Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Sunday predicted that Democrats will impeach Trump for a third time between his two presidencies if they take control of the House after the November midterm elections.

Jordan suggested in an interview on “Cats Roundtable,” the WABC 770 AM radio show hosted by John Catsimatidis, that Democrats will take the legislative branch’s oversight capability “and turn it into a weaponization of government.”

“They say they’re not going to, but we know they will –– they’ll do a third impeachment of President Trump,” Jordan told the host. “But that’s just part of it. They’re going to investigate the first family, they’re going to investigate cabinet secretaries.”

    • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      Literally everyone I knew thought impeachments automatically kicked you out of office until his first one, and it’s insane that they don’t do that.

      • Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        Basically everything requires agreement between the house and the senate. The house impeaches, and the senate convicts, thereby agreeing with the house. If they disagree, it stops there just like any other legislation.

        • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          I feel like the big official sounding word of “impeachment” should be reserved for after the Senate convicts. Otherwise it’s just a meaningless gesture on behalf of the House.

          I began searching to see how Bill Clinton was removed, then I realized the Senate acquitted him and his term naturally ended later that month. Andrew Johnson also wasn’t convicted.

          This mechanism of removing the president from office has literally never worked before! The whole impeachment process is an overhyped nothing burger!

          Edit: I should add that all three presidents had the majority of Senate vote to convict at least one of the impeachment charges, but they needed a 2/3rds supermajority because why not?

          • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            16 days ago

            Clinton’s impeachment is why not. People forget that the blow job he lied about getting that he was impeached for wasn’t what he was being investigated for. The investigation was for a supposed shady land deal that turned out to be completely above board. They just kept desperately searching for anything they could because they knew they couldn’t win the next election.

            The 2/3rds rule makes it hard to convict so that type of purely political move isn’t a normal function of congress.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      It made MAGA jump through hoops in a panic, and the entire world was talking about Trump’s corruption. That’s not nothing.

      And history will NEVER forget it.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      Any time and effort they spend fighting impeachment is less time they spend fucking up everything else.

    • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      I would have hoped that people would have looked any of this up by now. It’s trivial to do so.

      But to save you even that much efffort: Impeachments happens in the House. It is a vote, and that means it largely happens along party lines. If sufficient votes are cast in the House to impeach, it goes to the Senate to vote for removal, which requires a two-thirds majority. It is extremely unlikely to happen, and so far when he was impeached, he was not removed by the Senate.

      Does it do anything? Yes and no. It is a political process, not a criminal/judicial one, so some people can argue that it’s just politics, but also nobody has been impeached twice before. It’s also a matter of norms, so it is quite possible that Republicans will now impeach any Democrat president from here until our political system fails. So while impeachment definitely meant something in the past (although arguably even with Clinton’s impeachment, the impeachment itself was a political witch hunt), it is certainly meaning less and less as time goes by. It SHOULD mean something, but then again we shouldn’t be dealing with fascism, but here we are.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      Does impeachment achieve anything, or have any consequences at all? Not really sure what the point is, seems to have no effect

      Impeachment in the House is the first step to having a standing President removed from office. The second step (after the required first) is for the Senate to hold a trial. If 2/3rds of the Senators vote to convict, the President is removed.

      What has occurred to trump so far is Step #1 two times without Step #2 being executed.

    • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      Removal of his head from his shoulders, and same for the rest of his administration. Fucking INSANE the word “treason” isn’t used more.

      • CalemitousVariantK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        People get all pedantic about the exact legal definition of treason, forgetting that the word has a common understanding of betraying one’s country.

        We don’t need to litigate the specifics, trump has done treason.

    • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      Impeachment itself means nothing. But they can open investigations into all sorts of stuff under the guise of impeachment preparation. They can bring everything to light and leak it all to the press. Done correctly, the whole first family can be dragged through the gutters forever.

      • im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        Done correctly

        Two little words doing some heavy lifting there.

        Dems couldn’t “done correctly” a fuck in a brothel.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    Yes. That’s the idea asshole.

    Consequences for crimes.

    Fuck around, find out.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    I thought you dumbasses professed to be the “law and order” party? Guess that was just another big fucking lie like all your other claims…

    • 🍉 DrRedOctopus 🐙🍉@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      The biggest bullshit is that legally speaking, he will get away with everything he did. the supreme court declared that everything the president does is legal. that was some major bullshit.

      • stopdropandprole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        if what the president is doing now is “legal” then the new president can “legally” have the old president marched into a meat grinder.

        “sorry bro, but it was an official act of the president, nothing we can do about it”

        • 🍉 DrRedOctopus 🐙🍉@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          what Biden should have done when the supreme court decided that. immediately and illegally expand the supreme court or illegally arrest the conservative judges that voted for that. so the new supreme court would reverse that stupid decision.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        If their wrong, what would be the actual impact of a third impeachment that won’t get though the Senate?

        The answer is zero impact. He’s been impeached already, his reputation is already tarnished and unless they have realistic expectations of a Senate conviction, it’s pointless.

        This is why I expect even a democratic win to be mostly pointless. Supreme Court says 2/3rds of Senate is the only body that can hold the executive branch accountable, so the branch is free to do anything it wants without repercussion so long as over a third of Senate says they are Republican.

      • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        No absolutely correct. Impeachment at this point is literally just virtue signalling. It’s bandied about by Democrats who want to seem like they’re doing something, but don’t want to use the actual tools they have to rein Trump in.

        There’s zero chance Trump will be removed from office by an impeachment. Republicans are slaves to Trump. They won’t vote to convict him. There is literally no point in impeaching Trump beyond throwing red meat to the Democratic base.

        If Democrats gain control of Congress, they need to be fully prepared to use the full power of the purse to stop the bastard. That includes shutting down the entire government if necessary. That includes denying funding to the military if necessary. That includes completely cutting off funding from ICE and Trump’s surveillance state. But a lot of these necessary actions are politically difficult for Democrats because they hurt the corporate donors that feed the party.

        They like impeachment because it allows them to seem like they’re doing something without actually having to do anything. They can impeach Trump, and their donors will know that nothing concrete will actually come from it. A Democratic Congress can bring Trump to heel, but that will require a willingness to actually fight some very powerful and entrenched corporate interests. And that’s generally where Democrats perform the worst.

        So no, it is in fact you that are absolutely wrong.

        • ZidaneRick@lemmy.patton.id.au
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          Historically it matters, not only to show that he was impeached for x actions but also who voted to keep him in. The cost of living is going to cause democrats to have to do something shortly, giving in to their corporate donors can only go so far with a president who’s intent is to cause as much damage and get as much money from taxpayers as possible. The Corporate/Politician relationship only continues to work if the people believe regardless that the politicians are still working for them. With the price of fuel and goods skyrocketing democrats are going to be forced to show they are trying, and I don’t mean a strongly worded email from Schumer.

          People have become obsessed with identity politics in the age of social media and unless something tangible changes in the way of rising costs, this could shatter the worldview of a few people when they have to start paying $5 for a banana.

  • Lydon_Feen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    Fingers crossed! Let’s hope this time it sticks and there will be widespread convictions across the republican party and the Trump crime family.

    • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      Let’s hope this time it sticks

      If by “sticks” you mean the Senate votes to remove… they won’t. There’s not sufficient votes. That’s the consequence of years of fascist propaganda leading to Republicans controlling enough of Congress to stop the needed votes.

  • artyom@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    Holy shit would they have a long list of charges at this point…

    Democrats will take the legislative branch’s oversight capability “and turn it into a weaponization of government.”

    Don’t forget to always accuse others of the shit you’re doing.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      Technically all that means is that the articles of impeachment pass the House.

      Trump has been impeached twice already, the Republican controlled Senate refused to convict.

        • anon_8675309@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          17 days ago

          Oh I know the difference. I don’t think he’ll actually be impeached, much less removed.

          But what I meant was Gym J. Didnt say they’ll bring articles of impeachment. He said they’ll impeach. This means he thinks they’ll be able to.

          I’m actually skeptical.

  • Corvidae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    I couldn’t get further than this:

    “And then they’ll also, I think, go after people in the private sector,” Jordan continued. “They’re going to go up for any business who, as an example, you got businesses who helped paper the inauguration, which happened every four years … [Democrats] are going to somehow say, ‘Oh, these businesses have done something wrong.'”

    Reverse Victim and Offender.

    • criscodisco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      When politicians say “people in the private sector” they’re not talking about us. They’re talking about their big donors.

      So… who is supposed to give a fuck about this again? Does Gym think the people that voted for him care about protecting his big donors?