logo
Rogue Trump impeachment efforts divide Democrats

Rogue Trump impeachment efforts divide Democrats

7NEWS8 hours ago
House Democrats have been publicly grappling with the issue of impeaching President Donald Trump, with grassroots activists pressuring lawmakers to more aggressively confront Trump and centrist members of the party dismissing the push as futile.
During a six-week stretch this year, House Democrats twice were confronted with impeachment votes — forced by their own rank-and-file members — that had zero chance of passing, given that Republicans control the chamber.
In May, Democratic leaders convinced Shri Thanedar (Michigan) to back off his impeachment push at the last minute. But the following month, Al Green (Texas), forced a failed vote to impeach Trump, exposing stark divisions among Democrats and putting the party's vulnerable members in a difficult position ahead of next year's midterm elections.
Before the 119th Congress is over, it's likely there will be other pushes to impeach Trump, who survived two such efforts during his first term, even as many Democrats grow frustrated by them.
'They're massively unhelpful, and they just fire up the base,' said one moderate House Democrat who opposed the recent impeachment efforts.
A second centrist Democrat called them a 'waste of time,' and suggested that colleagues who had voted for impeachment had only done so to appease the party's base.
'Even people that voted 'no' on it, they don't really want to impeach Trump. But they have to feed the left-wing base,' said the second Democrat, who spoke anonymously to freely discuss internal party dynamics. 'They don't want to have to go home and answer questions why they didn't vote for impeachment.'
That lawmaker said impeachment should only be pursued after holding a committee investigation and hearings — and that won't happen until Democrats win back the majority.
'If you respect the process here, you don't go right to an impeachment vote,' the lawmaker said. 'You go through a process, and then you have an impeachment vote. So let's go through that process.'
That was the roadmap that House Democrats followed in 2019 during Trump's first impeachment, over allegations he withheld military aid to pressure Ukraine to launch an investigation into political rival Joe Biden's family. Democrats voted to launch a formal impeachment investigation, took closed-door testimony and held a series of televised hearings.
The second impeachment, in the wake of the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, happened in a much more haphazard way as Trump was preparing to leave office. There was no lengthy House investigation or hearings before an impeachment vote. The Senate acquitted Trump in both cases.
In Trump's second term, talk from some Democrats about impeaching the president began early. In February, Green gave a floor speech announcing he'd pursue articles of impeachment. Two months later, he introduced a single article accusing Trump of 'devolving democracy within the United States into authoritarianism' and detailed a lengthy list of grievances about Trump flouting the courts and attacking the judiciary.
But by June, when Green finally called up his resolution, forcing an impeachment vote on the floor, the Texas Democrat swapped out the language of the resolution and replaced it with new language hitting Trump for failing to consult with Congress before striking Iran.
Green's resolution failed on a 344-79 vote, with 128 Democrats joining all Republicans to table the measure. Among those who backed Green were Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly, who are both running for the Senate in Illinois.
Some Democrats said the vote served only as a distraction from more pressing matters, like Republicans' megabill that was moving through Congress.
But in an interview Monday night, Green said he had no regrets about forcing the impeachment vote and vowed to do it again — though he wouldn't say when or what the new articles might say.
'I can't say that he committed an impeachable offense and then not vote to impeach. I have a conscience; it's a vote of conscience. And I say to members, 'Vote your conscience,'' Green told NBC News. 'By the way, I'm going to bring articles against him again. Those were not the last.'
He said he respected the views of colleagues who believe that political 'tactics supersede the Constitution.' But he felt he had no choice but to act on impeachment.
'A person who breaches the Constitution that the courts can't manage and their party won't manage, then there's but one option left,' Green added. 'And the Constitution is kind of important.'
In a sign of how Democrats are struggling to find the right message on impeachment, Indiana's Andre Carson, who voted to kill the Green impeachment effort, asked to cosponsor impeachment articles one day later in a post to X.
And Don Beyer (Virginia) recounted how he changed his vote from killing the Green measure to supporting it after a conversation on the House floor with a colleague. Longtime California representative Zoe Lofgren, who has participated in all four modern presidential impeachments, informed Beyer that the revised language of the resolution effectively made it a vote to restrict Trump's ability to use military force against Iran.
'This is the only chance as a Democrat to make a war powers vote,' Beyer said Lofgren told him. 'I would not have voted for it based on the original impeachment text that Al Green put in, which I thought was thin.'
Some freshman lawmakers have been worried about the optics of Democrats being publicly split over impeaching Trump. They're seeking more coordination and guidance from leadership to get rank-and-file members marching in the same direction, according to one Democratic member who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity.
This lawmaker, who represents a progressive district, said they are getting inundated with calls from constituents who want Democrats to fight harder.
'They aren't buying that just because we are in the minority, we can't do anything,' the lawmaker said. 'The truth is we can. And we should.'
After Thanedar's impeachment push, the lawmaker said there was 'anxiety' among freshmen in particular. The lawmaker added that they'd want to see a concerted push in relevant committees that has been blessed by leadership, rather than disjointed attempts from rank-and-file members.
Still, there is little Democratic leaders to do to stop these efforts. Any lawmaker is able to call up an impeachment resolution as 'privileged' and force a full vote in the House.
Democratic leaders have consistently poured cold water on the rogue impeachment efforts, arguing that Republicans — in control of the House and Senate — won't hold Trump accountable.
The newly minted ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, California's Robert Garcia, said in the middle of last month's fight over Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' that Democrats should focus on stopping Trump's legislative agenda.
'We know that Donald Trump is corrupt. We know that we're going to have the ability and we're going to need to investigate his corruption. But at this moment, the priority has to be in stopping this bill. I think that's the focus,' Garcia told NBC News.
Asked if Democrats will move to impeach Trump eventually, Garcia replied: 'He's going to have to be held accountable for his actions. At this moment, we've got to focus on stopping this massive bill.'
At various times this year, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (New York) has dodged the question of whether he supports impeaching Trump. But Jeffries and his top Democratic lieutenants all voted to table the Green resolution. And speaking with NBC News recently, Jeffries deferred to Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee who has dismissed impeachment as 'not a plausible instrument' while in the minority.
'Impeachment, of course, rests with the Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Jamie Raskin. He has been very clear that this is a moment where we have to expose the corruption and abuse of power that is taking place as a result of the extreme behaviour by the Trump administration,' Jeffries said.
'Follow the facts, apply the law, and be guided by the Constitution,' he said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump unveils investments to power AI boom
Trump unveils investments to power AI boom

News.com.au

time43 minutes ago

  • News.com.au

Trump unveils investments to power AI boom

US President Donald Trump went to Pennsylvania on Tuesday to announce $92 billion in energy and infrastructure deals intended to meet big tech's soaring demand for electricity to fuel the AI boom. Trump made the announcement at the inaugural Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit at Carnegie Mellon University, with much of the talk about beating China in the global AI race. "Today's commitments are ensuring that the future is going to be designed, built and made right here in Pennsylvania and right here in Pittsburgh, and I have to say, right here in the United States of America," Trump said at the event. The tech world has fully embraced generative AI as the next wave of technology, but fears are growing that its massive electricity needs cannot be met by current infrastructure, particularly in the United States. Generative AI requires enormous computing power, mainly to run the energy-hungry processors from Nvidia, the California-based company that has become the world's most valuable company by market capitalization. Officials expect that by 2028, tech companies will need as much as five gigawatts of power for AI -- enough electricity to power roughly five million homes. Top executives from Palantir, Anthropic, Exxon and Chevron attended the event. The funding will cover new data centers, power generation, grid infrastructure, AI training, and apprenticeship programs. - Race to beat China - Among investments, Google committed $25 billion to build AI-ready data centers in Pennsylvania and surrounding regions. "We support President Trump's clear and urgent direction that our nation invest in AI... so that America can continue to lead in AI," said Ruth Porat, Google's president and chief investment officer. The search engine giant also announced a partnership with Brookfield Asset Management to modernize two hydropower facilities in Pennsylvania, representing 670 MW of capacity on the regional grid. Investment group Blackstone pledged more than $25 billion to fund new data centers and energy infrastructure. US Senator David McCormick, from Pennsylvania, said the investments "are of enormous consequence to Pennsylvania, but they are also crucial to the future of the nation." His comments reflect the growing sentiment in Washington that the United States must not lose ground to China in the race to develop AI. "We are way ahead of China and the plants are starting up, the construction is starting up," Trump said. The US president launched the "Stargate" project in January, aimed at investing up to $500 billion in US AI infrastructure -- primarily in response to growing competition with China. Japanese tech investor SoftBank, ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, and Oracle are investing $100 billion in the initial phase. Trump has also reversed many policies adopted by the previous Biden administration that imposed checks on developing powerful AI algorithms and limits on exports of advanced technology to certain allied countries. He is expected to outline his own blueprint for AI advancement later this month.

LATIKA BOURKE: Pentagon's MAGA-style push on AUKUS and defence spending may backfire in Indo-Pacific
LATIKA BOURKE: Pentagon's MAGA-style push on AUKUS and defence spending may backfire in Indo-Pacific

West Australian

timean hour ago

  • West Australian

LATIKA BOURKE: Pentagon's MAGA-style push on AUKUS and defence spending may backfire in Indo-Pacific

Elbridge Colby, the man reviewing AUKUS inside the Pentagon, thinks he can replicate MAGA's success in scolding, berating and bullying Europe into lifting defence spending in Australia and the Indo-Pacific. But his cut-and-paste approach may not only fail, but backfire. This is because his hectoring approach fails to recalibrate for the important ways that Europe differs from Asia. Mr Colby's demands that Indo-Pacific allies raise defence spending are legitimate in Australia's case. But he is far from the first person to raise the issue. Well before US President Donald Trump appointed Mr Colby Under Secretary of Defence, the Australian authors of the 2023 Defence Strategic Review, Peter Dean and Angus Houston, the former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, were urging an increase in spending from around 2 per cent of GDP to 3 per cent. Kim Beazley, former Labor Leader, defence minister and ambassador to the United States, preceded them both. And it is the same plea made by Mike Pezzullo, the former Home Affairs boss who authored the 2009 Defence White Paper for the Rudd Government, the last time Labor was in power. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should raise defence spending and match it to the capabilities that the defence review, which he commissioned, said Australia needed. Should the region become even more dangerous, he will not be remembered for his 94-seat landslide but as the Labor prime minister who ignored every siren call and left the country, negligently and dangerously unprepared. While he should not need to be bullied into doing so by the United States, it is also unwise for MAGA to be pushing the issue as hard as it is and so publicly and not leaving more of the heavy lifting to Australian voices. Mr Colby said in a social media post on Tuesday that: 'Europe's progress over the last few months is showing the wisdom of President Trump's approach.' 'We are actively applying his successful approach to enable our allies around the world to step up efforts for the common defence.' Earlier this week he said urging allies to step up their defence spending was a 'hallmark' of President Trump's strategy in Asia as in Europe, 'where it has already been tremendously successful.' 'Of course, some among our allies might not welcome frank conversations,' he said. 'But many, now led by NATO after the historic Hague Summit, are seeing the urgent need to step up and are doing so. 'President Trump has shown the approach and the formula - and we will not be deterred from advancing his agenda.' But there are good reasons for MAGA to pause, reconsider and recalibrate. Their methods might have worked at NATO, when member states agreed to lift their spending to 3.5 per cent next decade, but this is no guarantee of their success in Australia's neck of the woods. Firstly, the Indo-Pacific is not at war. Europe is. It is a statement of the obvious that being caught unprepared to deal with a nuclear-armed imperialist on your border who has rolled tanks inside the borders of an innocent country would inspire a sense of urgency, if not panic. It is true, as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has said, that US President Donald Trump's methods, including threatening the very concept of the defensive alliance, were also decisive in changing European minds about the need to start to put their shoulder to the wheel. But this is the point. Taking Europe to the edge of the cliff and forcing them to look over the edge and contemplate a world without the United States' security blanket works because of NATO and Article 5. Article 5 is the clause that states an attack on any member state shall be considered an attack on all. It is this clause that allowed Europe to freeload off the United States under more benevolent Presidents for so long. And it is why the US and MAGA's complaints about Europe spending big on its social welfare while expecting the US to pay its security bills was so legitimate. As Vladimir Putin demonstrated, Europe had a menacing bear on its border and remains in a position where it cannot subdue the beast on its own. But these dynamics do not exist for Australia and the wider Indo-Pacific. While it is accepted that China seeks dominance of the region and control of shipping routes, war is neither current nor inevitable. While China's President Xi Jinping has said he wants his military to be ready to take Taiwan by 2027 and, with force if necessary, there are many ways he can subdue the democratic island without an invasion. At one end, this could include a blockade that may or may not be seen as an act of war by the United States. Another more worrying tactic could be China declaring a 'quarantine' of Taiwan, and claiming it is an internal matter, making it even more difficult to define whether it constituted an act of war or not. This is why expecting countries like Australia to start declaring in 2025 that they will take part in a hypothetical war with submarines we will not possess until the early 2030s, in a best-case scenario, is dangerously reductive, as it misses a vital opportunity to talk about how to push back on China's already coercive and menacing behaviour towards Taiwan, and the Philippines. The other, and perhaps most powerful element MAGA misses when it comes to the Indo-Pacific is the one of choice. Australia has a choice about how it wants to respond to the great power competition underway between the United States and China. And so far, MAGA's methods are only moving Anthony Albanese one way – in China's direction. Australians fundamentally don't like Donald Trump, but still believe in and back the alliance. However, it would be hazardous to assume these attitudes are fixed. Australia's population is increasingly migrant-based, as Mr Albanese's appeals to Indian and Chinese voters at the last election and throughout his first term underlined. It should not be assumed that this voting bloc will always have an enduring loyalty and affection to the United States. And MAGA's behaviour to date could easily provoke questions about whether the United States would have Australia's back as per our treaty alliance. All this said, it is extremely likely that were the United States to fight China in the foreseeable future, Australia would take part. Our joint intelligence facility with the US at Pine Gap, as well as the US bases on Australian soil, would make us a target at any rate and all but guarantee our involvement. There is a fundamental inconsistency, if not incoherence, to the premise of the Financial Times report that Mr Colby is demanding allies, including Australia, state whether they would fight over Taiwan, when Mr Trump – wisely — himself refuses to say, strategic ambiguity carries a deterrent effect of its own. But perhaps the greatest question, that MAGA's methods will only justify if it continues to self-righteously and sanctimoniously badger its Indo-Pacific allies, is what values and order would we be fighting for? As Richard Spencer, the former US Navy Secretary who war-gamed these scenarios, recently said, such a war would 'not pretty at all, for either side' ie. it would result in the deaths of thousands of lives. The resolve of the United States and its allies must be to avoid this at all costs. But if Xi were to make such a catastrophic mistake, like his authoritarian collaborator Mr Putin, then Australians would naturally ask, what would we be fighting for? And this is where the MAGA approach could backfire. Because the Trump Administration looks more focused on shoring up American dominance rather than a global order that protects its smaller friends. How else to read the symbolism of his first tariff-imposition letters going to Indo-Pacific allies South Korea and Japan? On top of the tariffs on Australian steel and exports, is now the threat of 200 per cent duties on pharmaceuticals. This is despite Australia and the United States having a free trade agreement. Australia is no stranger to economic coercion. It experienced the Chinese Communist Party's wrath after the pandemic when Beijing effectively killed Australian wine, lobster and barley imports overnight because the Coalition asked for an inquiry into COVID. But unwarranted duties from a treaty ally, that, at the same time has injected uncertainty into the AUKUS deal are such difficult pills to swallow, precisely because of the 'friend' who is administering them. It may well be that if faced with the poisons of a bullying, authoritarian China and a free but selfish, 'America First' mercurial United States, Australians would still prefer the latter. Our joint intelligence facility with the US at Pine Gap, as well as the US military presence on Australian soil, would highly likely make us a target and force our involvement at any rate. But Mr Colby and his MAGA friends should realise that there is a range of tactics that can engineer success, and a one-size-fits-all bully boy model may prove ultimately nihilistic.

Pentagon AUKUS pressure risks backfiring in Australia
Pentagon AUKUS pressure risks backfiring in Australia

Perth Now

timean hour ago

  • Perth Now

Pentagon AUKUS pressure risks backfiring in Australia

Elbridge Colby, the man reviewing AUKUS inside the Pentagon, thinks he can replicate MAGA's success in scolding, berating and bullying Europe into lifting defence spending in Australia and the Indo-Pacific. But his cut-and-paste approach may not only fail, but backfire. This is because his hectoring approach fails to recalibrate for the important ways that Europe differs from Asia. Mr Colby's demands that Indo-Pacific allies raise defence spending are legitimate in Australia's case. But he is far from the first person to raise the issue. Well before US President Donald Trump appointed Mr Colby Under Secretary of Defence, the Australian authors of the 2023 Defence Strategic Review, Peter Dean and Angus Houston, the former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, were urging an increase in spending from around 2 per cent of GDP to 3 per cent. Kim Beazley, former Labor Leader, defence minister and ambassador to the United States, preceded them both. And it is the same plea made by Mike Pezzullo, the former Home Affairs boss who authored the 2009 Defence White Paper for the Rudd Government, the last time Labor was in power. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should raise defence spending and match it to the capabilities that the defence review, which he commissioned, said Australia needed. Should the region become even more dangerous, he will not be remembered for his 94-seat landslide but as the Labor prime minister who ignored every siren call and left the country, negligently and dangerously unprepared. While he should not need to be bullied into doing so by the United States, it is also unwise for MAGA to be pushing the issue as hard as it is and so publicly and not leaving more of the heavy lifting to Australian voices. Mr Colby said in a social media post on Tuesday that: 'Europe's progress over the last few months is showing the wisdom of President Trump's approach.' 'We are actively applying his successful approach to enable our allies around the world to step up efforts for the common defence.' Earlier this week he said urging allies to step up their defence spending was a 'hallmark' of President Trump's strategy in Asia as in Europe, 'where it has already been tremendously successful.' 'Of course, some among our allies might not welcome frank conversations,' he said. 'But many, now led by NATO after the historic Hague Summit, are seeing the urgent need to step up and are doing so. 'President Trump has shown the approach and the formula - and we will not be deterred from advancing his agenda.' But there are good reasons for MAGA to pause, reconsider and recalibrate. Their methods might have worked at NATO, when member states agreed to lift their spending to 3.5 per cent next decade, but this is no guarantee of their success in Australia's neck of the woods. Firstly, the Indo-Pacific is not at war. Europe is. It is a statement of the obvious that being caught unprepared to deal with a nuclear-armed imperialist on your border who has rolled tanks inside the borders of an innocent country would inspire a sense of urgency, if not panic. It is true, as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has said, that US President Donald Trump's methods, including threatening the very concept of the defensive alliance, were also decisive in changing European minds about the need to start to put their shoulder to the wheel. But this is the point. Taking Europe to the edge of the cliff and forcing them to look over the edge and contemplate a world without the United States' security blanket works because of NATO and Article 5. Article 5 is the clause that states an attack on any member state shall be considered an attack on all. It is this clause that allowed Europe to freeload off the United States under more benevolent Presidents for so long. And it is why the US and MAGA's complaints about Europe spending big on its social welfare while expecting the US to pay its security bills was so legitimate. As Vladimir Putin demonstrated, Europe had a menacing bear on its border and remains in a position where it cannot subdue the beast on its own. But these dynamics do not exist for Australia and the wider Indo-Pacific. While it is accepted that China seeks dominance of the region and control of shipping routes, war is neither current nor inevitable. While China's President Xi Jinping has said he wants his military to be ready to take Taiwan by 2027 and, with force if necessary, there are many ways he can subdue the democratic island without an invasion. At one end, this could include a blockade that may or may not be seen as an act of war by the United States. Another more worrying tactic could be China declaring a 'quarantine' of Taiwan, and claiming it is an internal matter, making it even more difficult to define whether it constituted an act of war or not. This is why expecting countries like Australia to start declaring in 2025 that they will take part in a hypothetical war with submarines we will not possess until the early 2030s, in a best-case scenario, is dangerously reductive, as it misses a vital opportunity to talk about how to push back on China's already coercive and menacing behaviour towards Taiwan, and the Philippines. The other, and perhaps most powerful element MAGA misses when it comes to the Indo-Pacific is the one of choice. Australia has a choice about how it wants to respond to the great power competition underway between the United States and China. And so far, MAGA's methods are only moving Anthony Albanese one way – in China's direction. Australians fundamentally don't like Donald Trump, but still believe in and back the alliance. However, it would be hazardous to assume these attitudes are fixed. Australia's population is increasingly migrant-based, as Mr Albanese's appeals to Indian and Chinese voters at the last election and throughout his first term underlined. It should not be assumed that this voting bloc will always have an enduring loyalty and affection to the United States. And MAGA's behaviour to date could easily provoke questions about whether the United States would have Australia's back as per our treaty alliance. All this said, it is extremely likely that were the United States to fight China in the foreseeable future, Australia would take part. Our joint intelligence facility with the US at Pine Gap, as well as the US bases on Australian soil, would make us a target at any rate and all but guarantee our involvement. There is a fundamental inconsistency, if not incoherence, to the premise of the Financial Times report that Mr Colby is demanding allies, including Australia, state whether they would fight over Taiwan, when Mr Trump – wisely — himself refuses to say, strategic ambiguity carries a deterrent effect of its own. But perhaps the greatest question, that MAGA's methods will only justify if it continues to self-righteously and sanctimoniously badger its Indo-Pacific allies, is what values and order would we be fighting for? As Richard Spencer, the former US Navy Secretary who war-gamed these scenarios, recently said, such a war would 'not pretty at all, for either side' ie. it would result in the deaths of thousands of lives. The resolve of the United States and its allies must be to avoid this at all costs. But if Xi were to make such a catastrophic mistake, like his authoritarian collaborator Mr Putin, then Australians would naturally ask, what would we be fighting for? And this is where the MAGA approach could backfire. Because the Trump Administration looks more focused on shoring up American dominance rather than a global order that protects its smaller friends. How else to read the symbolism of his first tariff-imposition letters going to Indo-Pacific allies South Korea and Japan? On top of the tariffs on Australian steel and exports, is now the threat of 200 per cent duties on pharmaceuticals. This is despite Australia and the United States having a free trade agreement. Australia is no stranger to economic coercion. It experienced the Chinese Communist Party's wrath after the pandemic when Beijing effectively killed Australian wine, lobster and barley imports overnight because the Coalition asked for an inquiry into COVID. But unwarranted duties from a treaty ally, that, at the same time has injected uncertainty into the AUKUS deal are such difficult pills to swallow, precisely because of the 'friend' who is administering them. It may well be that if faced with the poisons of a bullying, authoritarian China and a free but selfish, 'America First' mercurial United States, Australians would still prefer the latter. Our joint intelligence facility with the US at Pine Gap, as well as the US military presence on Australian soil, would highly likely make us a target and force our involvement at any rate. But Mr Colby and his MAGA friends should realise that there is a range of tactics that can engineer success, and a one-size-fits-all bully boy model may prove ultimately nihilistic.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store