The new Trump impeachment is not about removal

With conviction off the table, the goal shifts to accountability, messaging, and the fight for control of the House

We have new articles of impeachment filed against Donald Trump.

And to be clear, this is not a rehash of the first or second impeachment. This is a new House resolution, introduced by Congressman John Larson, laying out a broad case that Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors during his current term.

At the same time, Larson is also calling for the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and to remove Trump from office.

So the question is not just what’s in the articles. The real question is what any of this actually leads to.

A maximalist case against Trump

If you look at the resolution itself, this is not a narrow, single-charge impeachment.

It is sweeping.

The articles accuse Trump of militarizing domestic law enforcement, engaging in unlawful detentions and deportations, retaliating against critics, targeting political opponents using government power, abusing the presidential pardon system, and engaging in financial conflicts of interest and misuse of funds.

In other words, this is a maximalist document. It attempts to capture the full scope of Trump’s conduct rather than isolating one specific violation.

There are two ways to look at that.

On one hand, it reflects what many have been arguing for years. The case against Trump is not limited to a single incident. It is a wide-ranging pattern that touches multiple areas of governance and abuse of power.

On the other hand, there is a legitimate critique. Impeachment is a technical process. Some argue it works best when it is tightly focused, clearly tied to specific statutes, and structured like a prosecutable case.

This resolution is not that. It is broader by design.

The structural reality everyone needs to understand

Now we get to the part that is often misunderstood.

Filing articles of impeachment is not the same thing as removing a president.

The process has two stages. First, the House votes on impeachment with a simple majority. If that passes, the process moves to the Senate, where a trial is held. Conviction requires a two-thirds supermajority.

Right now, Democrats do not even have a simple majority in the House, never mind the numbers required in the Senate.

And there is no serious indication that Republican senators are going to vote to convict Donald Trump.

That is not speculation. That is the structural math of the system as it exists today.

---

---

What about the 25th Amendment?

This is where some pivot to the 25th Amendment as an alternative.

In theory, it allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to declare the president unfit to serve.

But in practice, that is even less likely than conviction in the Senate.

It would require Trump’s own inner circle to remove him from power. There is no evidence that this is remotely on the table.

So if both impeachment and the 25th Amendment are effectively blocked, what is the point?

The case for building a record

This is where the analysis needs to be grounded.

The purpose of impeachment is not only removal, but also for accountability.

Members of the House have an obligation to evaluate presidential conduct and determine whether it meets the constitutional standard for impeachment. If it does, the argument here is simple: you impeach.

You do not condition that decision on whether the Senate will convict.

You cannot control the Senate. That is a separate body with its own incentives and political constraints.

But you can create a formal record.

That record matters. It exists in congressional language. It can be cited, debated, and revisited. It establishes a documented case for what the president did and how Congress responded.

Why not focus on policy instead?

There is a common criticism that Democrats should be focusing on policy instead of impeachment.

The idea is that energy would be better spent on economic legislation, social programs, or other immediate priorities.

But there are two problems with that argument.

First, these are not mutually exclusive. Lawmakers can pursue oversight and policy at the same time.

Second, the same structural limitations apply. The votes required to pass major legislation are not there either.

So the argument that impeachment is crowding out achievable policy does not really hold up under scrutiny.

What this is really about

At this stage, this is about signaling and positioning.

It is about telling voters that if Democrats regain control of the House, there will be aggressive oversight, investigations, and accountability.

It is about drawing a clear line between the current reality and what could happen after the next election.

And it is about motivating voters who believe that the current system is not providing checks on executive power.

Where this is headed

Right now, the system does not have the votes to remove Donald Trump. That is simply the reality.

But filing articles of impeachment still matters.

It creates a record to clarify the stakes. And it sets the stage for what comes next politically.

The real question is whether this moves voters.

Will it motivate Democratic and left-leaning voters to turn out in November? Will it persuade any number of independents or even Republicans that a change in control of the House is necessary?

And if Democrats do take the House, the next phase is clear. Oversight, investigations, and a much more confrontational relationship with the executive branch.

The only open question is the margin.

Is it a narrow shift, or something much larger?

Because that margin will determine just how far any of this can go.

---

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.