Search results for "impeachment"

Trump faces 'unprecedented' bipartisan demand for impeachment

According to a new poll, not only do a majority of Americans support the impeachment of President Donald Trump, but one in seven Republicans want him removed.

"This is an unprecedented result this early in a presidential term,” said pollster John Bonifaz. The only other two-term president to receive majority support for impeachment was Richard Nixon, who managed to keep voters from turning against him until late into his second term, well after the Watergate scandal broke.

While Democratic opposition to Trump is nothing new, the rising desire for impeachment among the GOP signals a radical shift. One year ago, in March 2026, the president held a 91 percent approval rating among Republicans. By January 2025, that number was down to 73 percent. Since then it has gone up and down, and as of late March, was in the neighborhood of 80 percent.

Currently, 14 percent or one in seven Republicans support impeachment, versus 84 percent of Democrats who want the president removed. Perhaps most telling, however, are the numbers among the vital voting bloc of Independents, with 55 percent saying they want Trump gone.

Trump’s overall approval rating has never been high, entering the year at just 45 percent before ebbing down to around 40 percent in mid-February due to airport chaos and other issues before creeping back up. Then it plummeted after Trump launched war against Iran in late February, sinking to a historic low of just 37 percent.

Now with the war suspended for a ceasefire that has many Republicans saying the conflict was a “waste of time” in the first place, it is unsurprising that GOP support for Trump’s removal has grown.

Trump has been impeached in the House twice before, though the Senate failed to convict and remove him both times. The second attempt in the wake of the January 6th, 2021, insurrection came close, with seven Republican Senators voting for impeachment, achieving just shy of the necessary 2/3rds threshold. But with support for impeachment growing and many projecting that the Democrats will win back the House — and maybe even the Senate — efforts to remove the president could resume.

"Donald Trump has blown past every requirement to be removed from office,” said Representative John Larson (D-CT).And it's getting worse. His illegal war in Iran is not only driving up prices for American families — it has cost American lives. He's becoming more unstable by the day. His profane and sacrilegious Easter Sunday and subsequent threats, including ‘a whole civilization will die’ and ‘open the Strait…or you’ll be living in hell’ not only foreshadow war crimes, but put our security at risk."

Addressing talk of impeachment at a rally in April, Trump wondered, “What the hell did I do? Here we go again.”

'Trump impeachment' and 'massive nuclear proliferation' likely: conservative journalist

On Wednesday night, President Donald Trump delivered a national address in which he attempted to alleviate fears about the war in Iran and the struggling economy. He was never going to convince his political opponents on the left, but judging by reactions, he may too have lost support on the right as well.

According to Scott McConnell, journalist and co-founder of the American Conservative, “Trump’s rambling Iran address was full of wishful thinking.”

McConnell attached the statement to an article from the conservative magazine the Spectator, which he says makes a compelling case for “things likely in the future: 'Trump impeachment, massive nuclear proliferation.'"

In the Spectator piece, the author Jacob Heilbrunn declared that “Trump could not have been clearer about the course of the Iran war. It’s not ending any time soon and there will be no deescalation of military force.”

Heilbrunn pointed out that Trump’s remark about bombing Iran “back to the stone age” was drawn from General Curtis LeMay, who made this assertion in regard to Vietnam. Famously, the Vietnam War bombing campaigns did not win the conflict for the U.S., and served only to kill millions of people while destroying the American reputation. Trump’s use of the phrase does not bode well for Iranians who want to live in safety and Americans who want out of the war.

“It was an escalatory rant,” American Conservative editor Curt Mills told Heilbrunn. “After decades of huffing and puffing, President Trump may have finally met his nemesis. The administration seems positively hoodwinked and out of its depth.”

The unpopular war plus the economic devastation it’s wrought at home and around the world suggest that, wrote Heilbrunn, “the Republican party is headed toward a landslide defeat in the midterms. If it loses both the House and Senate, a third impeachment trial is a certainty.”

It isn’t hard to see why voters would choose to reject Trump and the GOP. Polls show that Americans were already angry about the economic situation, with just 31 percent of voters approving of the president’s handling of the economy. If voters were displeased before, Trump’s statements earlier in the day before the national address couldn’t have helped, with the president declaring, “We can’t take care of daycare. We’re a big country. We’re fighting wars. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these things.”

As Heilbrunn suggested, Trump prioritizing his unpopular war on Iran over the economic suffering of the American people very well could “prove the undoing of his presidency.”

How to impeach Trump — for real this time

Speaking at a January 6 retreat for House Republicans, Trump stated, “You gotta win the midterms ‘cause, if we don’t win the midterms, it’s just gonna be — I mean, they’ll find a reason to impeach me. I’ll get impeached.”

This was before Trump’s agents murdered Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, before the Justice Department released more Epstein files, before Trump’s disastrous war in Iran, before Trump threatened death to the entire Iranian civilization, before a gallon of gas hit $4 or more, before other prices also began rising because of the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, and before additional price hikes associated with Trump’s tariffs had kicked in.

It was also before Trump’s polls slid to record lows, before the MAGA faithful began complaining that Trump had betrayed his promise to avoid foreign entanglements, and before a slew of special elections in which Democratic candidates have won Republican districts (and even when they didn’t win, lost by far smaller margins than Trump won by in 2024).

Until recently I thought impeaching Trump and convicting him in the Senate was a pipe dream. I was concerned that even talk of impeachment at this stage might distract attention from the affordability crisis brought on by Trump and could even fortify Republican charges of Democratic “extremism.”

No longer.

The president of the United States is stark-raving mad. He’s a clear and present danger to America and the world. The American public is beginning to see it.

We’ve got to do whatever we legally can to remove him from office. The 25th Amendment would be useful if Trump’s Cabinet and key advisers had any integrity, but they don’t. They’re ambitious, unprincipled traitors.

Which leaves impeachment.

You may be skeptical. After all, he’s already been impeached twice, to no avail. How can the third time be the charm?

Because it seems likely that Democrats will retake control of the House and the Senate in this fall’s midterm elections (unless Trump prevents free and fair elections).

And because it’s also possible that there will be enough votes in the Senate starting next January to convict Trump of impeachable offenses and send him packing.

I understand how difficult this may seem. Both times Trump was impeached in the House, he was saved by the Constitution’s requirement that two-thirds of the Senate (67 senators, assuming all 100 are present) convict in order to remove a president.

The highest Senate vote count against Trump came in 2021, and it was 10 votes short of the constitutional requirement. Fifty-seven senators, including seven Republicans, voted to convict him of inciting an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. It was the most bipartisan impeachment vote in U.S. Senate history, but it still fell well short of the 67 votes needed to convict Trump.

So why do I think it’s possible now? Because public sentiment has swung further against Trump now than it was in 2021. And it’s likely to swing even further against him, because he’s going out of his mind at a rapid rate.

The way to accomplish this is to defeat enough incumbent Republican senators who are up for reelection in 2026 to create a Democratic majority in that chamber, totaling some 54 votes, and pressure at least 13 Republicans up for reelection in 2028 to vote to convict him.

That’s not impossible. In the upcoming midterms it’s likely that Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins will be replaced by a Democrat (either Janet Mills or Graham Platner). I also assume that former North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper will replace Republican Senator Thom Tillis, who’s retiring.

And I’d like to believe that the good people of Ohio will see the light and reelect Sherrod Brown over Jon Husted, the dullard who was appointed to fill the remainder of JD Vance’s term.

James Talarico could take the Texas Republican Senate seat now occupied by John Cornyn. In Alaska, I’d put odds on Mary Peltola defeating incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan. In Nebraska, assume that Dan Osborn prevails over incumbent Republican Senator Pete Ricketts. And so on.

Republican senators last elected in 2022 who will be on the ballot in November 2028 include some who are vulnerable because they’re in swing states, such as North Carolina’s Ted Budd and Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson; or are in states that could be competitive, such as Indiana’s Todd Young; or are vulnerable to internal party shifts, such as Louisiana’s John Kennedy and South Carolina’s Tim Scott.

Those vulnerabilities mean that their constituents could push them to vote to convict Trump in an impeachment, or else threaten to vote against them in 2028.

So it’s possible to get the 67 Senate votes, my friends. And it’s absolutely necessary that we try.

The vast No Kings demonstrations should be considered a prelude to targeting enough Republican Senate incumbents and open races to flip the Senate this fall, and pressuring Republicans up for reelection in 2028 to do their constitutional duty.

Now is the time to show the size and intensity of America’s commitment to removing Trump from office, for the good of us all.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

'Wrong answer': Conservative CPAC audience cheers impeachment

The chairman of the influential Conservative Political Action Conference was stunned on Friday when his audience delivered an unexpectedly awkward response.

“How many of you would like to see impeachment hearings?” Matt Schlapp asked.

The audience cheered, applauded, and cried, “yeah!”

Schlapp quickly cut them off.

“No. That was the wrong answer,” he retorted, appearing somewhat embarrassed.

“How many of you would like to see impeachment hearings?” Schlapp was forced to ask again.

“No,” he quickly directed.

Things did not appear to be going as planned.

“Can someone bring some coffee out?” Schlapp asked.

“We’ve got to keep this House majority!” he then declared, apparently cognizant that impeachment of the president could be possible were Republicans to lose control.

Call grows to impeach 'the most dangerous man on the planet'

After the unprovoked bombing of Iran over the weekend by the United States—strikes that included the unlawful assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei—the call for US President Donald Trump to be impeached and removed from office has grown as the straightest path to hold the US leader to account for the attacks which policy and human rights experts have condemned as a serious war crime.

With a regional war in the Middle East that was already boiling from Gaza to Lebanon and from Syria to Yemen now exploding in the wake of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, Globe and Mail columnist Debra Thompson on Sunday called Trump “the most dangerous man on the planet.”

“Rather than ending wars,” Thompson notes, “Trump has initiated military action eight times, carrying out attacks in seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, and Venezuela) in 2025.” Such a pattern of violence and warmongering should make clear that failure to restrain Trump has only emboldened him.

“The recurring danger in this latest presidential aggression is that there are no guardrails, no constraints, and no post-hoc justification,” writes Thomson, “other than that Mr. Trump is the President of the United States and can do whatever he wants.”

But American presidents cannot simply do whatever they want. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll out Sunday, less than 25% support the president’s aggression against Iran. In the first wave of the US military attack, an Iranian school for girls was bombed, killing over 108 civilians, mostly children.

While some congressional lawmakers are pushing for a vote this week on a War Powers Resolution to curtail US military operations against Iran, others are demanding more robust action from Congress to bring Trump’s war-making to an end.

“Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, as well as to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and fund and regulate the military,” declared novelist and political activists Stephen King on Saturday. “Impeach the SOB.”

Mike Hersh and Alan Minsky, respectively the communications director and executive director of the Progressive Democrats of America, argued in a Sunday op-ed for Common Dreams that “Trump’s illegal, unconstitutional war on Iran is not only a moral and humanitarian disaster, but also a profound constitutional crisis.”

According to Hersh and Minsky:

Trump’s illegal war on Iran and the rule of law establish an intolerable pattern of egregious abuses of power, directly threatening our constitutional order, our safety, and our way of life. These intertwined crises cry out for an immediate, decisive response by the Congress and the US public. Therefore, PDA demands that all members of Congress, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, uphold their oath of office to defend our constitutional republic. The Constitution offers one and only one remedy when President a repeatedly breaks the law and arrogantly refuses to abide by the limits on the power clearly laid out in the Constitution. That remedy is impeachment, followed by removal from office.

Matt Duss, executive vice president for the Center for International Policy, said that US lawmakers, as well as the American people they represent, “must also be ready to hold the president and his administration accountable for this breach of US and international law.”

“The failure to hold past presidents liable for war crimes and related violations of our own laws has helped lead to this dangerous moment, with a seemingly unrestrained president endangering millions of lives with impunity,” warned Duss. “The forever wars and the imperial presidency must finally come to an end.”

Disgraced Trump official begs to be impeached

From where I was sitting Wednesday, it looked like the attorney general pretty much invited the United States Congress to impeach her. Here’s how the New York Daily News put it, summarizing the AP’s coverage of her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee:

Attorney General Pam Bondi launched into a passionate defense of President Donald Trump Wednesday as she tried to turn the page from relentless criticism of the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, repeatedly shouting at Democrats during a combative hearing in which she postured herself as the Republican president’s chief protector.

I put that last bit in italics not only to emphasize the key fact of the news, but also to suggest it’s all the reason you need to impeach.

The attorney general is the top law enforcement officer of the United States. The attorney general is not the president’s defense counsel. Anything short of that standard is dereliction of duty and betrayal of the oath, high crimes demanding she be removed from office.

I mean, ranking member Jamie Raskin’s opening statement could be used later in drawing up articles of impeachment against Bondi. The Maryland congressman enumerated all the ways the attorney general “ignored the law” passed by the Congress to release the Epstein files.

Watching clip after clip, I was surprised to see Bondi didn’t bother hiding it. In behavior unbecoming of a high officer, she screamed, she pouted, and she insulted the Democrats, all without apparent concern that doing so revealed the intent behind her actions – that Donald Trump’s interests are her interests, those of the people be damned.

Immediately, Bondi’s theatrics raised more questions than answers, according to New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

“She was screaming and thrashing, and I think that’s because she knows that she is implicated in a massive coverup to protect a powerful ring of pedophiles through the redaction of the names of perpetrators, the holding of 3 million files, the unexplained moving of Ghislaine Maxwell into a new cushy facility – all of these things are what she personally oversaw. That’s before even digging into whatever questions may arise from her history in Florida, and I think that her thrashing and her very erratic performance today pointed to the fact that there are real questions that point to the DOJ under her leadership specifically.”

Clearly, her performance was strategic. It was part of her goal of deflecting attention away from the president and the fact that his name appears more than a million times in files related to Jeffrey Epstein that were released by the Department of Justice, according to Raskin.

She beclowned herself and perhaps it worked. Most headlines I have seen about her testimony are a variation of the Daily News’: “Bondi shouts down Democrats in hearing on Epstein files release delays.”

At one point, the attorney general said instead of criticizing Trump, we should be glorifying him, as the Dow Jones Industrial broke a new record this week. She spoke as if she were a fan girl. “They said it couldn’t be done in four years, yet President Trump has done it in one!”

At another, instead of answering Jerry Nadler’s question about how many of Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators she has indicted, she all but knocked the pitcher over to avoid saying the embarrassing truth: none.

Bondi even allowed herself to be seen thumbing through “flash cards with individualized insults,” Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie said. “But she couldn’t memorize them, so you can see her shuffle through them to find the flash-cards-insult that matches the member.”

Bondi humiliated herself for Trump’s sake, but we shouldn’t just move on. We should dwell on that choice. As Raskin said, in response to her petulance, Bondi was trying to “filibuster” the Congress in order to prevent it from manifesting its will, in this case, getting answers from the attorney general about delays in releasing the Epstein files.

That is contempt. Contempt of Congress is a crime. When you show contempt for Congress to the Congress – to the actual faces of elected members while under oath – the Congress cannot overlook it without expecting such crimes to continue. Nip it in the bud. Impeach Bondi.

It’s important to say that plainly. Too often, liberals get bogged down in debates over intent. Why did Bondi play the fool? Ron Filipkowski, at Meidasnews.com, said her “reprehensible performance was to please an audience of one who expects reprehensible performances.”

I have no doubt that’s true, but I also think the reasons are secondary to the behavior itself. It doesn’t really matter that her clown act was intended to protect Donald Trump. More important is holding her accountable so future officials know clown acts come with a price.

Impeachment isn’t possible right now. The Democrats do not have the numbers. Even if they did, there’s no guarantee her indictment by a House majority would lead to conviction by two-thirds of the Senate.

But that, too, is beside the point. Fortunately, some Democrats appear to understand the point is saying she’s unfit, right now, to build momentum toward retaking the House, and once achieved, using that majority power to advance the cause of justice. As Raskin said:

“If [the Democrats] had the power, we would subpoena [Bondi], and we would require her to answer our questions.” Raskin went on to say:

“So that is the importance of who’s going to be in control in Congress after the 2026 elections because we would like the subpoena power, so we don’t see this kind of phenomenal disrespect of Congress.”

The way I see it, the Democrats seem to be building up to a position from which they can send a message to future toadies: Pam Bondi might be spared in the end, but not before we make her life hell.

Conservative Bill Kristol urges push for 'Mad King' Trump impeachment

America may not make it over the next 33 months if “Mad King Donald” Trump is not impeached, argues conservative columnist Bill Kristol, who is also calling for resistance from executive branch officials.

“The simple fact is that we have a president who is irresponsible, reckless, and indeed unhinged,” Kristol writes at The Bulwark. “And he’s all the more dangerous because he is unconstrained by both his subordinates in the executive branch or by Congress.”

Acknowledging that Trump was impeached twice before but never convicted, Kristol knows that impeachment and conviction may not be “in the cards” right now, while suggesting that perhaps the third time is the charm.

“The misconduct of Trump, in terms of his corruption and that of his associates, is unparalleled in our history. His abuses of power leave Nixon in the dust. A trial of impeachment would allow all the evidence of his offenses to be presented coherently in one time and place. Even if conviction doesn’t follow, an unequivocal alarm would have been sounded.”

He argues America must start laying the groundwork for impeachment, saying it’s time to discuss both impeachment and resistance by executive branch officials seriously.

“When the head of the executive branch shows a repeated willingness to enrich himself, to lie to the public, to break the law, senior officials can appropriately recall that the oath they take is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They can remind themselves that they are obliged to obey the law rather than the illegal wishes of their boss or their boss’s boss.”

They can slow-walk issues or actions, he suggests, and “make life more difficult for their political masters who are seeking to engage in misconduct or abuses of power.”

He also calls for officials who resist to force their superiors to “fire them for standing up against impropriety,” and then, “speak up about what they have seen inside.”

And he says it is “sober realism” to doubt that “we can make it safely through the next thirty-three months” without considering these measures.

Pro-Trump Republicans impeach a judge because they 'don’t like' her

The Washington Monthly reports the Republican super-majority is taking President Donald Trump’s lead in putting independent judges under Republican control.

Trump has called for the impeachment of judges when he disagrees with their decisions, creating the “kind of partisan screed against the independent judiciary that has infected Trump’s presidency, undermining the public’s faith in judges and the rule of law,” said Washington Monthly reporter Joshua A. Douglas. “Unfortunately, in Kentucky, lawmakers are taking it a step further by impeaching a judge simply because they do not like her rulings.”

“Kentucky law allows ‘any person’ to initiate an impeachment proceeding against a state judge. In January, a former state legislator who lost reelection two years ago and is seeking to regain their old office filed an impeachment petition against Julie Goodman, a state trial judge,” said Douglas. The petition alleges that Goodman ‘abused her office’ based on her rulings in six cases in which she allegedly violated statutory law and refused to follow precedent.

But Douglas said the petition “says little” about what makes [the judges'] decisions an impeachable offense, other than getting reversed by an appeals court. The highest profile of Goodman’s cases is the 2023 prosecution of Cornell Denmark Thomas II, who was charged with wanton murder in a car crash. Goodman dismissed the case, believing that Thomas, who is Black, was overcharged because of his race.

The state judiciary already has an internal process and guardrails to contain judges who allegedly violate their ethical responsibilities in a proceeding, said Douglas. Nevertheless, last week, the Republican-super-majority Kentucky House of Representatives voted to impeach Goodman, mostly on partisan lines.

Douglas points out that there have been only 15 impeachments of federal judges in U.S. history, with only eight convictions by the U.S. Senate. In every example, the impeachments involved abuse of the office in some way, like bribery, not disagreements on case or whether or not you like the judge. And there have been only two instances in the past few decades of a state legislatures impeaching judges. One involved drug abuse by the judge, and another involved the judge seeking outside counsel from a friend on a case.

Seventy Kentucky lawyers signed a letter pushing back on the impeachment, arguing that the issue is about “separation of powers, equal branches of government, and judicial independence. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear also weighed in, warning the impeachment “can create a chilling effect,” and might herald other petitions being filed “by parties that didn’t get a ruling they wanted.”

These are only some of the opponents of the impeachment who critics say lawmakers are seeking Goodman’s removal “because (they) don’t like her rulings.

“The legal community should denounce impeachment based on disagreements with specific rulings as an improper political weapon,” argued Douglas. “Removing a judge because of their decisions undermines the rule of law, ultimately harming democracy.”

Trump's 'tin-pot dictator' move guarantees his impeachment: conservative

President Donald Trump's second term has proven tumultuous, but his troubles may have only just begun, according to one conservative commentator.

In a Wednesday essay for the conservative National Review, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy – who was an assistant U.S. attorney under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – lamented that Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) was staking its credibility on pursuing weak investigations against the president's political opponents. McCarthy argued that the Trump DOJ's recent failure to indict six Democratic members of Congress over a video message will likely lead to Trump's eventual third impeachment should Democrats retake at least one chamber of Congress in this fall's midterm elections.

The National Review columnist argued that while he personally viewed the video (which encouraged active-duty troops to remember their duty to disobey illegal orders) as "craven but legally unimpeachable," Trump's crusade nonetheless constituted an act of "bullying."

"More even than capricious tariffs, the president’s signature policy is bullying lawfare — the tin-pot dictator-style exploitation of law-enforcement power to punish political enemies and scapegoats and to settle old scores," he wrote. "And no, the fact that lawfare was practiced against him does not excuse it since lawfare threatens our justice system’s legitimacy, which is vital to a flourishing, free republic."

McCarthy went on to assert "there was no plausible justification for the proposed indictment," citing the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision that guarantees expressions of speech will not be punished provide they don't incite acts of lawlessness. He noted that this was the same case that led to former President Joe Biden's DOJ to not prosecute Trump for his January 6, 2021 speech at the Ellipse in Washington D.C. that preceded the siege of the U.S. Capitol.

"The president’s disregard for settled constitutional principle is exacerbated by his affront to separation of powers. A president has no business indicting, threatening to indict, or attempting to indict members of Congress who have committed no crimes — over a policy dispute," he wrote. "As congressional Republicans must know — if they have any memory of their prior pose as guardians of our constitutional framework and of the Article I branch’s institutional prerogatives — it is the end of liberty if the executive can paralyze Congress by threatening it with prosecution."

According to McCarthy, the die has been cast, and Trump's failed attempt to indict the six Democrats in the video means an unprecedented third impeachment is all but assured.

"Democrats will respond to the president’s attack on them by impeaching him," he wrote. "The progressive base will accept nothing less, and at this point congressional Democrats will not need convincing."

'End this tragedy': George Conway calls to impeach and remove 'fascist' Trump

Attorney George Conway, the Republican never-Trump activist turned Democratic candidate for the U.S. Congress, issued a strong call for the impeachment and removal of President Donald Trump from office.

It’s the latest dire warning Conway has made in recent days.

On Monday, Conway issued a warning about President Trump and his “megalomania.”

“The way things are going in America, it should be clear we don’t have much time,” Conway wrote. “We certainly don’t have three years. We need to help ourselves by pushing for impeachment and removal as hard as we can and carrying it out as soon as humanly possible.”

“How quickly does the megalomaniac lose strength versus how quickly he destroy[s] everything around him,” he added. “The one thing you can depend on is that the megalomaniac gets more destructive and dangerous over time before he’s done.”

On Tuesday, Conway wrote, “I think a Federal Bureau of Prisons facility—the most modern and secure one, because our president deserves the best—should be named after Trump. If elected to Congress, I pledge to do my best to enact this into law.”

Tuesday evening, using strong language, he vowed to work to impeach and remove Trump from office, if he wins his bid for a New York congressional seat.

Discover moreConstitutional law resourcesCivil rights newsLGBTQ political issuesvitaminsExtremism analysis reportsRepublican Party newsElection 2024 coverageDOJ document analysisFirst Amendment legal servicesHuman rights focused charities

“Removed — not just impeach — remove this fascist f — —,” Conway told the MeidasTouch Network.

“If you want your lives to be better and you want this country to preserve for your kids, we need to impeach and remove this fascist f — —,” he continued. “Now. As soon as possible.”

“You know, that language is tough, but that’s where we are,” Conway said. “We can’t mince words at this point.”

“We are at a crossroads,” he explained, “and if we want to have a country that survives, we need to end this tragedy that’s called Trumpism as soon as humanly possible.”

Trump's former White House lawyer lays out the case for his third impeachment

Ty Cobb, an attorney who served the White House under President Donald Trump’s first administration, says Democrats have their articles of impeachment writing themselves after the 2026 elections.

“With the president, you've got really extraordinary information out there: the $500 million bribe from the UAE in exchange for our ai chips, the $480 million plane from Qatar in exchange for an air force base and him parking his Venezuela oil revenue account in Qatar,” Cobb told MS NOW anchor Ari Melber.

“You know, the facts here are just extraordinary and unprecedented. This is not a matter of degree. This is a ripple in the force,” he added.

But Melber asked if Trump himself might not be the sole target of an impeachment effort. In fact, it’s easier to remove unpopular lieutenants who are embarrassing themselves with their own party. This could include rank incompetence, such as U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth exposing war plans to the public or DOP officials carrying out political prosecutions against people Trump does not like.

“You're suggesting that they could also try to impeach, say, [US AG Pam] Bondi or [US Deputy AG Todd] Blanche over politicized justice?” Melber asked.

“Certainly with regard to Bondi, who is obviously unfit for office based on her performance [before the House Judiciary Committee], [Homeland Security Secretary] Kristi Noem, who's supervising the execution of American citizens and lying about them being alleged terrorists,” said Cobb. “And then Hegseth and the multitude of classified violations that he has [exposed] as well as the war crimes being committed at his behest. All of those people should be impeached, for sure. And I expect that we will see articles introduced if the Democrats are lucky enough to take over the House.”

But Cobb added that it would have to be Democrats pushing the effort due to the flaccid nature of the Republican Party and its lockstep devotion to Trump.

“Impeachment, however, is a weak tool in the hands of a Congress where you have people like [Speaker] Mike Johnson and others willing to do whatever the president desires, and certainly not willing to honor their oaths of office to work for the American people as opposed to Donald Trump.”

- YouTube www.youtube.com

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.