor sock trolls.

    2. Do you mean like this article?

      1. Idle Hands said article(s), there Gene Healy.

        1. That was a weak comeback. What is the exact cardinality of articles that Chipper must provide to refute the claim that Reason has not written articles critical of Obama’s drone strikes?

          1. 1. They issue at hand isn’t criticism, it’s advocacy for impeachment
            2. Usage of plural form means more than one

        2. Poor sock trolls.

      2. The article that wasn’t published here, but in the Washington Examiner, never mentions Obama once, and doesn’t actually recommend impeachment, either for unauthorized warmaking or extraducial assassinations? That one?

        1. That was his best shot.

        2. Chipper did mess that up a bit. Here, let’s find some others:

          https://reason.com/2016/12/07/obamas-outgoing-attitude-on-war-and-terr/

        3. https://reason.com/2010/01/27/obama-i-can-still-kill-a-us-ci/

          There are a LOT of articles from Reason, but I’ll stop with three.

          1. 3 articles that have nothing to do with criticizing obama. Good job mikey.

            1. What?! Did you even look at the articles? The very one you are replying to even has the word Obama right in the link URL.

            2. No, it is Neutral Mike, damn it. You need to get that right. 🙂

    3. That was just a little “kinetic action”, hardly something worth impeachment.

      What are you, racist?

  6. pleez moar evidence-free show trials!

  7. We have a turnover every 4 years. We are 3 years into a presidency who still has huge gaps in appointments. And you want to make those turnovers quicker… this will just lead to even a bigger unelected bureaucracy, one completely unaccountable to the people. This is especially true given the worker protection laws in place. You didnt really think your process through deeply at all.

    1. Oh they thought it through alright. Here’s the process:

      Orange Man bad, therefor impeachment good.

      1. “Orange Man Bad” as a summary from conservatives, of page after page after page, detail after detail, testimony upon testimony, of HOW and WHY Orange Man is a lying hypocritical narcissistic and corrupt, self-centered weasel, who is ruining the good reputation (for years if not decades) of the USA, internationally, shows the utter contempt that conservatives hold the rest of us in! “Here, dummy, I can summarize ALL of the encyclopedic knowledge that has been gathered concerning Der TrumpfenFuhrer, so that YOU (dumbshit) will NOT have to trouble your pretty little head, studying all that boring stuff! It just amounts to Orange Man Bad, end of story!”

        Don’t study medicine or boring medical texts… I will summarize it for you! “The human body is made of icky pus and smegma, slimy blood and mucus, and icky poop!”

        Law summary: “He or she who habeas the corpus, must take proper care of it.”

        Computers? Stop studying, you fool! “Learn to code; garbage in, garbage out; just be logical!”

        Electrical Hardware Engineering? “Don’t stick your diode in an anode! Sparks is as sparks does!”

        And then conservatives and other Trumptatorship worshippers and ignorance worshippers have the NERVE to say, “We need more SKILLED AND TALENTED immigrants and fewer ignorant ones coming into the USA!”!

        1. I’d settle for dumb immigrants if we traded them our dumb natives. At least dumb immigrants might take the constitution seriously as a part of becoming a citizen.

          1. You’re very boring Tony.

          2. Not only ignorant but naive.

        2. Where were all these principles 8 years ago?

        3. Detail after detail? It was all hearsay and opinions dumbass.

          1. There’s boatloads of FACTUAL web sites out there detailing just what a total jerk we have for a POTUS. Here is a good starting spot:

            http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

            “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet”

            I’m talking the big picture here, not just the impeachment!

            “Hearsay” my ass! Oh, but I know… If it ain’t Breitbart, it ain’t true!

            1. zerohedge and Fox News are also allowed.

              1. How you two can criticize FNC and in the same breath use the Atlantic as a valid source (without realizing your hypocrisy) is breathtaking to say the least.

                1. “you two”? Only one of us linked to The Atlantic. I actually skip reading stories from The Atlantic because they have such a heavy liberal bias.

            2. High Crimes and Misdemeanors = The Jerk Store Called

    2. this will just lead to even a bigger unelected bureaucracy, one completely unaccountable to the people

      Gee it’s almost like that’s exactly what Reason has been agitating for for 20 odd years now.

      1. It’s the argument against earmarks, for instance.

  8. Healy’s argument makes sense ONLY if we all agree that Trump is doing a mediocre job, and only if we all agree that the wrongs he is accused of are credible and damning. But that isn’t at all the case. Half the country disagrees with those notions.

    This isn’t about us arguing about whether he should get one or two strikes before we fire him. This is about whether or not there is even ONE strike against him, and barely (if even) half the country thinks that is the case.

    1. Look at it this way- Healy is basically saying, “You know what, maybe we should fire our president if he spits on the sidewalk”. Ok, that’s an argument. But right now, the argument from the anti-impeachment side is “We have seen no evidence that he has spit on the sidewalk, let alone whether or not that is an actual crime worth removing him”.

      The attempt by Healy to make this about re-writing the standards of impeachment is an attempt at stealing a base.

      1. We cant even fire bureaucrats for looking at porn, lying to judges, committing fraud, abusing budgets, etc… yet we want to fire presidents now because of mean tweets.

        1. Well, the Lefties who think “Civil War 2.0 can’t happen” do.

          I noticed a bunch of Lefties trying to reassure other Lefties of this. Its like more and more Lefties realize that they are pushing too much against the Americans with all the Arms.

          1. Needs MOAR “lefty”.

          2. Let’s say a civil war breaks out. What’s it going to look like in the early stage? People setting fire to the house next door? Everybody go out and shoot someone? Nuke the cities? Get whoever you can before they get you, and you never know who that might be?

            1. The Americans who care about politics, which is not most people, are into talking shit to each other on their phones while sipping lattes. There isn’t going to be any civil war 2.0.

              1. Poor Mikey. He never served in the military and Learned how to win a war.

                1. That was a really bizarre comment.

            2. Poor robert he never read the DoD paper on what a modern US civil war would look like. The US Army does exercises in North Carolina all the time.

              Cities would be isolated and starved out. Military bases that dont surrender or switch to Patriot side would be captured.

              Russia or China intervenes with nukes, they target large population areas which once again helps Patriots by eliminating Commies in cities.

              1. The secret biological agent that brings on the zombie apocalypse is released.

            3. Robert, you ask a fair question: What’s it going to look like in the early stage? I shall answer.

              Historically, it is not engagement that marks the early portions of civil wars, it is disengagement. Politicians merely reflect their constituencies. The people will disengage from each other – at the start. The disputes between the sides will be become more and more acrimonious, and impossible to solve.

              That is how it will look at the start. Look where we are now.

      2. The attempt by Healy to make this about re-writing the standards of impeachment is an attempt at stealing a base.

        It will also go straight out the window the second a Democrat gets elected to the presidency.

    2. reason added this writer to Healy’s shitty argument to push that lefty Narrative.

      If America wont accept Democrat’s Impeachment of Trump, then the Propaganda team will change the tune a bit. Make impeachments a good thing and healthy for a Republic.

      Unless a Democrat is President. Then Impeachments are bad.

      Pelosi being Imepached and removed from the House is also a bad thing.
      -reason

      1. I’m not sure that you can impeach members of congress. Unfortunately. Based on polling numbers, it would probably be more popular to impeach all 435 of them, and all 100 senators, but then who would draw up the articles and where would you hold the trial?

        1. I think the French had a mechanism for this, but I don’t think they did much paperwork.

        2. US Constitution, Article I, Section 5:
          Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

          They call it “expelling a member” but it has the same effect as an impeachment.

  9. Getting fired by the people who elected you is called a failed reelection. Getting fired by people who ran against you and lost is a golpe.

    1. Getting fired by people who ran against you and lost is a heraldic roundel purpure?

    2. Nah, it’s more like a rasgueado.

    3. On the other hand, the Democratic majority in the House that made the impeachment possible was the result of … democratic elections.

      1. It was the result of demographic changes based on illegal immigration.

        This all stopped under Trump, hence the Democrat urgency to get rid of Trump.

        1. Yeah, right. Blame it on them illegals.

  10. Hell, let’s just impeach em’ all.

    Show me the President, and I’ll show you the crime [especially if the represent the other guy].

    Fast lane to banana republic.

    1. I was going to suggest *random* impeachments, but your idea is better. “If you have nothing to hide ….”

      1. We should pre-impeach all Presidential candidates before they are even elected. This will save much time.

    2. As if we aren’t full steam ahead to a banana republic as is.

      1. Lefties and their love of socialist banana republics.

        Viva la cuba!

  11. Poor reason.

    When the Narrative comes down from the Left, its play ball or no Cosmo parties this Holiday Season.

  12. I wouldn’t particularly object to this line of reasoning if I believed it would be a universal standard going forward. But, the truth is we know that it absolutely won’t be. The moment after it’s used to get rid of Trump, the standards will revert to favor seeing impeachment as only worthy of the worst presidential offenses. And all the “respectable” libertarians, including the Reason staff, will be just mortified by libertarians who dare suggest that the next Democratic president (“who of course we don’t agree with, but let’s not get carried away…”) might be worthy of impeachment.

    1. McCain was an asshole when running against Obama.

      McCain was an angel of Maverickism when he was sabotaging the GOP as a RINO.

    2. Of course it won’t be. And this woman wouldn’t want it to be. The first time they impeached a President she liked, she would have a stroke. The whole thing is just phony bullshit.

      1. The thing I don’t get is why people this transparent even bother. Do they really think they’re fooling anyone?

        1. They go 8 years of Obama being President and somehow never once mention this fondness for impeachment. Funny that, isn’t it?

          1. Oh, let’s not get carried away now. It’s not like Mr. Obama ordered extra-judicial assassinations of American citi….wait, strike that. It’s not like Mr. Obama ever sold weaponry to Mexican cart…wait, that’s not what I meant. It’s not like Mr. Obama’s IRS systematically sabotaged oppos…wait, give me a second. It’s not like the the Obama administration got U.S. diplomats killed by conducting a gun running operation out of Lyb…dammit. It’s not like Mr. Obama’s FBI & Justice Department were systematically investigating a presidential candidate under false pret…

            Look. The Obama administration never asked if the Bidens were doing anything corrupt in the Ukraine. So, it’s totally different.

            1. The guys at Volkh are the biggest hypocrites about this. They never once mentioned impeachment during the Obama Administration, despite Obama doing many things that reasonably warranted it. Then suddenly, they pretend to be all about impeaching presidents the fucking day Trump takes office.

              1. I was excited about a more legal argument centric part of reason.

                Then that douche Dopehat and them when on and on about Americans not having a constitutional or legal right to limit immigration and the TDS was unbearable.

                Just goes to show, there are smart lawyers and dumb people in that field like every other job.

              2. Volokh Conspiracy was infinitely better when it was it’s own blog. Better, more carefully reasoned articles and the comment section didn’t tolerate fools. I frequently disagreed with a lot of what they wrote—Orin Kerr in particular, never found a state action he couldn’t justify—but I respected their arguments and saw merit in much of them.

                I clicked through at the end of one Reason piece to a Volokh piece on Texas’s suit seeking to overturn the ACA. It was amusing reading a scholar from Cato trying to make the argument that: even if the ACA wasn’t a proper exercise of Congressional power for part of it, and even though there wasn’t a severability clause in the Act, and it was explicitly not a tax in the text of the Act, that the ACA should nevertheless be found constitutional. I’d never read of a Cato scholar arguing for more governmental power before, and the novelty was certainly different. Though not unexpected these days.

                I can’t see Somin or Volokh letting that fly back ten years ago.

                1. They tolerate fools now? Good, I can go back to posting there.

                2. Somin and Volokh have some nonsensical positions about illegals.

  13. Yeah it should be a big deal. Despite what the author claims there isn’t a lot of agreement on what is a good or a bad President. A huge part of the country think Trump is a good president. Just exactly who gets to decide what is a good or a bad President if not the voters in the election?

    You impeach a President when there is broad agreement in the country that he can no longer serve in office. You don’t impeach a President because you think he is a bad President. To do so is to tell the voters that their votes don’t mean anything. That their guy can win but it still doesn’t matter. That is nothing but a way to cause people to lose faith in Democracy and create the conditions for them to support tyranny.

    1. Democrats are circling the drain like reason.

      Why not take us all with them?

    2. Ironically, this impeachment effort is precisely the kind of thing that got Trump elected the first time around.

      Average people are tired of the partisan nonsense, this is exactly the kind of swampy behavior Trump campaigned against the first time around.

    3. I’ve lost faith in the people to hold someone accountable. Trump can do numerous things (emoluments clause violations, etc.) that aren’t even on the impeachment charges yet all you lackeys look the other way because he gave you maybe one thing you liked or rather, just because he’s on your team.

      You clearly just don’t want accountability for your side. That’s all it amounts to.

      1. “emoluments clause violations, etc”

        Lolol the BEST HE HAD was “emoluments clause violations” and after that, went STRAIGHT TO ETC AHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAJA

        1. So, are emoluments clause violations not important in your eyes?

          1. Under obama? Under Bill Clinton? Under LBJ? Under JFK?

            Nobody buys your partisan nonsense neutral mikey.

            1. Under any of the above. Do you want honest, non-corrupt governance or not?

              1. Well Neutral, Non-Partisan Mike…..sure we do. Who does not want honest government? It is a specious question.

                I’m sure you’re dying to educate us rabble with your neutral, non-partisan bromides.

                1. I suspect lc1789, who probably would say he cares about honest, non-corrupt, would still ascribe to the Idea that Trump should be allowed to get away with whatever previous Presidents have gotten away with. Furthering Americans’ continually declining expectations of Presidential behavior.

                  1. If you are going 80 mph with a group of cars and you’re the one that gets pulled over, it’s natural to say wtf, everyone else is doing it.

                    Funny how we let people slide and then call foul when the person we don’t like gets away with the same thing we let everyone else get away with.

                    If we were going to put the foot down with Trump and keep the foot down, then I can see putting the foot down. If we are going to put the foot down with Trump only to let others get away with it after Trump. Then we are being partisan assholes.

                    I see no reason to hold Trump to a standard to which we will hold no one else.

          2. Apparently not, when It’s the Bidens and Clintons getting rich

      2. Yes, we get it. You support fitting a law around the ability to criminalize an opponent. Dictators all around the world agree with you.

    4. That’s because you take impeachment seriously. I’ve yet to see a liberal take anything seriously until his own throat is 10 seconds away from getting cut.

  14. 2020 elections are going to be epic.

    1. I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 (G. Johnson) but between this and the Kavanaugh debacle, I’m strongly considering it.

      I’m probably the only one, though. The Democrats have nothing to fear.

      1. I am voting for Trump.

        Where I live in Georgia Black Americans are wearing red Keep America Great hats.

        Democrats are in serious trouble and they know it.

        1. Black parents group just stormed and protested the debates last night over charter schools. Was great.

        2. Lol. So you put your finger to the political wind in Bumfuck, GA and say “this is how everyone thinks”. You’re just as ignorant as the big city progressives who do the same thing.

          1. Poor eric. He doesnt realize that “bumfuck GA” is picking up 1-2 House districts Census 2020.

            I really domt think I enough tear barrels prepared for Lefty tears in 2020.

      2. I am voting for Trump also and didn’t in 2016… He turned out to be a whole heck of a lot better than I gave him credit for initially.

      3. Similar, but waiting to see what the alternative from the LP is. So far it doesn’t look promising.

      4. I have the same view. I am giving the civic version of the middle finger next November. For my first ‘bird flip’, I’ll start by voting out that son of a bitch Andy Kim (NJ D-3) who voted for this travesty. I’ll also try to vote out that empty-suit son of a bitch Booker.

        Of course, in the People’s Republic of NJ, people have drunk enough Superfund contaminated water to vote these useless Team D bastards into office. These are the same people who re-elected that crooked son of a bitch Menendez.

  15. I for one strongly support the idea of more impeachments – rather than being limited to federal judges, cabinet members and presidents, impeachment should be extended to all federal employees including and especially members of Congress. While we’re at it, “removal from office” should also involve the use of a trebuchet.

    1. Jeorg Sprave could whip one of those up for us.
      “Let me show you its features, ha ha ha!”

    2. That is the thing. Judges and cabinet members are not elected. I am all for impeaching them more often. It is like Obama. They should have impeached Eric Holder over fast and furious. They should have impeached Hillary over Benghazi. You don’t impeach the President. Let the voters do that in the election. You impeach the shitbags around him. Who elected them? No one.

      1. The Constitution disagrees with you.

        1. No it doesn’t you fucking moron. The Impeachment clause applies to all civil offices including judges.

          1. About the president. You’ve been crying for days about it. Get over it. It’s part of the design of our Republic.

            1. The Constitution says that it can be done but only for specified reason which you dumb asses have chosen to ignore. I am not crying. This is going to get Trump reelected. I am just pointing out what pathetic lawless scumbags you people are.

              1. “You people”??? Lol. The rage is getting to you. Perhaps choke a kitten or two.

                1. Why harm a kitten when you’ll do just fine?

                  GFY.

              2. Eric the sock troll will scream in bold caps when the GOP retakes the House and starts impeaching RBG, Sotomayer, Breyer, Pelosi, Schumer, AOC….

                The Articles of Impeachment will be FYTW.

    3. How about building on the “red-flag” paradigm? Any single constituent can start the impeachment process for xir congresscreature.

  16. Bring back dueling or at least caning.

    1. Congress would get a lot more done if “pistols at dawn” was an acceptable form of conflict resolution.

      I’m not sure if them getting more done is a good thing or not, but that would certainly be entertaining.

    2. Bring back the spoils system.

      It was hideous, and there were good reasons for getting rid of it, but at least the bureaucracy would get a chance to be turned over once in awhile. Like a compost heap.

  17. Impeachments like this one based upon so-called crimes with no specified criminal action are indeed dangerous.

    This would include treason, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power (if a crime)

    In fact libertarianism demands that all “real” crimes have an associated criminal action – like murder, theft, rape.

    1. Crimes also have to have victims. Victims that can demonstrate actual damage or loss of liberty as a result of criminal action.

      Did anyone lose liberty as a result of anything Trump is accused of doing?

      1. Trump didnt do anything wrong.

        Not cooperating with Congress is an option for the President and literally why we have 3 ‘equal’ branches of Government.

        It is not an Abuse of Power for a President to contact Ukraine about investigating criminal activity that might have happened in that country. Even add in that the possible suspect was the son of an ex-Vice President of the USA. Even add in that the possible suspect is the ex-Vice president of the USA. None of it is illegal or wrong.

        Prosecutors have wide latitude to prosecute whom they want. Trump is the head federal prosecutor.

        1. It’s not just not an abuse of power, it’s a statutory obligation, and it would be a common sense obligation even absent a statutory provision, when it comes to countries receiving fungible US aid, as a condition of such aid.

          1. Your citation fell off.

        2. You left out the part about the person he is asking for an investigation of being an opponent in the 2020 Presidential race.

          1. Who cares. Trump was a political opponent of Obama and he okayed unconstitutional domestic spying of Trump without probable cause.

            This stupid corrupt shit is backfiring for your Team Blue and its making you cry salty tears.

            1. Whatabout that. We weren’t talki NV about Obama and Trump. We were talking about Trump and Biden.

          2. To be precise, Neutral, Non-Partisan Mike, POTUS Trump asked Ukraine to look into the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor. The Biden’s were incidental to that.

            If Biden is a damned crook, we should know that up-front before we vote.

            1. He explicitly mentioned Biden in the July 25th phone call:

              “ The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

              It’s quite a stretch to interpret Trump’s interest in Biden in that paragraph as incidental.

              1. Yeah Neutral, Non-Partisan Mike…..The actual topic was stopping the prosecution. The Bidens were incidental to that. Of course, it did not help matters any that the sitting Vice President bragged about stopping the prosecution on camera.

                This one will be settled at the ballot box. Can’t wait.

                1. And yet the very first thing Trump says is in regards to the matter is, “… There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son…”

                  Incidental.

      2. Did anyone lose liberty as a result of anything Trump is accused of doing?

        Biden’s coked out whoremongering retard son lost the liberty to bilk another 10 million dollars out of a corrupt natural gas company.

        1. I hadn’t considered that. Well I guess we have no choice but to fire Trump directly into the sun.

          At first they came for the failsons, and I did not speak out –
          Because I was not a failson.

      3. You’re right- we clearly don’t attempt to prosecute those who attempt murders. Only the ones that succeed.

        1. Attempted murders still result in a loss of liberty. Typically you’d be forced to defend yourself, or flee, or in some other way alter what you were planning on doing because someone attempted to murder you.

          What liberty did Trump’s attempted investigation trample on? Investigating someone isn’t even a crime, how can attempting to investigate someone be one?

        2. There were no attempted crimes in the articles of impeachment dumbfuck.

      4. I do not agree that the standard for impeachment must be committing a crime. The standard, right there in the Constitution, is “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. The definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes malfeasance, incompetence, corruption, etc.

        1. You can disagree all you want. The words are rights there and every reason for impeachment requires a crime.

          Too bad a Democrat will never be President again. I would look forward to the impeachment in the first 100 days.

          1. The words are not right there. Is your argument that because the word, crime, is in the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” a crime is required for impeachment?

            If so, you are ignorant of the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Intentionally obtuse about it, since we all know you have been following the impeachment news and have seen the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” explained.

            1. “High crimes and misdemeanors aren’t crimes or misdemeanors!”
              – Mike “living constitution” Laursen

        2. “”The definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes malfeasance, incompetence, corruption, etc.””

          There seems to be much debate about this. Where are you getting your definition from?

    2. Liberarianism demands that? Don’t agree. I think impeaching for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is just fine: if a President is incompetent, abusing the office for personal gain, or whatever, boot them.

      1. Poor mikey. He cant read well.

  18. Then if I don’t like you, I should be able to fire you from your job whether I hired you or not. Right?

    1. You can if you’re the boss of whoever hired that person. You can also fire whoever hired the person. Currently, Nancy Pelosi is in the process of firing the person she doesn’t like and the Democrats are in the process of firing the people who hired him. Well, maybe not firing them exactly, just replacing them with illegal immigrants, felons, sketchy people with no ID, and signatures of dead and imaginary people.

      1. Well, the analogy is more like Pelosi is in the process of going to H.R. with a list of reasons the person should be fired. An H.R. department that isn’t much inclined to fire the person, by the way.

          1. More like 1×10^infinity

            1. Sorry (-) 1 * 10^inifity

  19. As if this impeachment has anything to do with whether Trump is a “bad president”. For me to believe that, the Democrats would have to be less obvious about their “let’s see what sticks” approach to the impeachment process. They’ve been literally planning it since day 1.

    It’s like Reason thinks Democrats suddenly woke up and decided to collectively make a principled stand against the excess of power. It’s pathetic.

    1. It’s because Reason is run by anarchists and this is a fine way to help crash the system. Cry Havoc! Doesn’t hurt they also loathe Trump with a passion and all to do with his immigration stance.

      Now, Trump’s a narcissistic Third Wayer, but that’s not a good reason to impeach the man. Or it didn’t use to be. Now the genie’s out of the bottle impeachment will be far more common.

      And the anarchists will giggle with glee.

      1. +10000

        Reason hitches its wagon to any strategy that will destroy this Republic. Anarchists are too chicken shit to pool their money and buy Anarchyland.

    2. If you’ve listened to the Reason Podcast, especially Gillespie, it is clear that the Reason staff is quite skeptical of the Democrat’s motives.

      1. Poor neutral mikey.

        Reason is reasonable…always. No matter what commenters think.

        1. One of us is hanging out every day at a website where he generally appreciates the writers, defending a website and magazine that he has been a fan of for decades. One of us is hanging out every day at a website where he thinks the writing sucks, grousing about everything they say on the comments section. The latter is a pathetic thing to be doing with one’s precious time.

          1. So you’re a servile, unintelligent marionette.
            That’s as pathetic as it gets.

  20. When you impeach the president, you’re saying FYTW to everyone who voted for him. There better be a damn good reason to do it.

    This is as much about the Democrats trying to punish voters as it is about them punishing Trump, if not more so.

    1. There better be a damn good reason and at least large minority of the people who voted for him better agree with you. If no one who voted for him agrees with you, it is just a bullshit excuse to overturn an election.

    2. But then you need to consider what the Democrats are doing what the people who voted them into the House wanted from them, and the Constitution gives them the power to do so. Just like the Republicans whom (presumably) other people voted into the Senate, will be doing what the people who voted for them want when they acquit Trump.

      1. Shouldn’t it be time for Jeffy to suit up in his Santa attire and try to coax little children to sit on his lap?

    3. Neutral Mikey. Web traffic AND smoothing over reason propaganda.

      1. If it were true, that I am commenting just to help Reason’s web page hits, wouldn’t that be a good thing? Don’t we all want to help the success of a website that provides us all, free of charge, with a comments forum where we all spend a lot of our time? (Of course, we would also want to contribute during their fundraisers, too. Right?)

      2. You know, too-cool-for-school kids, who sit in the back of the class and make fun of the teacher, are only spending their time in the school in the first place because they are forced to go there.

        Being a too-cool-for-school kid when nobody is making you be there is a pathetic misuse of your life. Why not find a website where you like the writing and hang out there?

        1. You’re just a sad and desperate marionette, whose nose is covered in shit

  21. What an inane thought. For the sake of separation of powers would require we allow a sitting President the power to fire the Speaker, Majority Leader, and Chief Justice. Or maybe he just dissolves Congress and calls a new election. Welcome to late 40’s Italy.

    If the President wields too much power, its because Congress yielded it to him over the decades, and its the office that needs to be cut down to size. Not the individual in the office. No matter how much “Orange Man baaaaaaad”.

    1. Yes, although I’d comment just as a (tiny) correction that the executive does, or is supposed to anyway have some influence over the Senate. The Vice President was originally supposed to preside over the Senate, not just be the tie-breaker vote. That the VP hasn’t done this in modern times is just a matter of tradition.

  22. So first publish an article, then publish an interview asking the author about the article, huh? Will the next one interview the interviewer?

    1. So, the beef is that Reason should stop promotions of their own product?

      1. Get yer elf costume on and go out and bother little children.

  23. So Ms Bragg are you saying any time the party in control of the House doesn’t like the POTUS or his polices they should feel empowered to impeach him? Should the Republicans have impeached Obama for obstruction of a congressional inquiry because they were in control of the House when he refused to turn over subpoenaed documents in the Fast and Furious investigation? Eric Holder also also ignored a Congressional subpoena to testify citing Executive Privilege. For some reason that scenario sounds awfully familiar…..

  24. There are no so-called good presidents…

  25. Sure..so how come a rotten bum like Obama lasted 8 years? No way Trump is worse than he was.

    1. Trump is the best President in US History now.

      Only one to survive multiple coup attempts.

  26. Democrats in Congress, “You People elected the wrong President!!!!!! But don’t fear citizens; we’ll cancel your votes for you…”

    1. As Reason cheers them on

  27. Is this a joke? Was it intended to be read by grade school kids?

    Let’s poke some giant holes in the pathetic argument the Reason presents.
    First, why is there the presumption that impeachment of the president should be a regular thing, but NO consideration of impeachment of senators and congressmen. Yes, they CAN be impeached, they just don’t use the word. And removed from office. So, I’m waiting for Reason to encourage the impeachment of Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Schumer. I won’t hold my breath, but I’m waiting.

    Second, our founding fathers were very concerned that impeachment would be used as a political tool, rather than a means to keep our federal government centered and honest. And, sure enough, democrats are using impeachment as a political tool.

    For the useful idiots out there, let me remind you that the two major parties have no authority WHATSOEVER to decide ANYTHING in our governments. An impeachment by a political party, as opposed to the constitutional intent, has a name. It’s called a COUP. That’s what this is. And some intellectual lightweight at Reason can’t just change that by writing a pathetically uninformed opinion piece.

    1. “ our founding fathers were very concerned that impeachment would be used as a political tool, rather than a means to keep our federal government centered and honest”

      Never heard that claimed before. Can you back it up with any citations?

      1. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65
        “The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

        1. Thank you. That was a good citation.

      2. “Never heard that claimed before”

        The extent of your ignorance is astounding

  28. Seems like this ” must do impeachment NOW for National SECURITY” line of BS came to a grinding halt. Nance Pelosi has lost it and voters don’t like to be hustled by political grifters when the economy is doing so good.

  29. I can’t wait until we impeach the next democrat president just because don’t like him. Too bad it won’t be for at least 5 or 6 years.

    1. No problem, we can wait. Hopefully for a long time.

  30. Is one vote every four years too much democracy for you?

    1. The House members who impeached Trump were democratically elected. That’s democracy for you. Majorities of people in elections sometimes deciding to do things one does not agree with.

      1. Tell yourself that while Trump serves out his term as president and is re-elected.

      2. Well Neutral, Non-Partisan Mike…..this is precisely why we have elections. We’ll settle this the old fashioned way.

        1. Great. Can all the Trump partisans here, then, stop calling the impeachment a coup and saying it goes against democracy.

          1. OK, a bloodless attempt to remove a President because he talks icky.

  31. Sure it’s just a coincidence that the White House asked for military aid to be withheld from Ukraine 91 minutes after the July 25th phone call and asked for the holding of the aid to be kept “closely held”. After all, there was clearly no quid pro quo:

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-withheld-ukraine-military-aid-91-minutes-after-phone-call?source=cheats&via=rss

    1. “” It went out 91 minutes after the end of the now-infamous call between Trump and Ukraine’s prime minister, Vlodymyr Zelensky, timing that may have been coincidental given that the aid was held up by Trump earlier that month. “”

      Your own link shoots down that idea that the aid was held up after the call.

      1. And why the request to keep the hold quiet?

  32. As mentioned many times by many people. They’ve been calling for the impeachment of Trump BEFORE he was sworn in which should bring into question the whole legitimacy of what’s gone on since 2016.

    It stinks.

    Reason is taking a really strange stance with this.

    What an unproductive crock of shit, low-grade theatre this ordeal was.

    1. Yeah, the people that are claiming the Senate is not going to be impartial fail to point that out.

    2. Yea, even during the election I heard pundits say stuff like, if he wins, he’s going to be impeached in the first month of office. Which is why the “Russian collusion” story always stunk to high heavens and I’ve always been skeptical.

      Now, if you even mention that Hillary met with Ukrainian officials who wanted to leak stuff on Manafort, you’re accused of “repeating Russian propaganda.”

      On the Ukraine situation, they could have tried to get it investigated by the Justice Dept, and they could have waited to have certain disputes with the executive adjudicated in court, but they were in a hurry to get it over with I think. I think one of the benefits of impeaching now, and which is why Pelosi signed on, is it gets rid of the impeachment issue and satiates the base. “There, we did it, now you have nothing more to complain about.”

  33. I really don’t mind getting the next democratic president getting impeached if we don’t like him/her. We can have more sham trials, declamations and dancing in the house whenever a point is cored against a political opponent. We can have more waste of taxpayer money and more drama for the media. We can have wire-tapping of political opponents and liberal journalists – you will NOT get to complain about it. After all you support all this. Let’s make the USA a banana republic.

  34. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here……

    >>——————->> Click it here

  35. I earned $7000 last month by working online just for 7 to 9 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this Site. If You too want to earn such a This amount of money then come and Check it…. Read more

  36. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page…. Read more

  37. I am making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Do not go to office.I do not claim to be others,I yoy will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this….. Read more  

Please to post comments