June, 08 2017, 03:45pm EDT

Impeachment Hearings: Time to Start the Process
James Comey's testimony confirms that Donald Trump tried to obstruct justice. That is an impeachable offense. Impeachment takes time but we need to start the process now. It's time to call for impeachment hearings.
WASHINGTON
James Comey's testimony confirms that Donald Trump tried to obstruct justice. That is an impeachable offense. Impeachment takes time but we need to start the process now. It's time to call for impeachment hearings.
Impeachment is a process, and the time to begin is now.
June 8, 2017. We should all remember this date, because it was the day when former FBI Director James Comey (a Republican) confirmed under oath what many of us already suspected and what the press has reported--that Donald Trump asked him to drop the investigation into disgraced former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. Period. Let's be clear about what this means: the President of the United States knew that the FBI was investigating his associates, TRIED TO STOP THAT INVESTIGATION, and then fired the person who wouldn't stop it. This is obstruction of justice, a federal crime, and an impeachable offense. (See our explainer on obstruction of justice here.)
Don't believe us? Then trust Laurence Tribe, a former Supreme Court clerk, constitutional scholar, and professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. His assessment: "The time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice."
Why does impeachment exist? For times like these.
As Americans, we cannot afford to have a President who breaks the law. No one is above the law, not even the President--and the job of the Presidency is too important to trust it to someone who doesn't respect the basic rules of our democracy.
Impeachment is enshrined in the constitution. James Madison argued impeachment was "indispensable" to protect against the "incapacity, negligence or perfidy" of the president. The Constitution provides that "[t]he President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Yes, obstruction of justice is one of those "high crimes and misdemeanors." President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. And the very first article of impeachment against Nixon was similarly obstruction of justice. ObstructionofJustice is absolutelyan impeachable offense.
What is Impeachment? It's a process--a long process.
After Watergate, in July of 1973, a Democratic Member of the House of Representatives introduced H.Res 513, legislation described as "Resolution impeaching Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors." It took three months for the House Judiciary Committee to even begin considering impeachment. It took more than a year before Nixon left office, before the full House had even voted, and the Senate hadn't taken any action.
Bottom line: impeachment takes time. So if you want it done, you've got to get it started. And, it starts with impeachment hearings. Here's how the impeachment process works:
The House acts first, then the Senate. Both the House and Senate have a role to play. First, the House decides whether or not to impeach the President (essentially whether to "charge" the president). Each "charge" is referred to as an "article of impeachment." If the House votes to impeach, then the Senate holds a trial on each article of impeachment against the president.
Impeachment is only the beginning--it's not a conviction. It's worth noting here the difference between two terms that are often used interchangeably but do not mean the same thing. Being "impeached" only means that the House of Representatives voted to send articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Being "removed from office" means that the Senate voted to convict the President.
No President has ever been impeached and then convicted by the Senate and removed from office. President Andrew Johnson (in 1868) and Bill Clinton (in 1998/1999) were impeached by the House but acquitted in the Senate; Richard Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached.
Your easy to use, step-by-step impeachment guide:
- A Member of the House introduces a House Resolution calling for impeachment. Literally any House member can do this. The legislation will come in the form of a House Resolution (a.k.a. "H. Res" followed by a number). For Nixon, the final resolution was H. Res 803 ; for Clinton, it was H. Res 611. House Resolutions don't need to be passed by the Senate or signed by Trump--they just have to pass the House.
- A committee holds impeachment hearings to investigate. After introduction, the legislation will be referred to a House committee, likely the House Judiciary Committee (as was the case for both Nixon and Clinton). The Judiciary Committee may conduct its own investigation, or accept the investigation of another party. For Nixon, the Judiciary Committee eventually began a months-long investigation. For Clinton, the Judiciary Committee simply accepted an existing investigation conducted by independent counsel Ken Starr.
- The committee votes. Once an investigation has concluded, the committee--again, in most cases, House Judiciary--will vote on the article or articles of impeachment. They can do this together as one resolution or separately for each article. In the case of Nixon, the Judiciary Committee approved the articles of impeachment with strong bipartisan support. For Clinton, the Committee approved impeachment mostly on a party line vote.
- The full House votes.If the Judiciary Committee approves one or more articles of impeachment, the next step is for the full House to vote either on the resolution or on individual articles. It takes just a simple majority in the House to impeach a President. If that happens, the process moves to the Senate.
- The Senate holds a trial. The Senate receives evidence and hears testimony, like in a court trial, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Members of the House make the case for impeachment, and the President is defended by his counsel.
- The full Senate votes. Once the trial concludes, the Senate meets in closed session to deliberate before it takes a final vote. A two-thirds majority (67 votes if all Senators are present) is required to convict the President and remove him from office. This is an extremely high bar that was set that way intentionally, given the gravity of removing a president from office
Impeachment is a Political Process: Republicans Won't Get the Process Started Without Pressure from You
Despite the evidence from Mr. Comey's testimony that Trump obstructed justice, the hard truth is that Republicans have control of both the House and Senate. Some Republicans did join the call for a special prosecutor, who was appointed on May 17. This would have never happened without the immense pressure from the public and from Indivisible groups around the country. But politically speaking, most Republicans are not yet close to the point where they'll call for--or even allow--impeachment proceedings to begin. This is especially true for Republican leaders who control the process and have fallen in line with Trump on basically every issue so far.
We Need Both an Independent Commission and to Begin the Impeachment Process. What we do know is that Donald Trump obstructed justice. That is enough to begin the impeachment process, and your Representative should be calling for it. But there is still much left that we don't know, especially about connections between Trump associates and the Russian government. That's why it's important to call for both an independent commission, and to begin the impeachment process against Trump for the violations that we do know about. Remember, since the impeachment process will take time, we can still learn more if there is an independent commission continuing to investigate.
Until We Get Impeachment, Continue to Resist the Trump Agenda
While we pressure Republicans to begin impeachment hearings, we must continue to oppose Trump's agenda more broadly. One of the best ways to increase the chances of Trump's impeachment is to drive a wedge between him and his party,by making it clear that Republicans can't accomplish their agenda in Congress as long as Trump is President.
Even as new information about the Trump camp's ties to Russia continues to come to light with each new week, the Administration and its allies in Congress are pushing forward with their terrible legislative agenda. The House is voting to gut financial consumer protections. Mitch McConnell is maneuvering in the Senate to fast track their health care bill. Especially given the dark cloud that now hangs over the Administration, it is more important than ever to stop every piece of the Trump agenda. In doing so, we stop the worst damage to our country and our institutions while ramping up the pressure for Republicans to split with Trump.
What You Can Do to Stand Indivisible
First and foremost, impeachment is a long game. We won't be getting hearings anytime soon, and even once we do, the impeachment process is likely to take a long time. That's why, in addition to opposing the Trump agenda more broadly, we need to be doing two things at once:
- Continue the push for an independent commission. Obstruction of justice should be enough for impeachment, but if a commission or the special prosecutor uncover further wrongdoing, that only bolsters the case, especially in this hyperpartisan environment.
- Call on your Representative to support impeachment resolutions calling for impeachment, like the one Rep. Al Green will introduce shortly. An impeachment resolution is step one in the process.
Impeachment won't happen overnight--it will be a long-term fight. And we will continue to demand that Congress do more, especially as more information comes to light. Until then, we must continue to focus on stopping Republicans and Trump from advancing other parts of their agenda, including repealing the ACA, attacking immigrants and people of color, threatening the environment, repealing consumer financial protections, and attacking reproductive rights, to name only a few. The list of things we need to protect is long, but if we stick together, if we stand indivisible, we will win.
Sample Call Dialogue
Caller: Good morning/afternoon! Can you let me know [Senator/Representative Hernandez]'s position on creating an independent commission to get all the facts regarding the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia?
- [For House members] A Swalwell-Cummings bill called the Protecting our Democracy Act (HR 356) would establish an independent commission to investigate Russian interference, but Republican leadership is refusing to even hold a vote on it. There is currently "discharge petition" to force a vote on the Protecting our Democracy Act. Over 190 members have already signed on (updated count here)--Will the Representative join them?
- [For Senators] Senator Ben Cardin's bill, S.27, would establish a commission of independent experts to examine the facts regarding Russia and the 2016 election. It currently has 26 co-sponsors (updated count here). Will the Senator join them?
Option 1: Supports
Staffer: Thank you for calling! [Senator/Representative Hernandez] supports H.R. 356 / S.27.
Caller: That's great! Thank you. I'm pleased to hear that [Senator/Representative Hernandez] supports creating an independent commission. It appears that by firing FBI Director Comey, Trump may have engaged in obstruction of justice--that's an impeachable offense. If [Senator/Representative Hernandez] is truly concerned about the integrity of our democracy, will s/he also support starting impeachment hearings for this apparent violation?
Staffer: I will certainly pass on your concerns to the Senator/Representative.
Caller: Please do, and please take down my contact information to let me know when the Senator/Representative has made up his/her mind. I'm eager to hear what he/she decides.
Option 2: Opposes
Staffer: Thank you for calling! [Senator/Representative Hernandez] opposes creating an independent commission. The Department of Justice already appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to serve as the special counsel investigating ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. We should let that investigation run its course.
Caller: That's not enough. Mueller's appointment was an important first step, but it is not nearly enough. Congress should pass legislation to create an independent commission to get a full and more transparent airing of the facts. I am disappointed that [Senator/Representative Hernandez] would choose to protect Trump rather than listen to his/her constituents
Option 3: Dodges / Has No Position
Staffer: Thank you for calling! I don't know what the Senator/ Representative's position is.
Caller: That's disappointing to hear--this is a critical issue for our democracy. Does [Senator/Representative Hernandez] think it's more important to protect Trump than listen to his/her own constituents? The appointment of Robert Mueller to serve as the special counsel investigating ties between Russia and the Trump campaign was an important first step, but it is not nearly enough. Congress should pass legislation to create an independent commission to get a full and more transparent airing of the facts.
Staffer: I didn't know that but I'm happy to take down your concerns.
Caller: Here's my concern: By firing FBI Director Comey, Trump appears to have engaged in obstruction of justice--that's an impeachable offense. If [Senator/Representative Hernandez] is truly concerned about the integrity of our democracy, will s/he also support starting impeachment hearings for this apparent violation?
Staffer: I will certainly pass on your concerns to the Senator/Representative.
Caller: Please do, and please take down my contact information to let me know when the Senator/Representative has made up his/her mind. I'm eager to hear what he/she decides.
Indivisible Project (501c4) drives coordinated campaigns, powering the grassroots Indivisible movement to defeat the rightwing takeover of American government and win an inclusive democracy and bold progressive policies.
LATEST NEWS
Trump-Musk Gutting of USAID Could Lead to More Than 14 Million Deaths Over Five Years: Study
"For many low and middle income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict," said the coordinator behind the study.
Jul 01, 2025
A study published Monday by the medical journal The Lancet found that deep funding cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development, a main target of the Department of Government Efficiency's government-slashing efforts, could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by the year 2030.
For months, humanitarian programs and experts have sounded the alarm on the impact of cutting funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is the largest funding agency for humanitarian and development aid around the globe, according to the study.
"Our analysis shows that USAID funding has been an essential force in saving lives and improving health outcomes in some of the world's most vulnerable regions over the past two decades," said Daniella Cavalcanti, postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Collective Health and an author of the study, according to a statement published Tuesday. Between 2001 and 2021, an estimated 91 million deaths were prevented in low and middle income countries thanks programs supported by USAID, according to the study.
The study was coordinated by researchers from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health with the help of the Institute of Collective Health of the Federal University of Bahia, the University of California Los Angeles, and the Manhiça Centre for Health Research, as well as others.
To project the future consequences of USAID funding cuts and arrive at the 14 million figure, the researchers used forecasting models to simulate the impact of two scenarios, continuing USAID funding at 2023 levels versus implementing the reductions announced earlier this year, and then comparing the two.
Those estimated 14 million additional deaths include 4.5 million deaths among children younger than five, according to the researchers.
The journalist Jeff Jarvis shared reporting about the study and wrote "murder" on X on Tuesday.
In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the 83% of the programs at USAID were being canceled. In the same post on X, he praised the Department of Government Efficiency, which at that point had already infiltrated the agency. "Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform," he wrote.
Davide Rasella, research professor at Barcelona Institute for Global Health and coordinator of the study, said in a statement Tuesday that "our projections indicate that these cuts could lead to a sharp increase in preventable deaths, particularly in the most fragile countries. They risk abruptly halting—and even reversing—two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations. For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict."
One country where USAID cuts have had a particularly deadly impact is Sudan, according to The Washington Post, which reported on Monday that funding shortages have led to lack of medical supplies and food in the war-torn nation.
"There's a largely unspoken and growing death toll of non-American lives thanks to MAGA," wrote Ishaan Tharoor, a Post columnist, of the paper's reporting on Sudan.
In reference to the reporting on Sudan, others laid blame on billionaire Elon Musk, the billionaire and GOP mega-donor who was initially tapped to lead the Department of Government Efficiency.
"In a less imperfect world, Musk and [President Donald] Trump would be forever cast as killers of children, and this would be front-page news for months and the subject of Sunday sermons in every church," wrote the journalist David Corn.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Still Lacks Votes to Pass Budget Bill 'Because It's a Moral Monstrosity,' Says Senate Democrat
"We have been debating amendments for 21 hours and we are still going because through 12 hours of debate and 21 hours of amendment votes, Republicans still don't have 50 votes for their bill," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
Jul 01, 2025
Even after an all-night session of amendment votes and wrangling behind closed doors, Senate Republicans still did not have enough support to pass their reconciliation package as of Tuesday morning, leaving party leaders scrambling to placate GOP holdovers who are purportedly nervous about the legislation's unprecedented cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) argued in a social media post that the reason for the GOP's inability to quickly rally its own members around the legislation is straightforward: "Because it's a moral monstrosity."
"We have been debating amendments for 21 hours and we are still going because through 12 hours of debate and 21 hours of amendment votes, Republicans still don't have 50 votes for their bill," Murphy wrote at roughly 5:30 am ET, as the marathon "vote-a-rama" continued with no end in sight.
With Democrats unanimously opposed to the bill, Senate Republicans can only afford to lose three GOP votes if they are to send the measure back to the House for final approval. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have said they will vote against the bill in its current form, and Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) are undecided. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) also suggested he's on the fence.
Republican leaders have been working to bring Murkowski into the yes column with a proposal that would temporarily exempt Alaska and other states from the bill's massive cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, ripped the proposal as "absurd" and said it would reward the states with the highest SNAP error rates.
"Insanity reigns," Klobuchar wrote on social media.
Senate Republicans' margins became more difficult after Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) announced his opposition to the legislation over the weekend, pointing to the Senate version's devastating cuts to Medicaid.
"What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding's not there anymore?" Tillis asked in a floor speech on Sunday, citing an estimate of the number of people in North Carolina who could lose health insurance under the Republican bill.
Throughout the country, nearly 12 million people would lose coverage under the Senate reconciliation bill, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
"Kicking millions off healthcare, blowing up the national debt by trillions, and devastating generational economic harms—all being written into law on the fly," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said early Tuesday morning after hours of debate and amendment votes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
At Least 95 Palestinians Killed in Israeli Attacks Including Massacres at Beach Café, Aid Points
"I saw body parts flying everywhere, and bodies cut and burned," said one eyewitness to a strike on the popular al-Baqa Café.
Jun 30, 2025
Israeli forces ramped up their genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip Monday, killing at least 95 Palestinians in attacks including massacres at a seaside café and a humanitarian aid distribution center and bombings of five school shelters housing displaced families and a hospital where refugees were sheltering in tents.
An Israeli strike targeted the al-Baqa Café in western Gaza City, one of the few operating businesses remaining after 633 days of Israel's obliteration of the coastal strip and a popular gathering place for journalists, university students, artists, and others seeking reliable internet service and a respite from nearly 21 months of near-relentless attacks.
Medical sources said at least 33 civilians were killed and nearly 50 others wounded in the massacre, including footballer Mustafa Abu Amira, photojournalist Ismail Abu Hatab—who survived an earlier Israeli airstrike and is reportedly the 227th journalists killed by Israel since October 2023—and prominent artist Frans Al-Salmi, whose final painting depicting a young Palestinian woman killed by Israeli forces resembles photographs of its slain creator posted on social media after her killing.
Warning: Photos shows image of death
Survivor Ali Abu Ateila toldThe Associated Press that the café was crowded with women and children at the time of the attack.
"Without a warning, all of a sudden, a warplane hit the place, shaking it like an earthquake," he said.
Another survivor of the massacre told Britain's Sky News: "All I see is blood... Unbelievable. People come here to take a break from what they see inside Gaza. They come westward to breathe."
Eyewitness Ahmed Al-Nayrab toldAgence France-Presse that a "huge explosion shook the area."
"I saw body parts flying everywhere, and bodies cut and burned," he said. "It was a scene that made your skin crawl."
Witnesses and officials said Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) troops opened fire on Palestinians seeking food and other humanitarian aid from a U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution point in southern Gaza, killing 15 people amid near-daily massacres of aid-seekers.
"We were targeted by artillery," survivor Monzer Hisham Ismail told The Associated Press. Another survivor, Yousef Mahmoud Mokheimar, told the AP that Israeli troops "fired at us indiscriminately." Mokheimar was shot in the leg, another man who tried to rescue him was also shot.
IDF troops have killed nearly 600 Palestinian aid-seekers and wounded more than 4,000 others over the past month, with Israeli military officers and soldiers saying they were ordered to deliberately fire on civilians in search of food and other necessities amid Israel's weaponized starvation of Gaza.
Another 13 people were reportedly killed Monday when IDF warplanes bombed an aid warehouse in the Zeitoun quarter of southern Gaza City, according to al-Ahli Baptist Hospital officials cited by The Palestine Chronicle. IDF warplanes also reportedly bombed five schools housing displaced families, three of them in Zeitoun. Israeli forces also bombed the courtyard of al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah in central Gaza, where thousands of forcibly displaced Palestinian families are sheltering in tents. It was reportedly the 12th time the hospital has been bombed since the start of the war.
The World Health Organization has documented more than 700 attacks on Gaza healthcare facilities since October 2023. Most of Gaza's hospitals are out of service due to Israeli attacks, some of which have been called genocidal by United Nations experts.
Israel's overall behavior in the war is the subject of an ongoing International Court of Justice genocide case, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and using starvation as a weapon of war.
Since October 2023, Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 204,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including over 14,000 people who are missing and presumed dead and buried under rubble, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, whose casualty figures have been found to be generally accurate and even a likely undercount by peer-reviewed studies.
The intensified IDF attacks follow Israel's issuance of new forced evacuation orders amid the ongoing Operation Gideon's Chariots, an ongoing offensive which aims to conquer and indefinitely occupy all of Gaza and ethnically cleanse much of its population, possibly to make way for Jewish recolonization as advocated by many right-wing Israelis.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular