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
US Led 'Unprecedented' Surge in Global Military Spending in 2024
"As governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come," said one expert.
Apr 28, 2025
Military spending worldwide soared to $2.718 trillion last year, meaning it "has increased every year for a full decade, going up by 37% between 2015 and 2024," according to an annual report released Monday.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has tracked conflict, disarmament, and weapons for nearly six decades. Its 2024 spending report states that "for the second year in a row, military expenditure increased in all five of the world's geographical regions, reflecting heightened geopolitical tensions across the globe."
In a Monday statement, Xiao Liang, a researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, highlighted that "over 100 countries around the world raised their military spending in 2024."
"It was the highest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War."
"This was really unprecedented... It was the highest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War," Liang told Agence France-Press, while acknowledging that there may have been larger jumps during the Cold War but Soviet Union data is not available.
Liang warned that "as governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come."
The United States—whose Republican lawmakers are currently cooking up a plan to give even more money to a Pentagon that's never passed an audit—led all countries, with $997 billion in military spending. The report points out that the U.S. not only allocated "3.2 times more than the second-largest spender," but also "accounted for 37% of global military expenditure in 2024 and 66% of spending by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members."
In the second spot was China, with an estimated $314 billion in spending. Nan Tian, director of the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, raised the alarm about spending in Asia.
"Major military spenders in the Asia-Pacific region are investing increasing resources into advanced military capabilities," said Tian. "With several unresolved disputes and mounting tensions, these investments risk sending the region into a dangerous arms-race spiral."
In third place was Russia, with an estimated $149 billion in spending. Russia remains at war after launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Rounding out the top five were Germany ($88.5 billion) and India ($86.1 billion).
They were followed by the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, France, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Poland, Italy, and Australia. The report says that "together, the top 15 spenders in 2024 accounted for 80% of global military spending ($2,185 billion) and for 79% of the total increase in spending over the year. All 15 increased their military spending in 2024."
"The two largest year-on-year percentage increases among this group were in Israel (+65%) and Russia (+38%), highlighting the effect of major conflicts on spending trends in 2024," the publication continues. Israel has been engaged in a U.S.-backed military assault on the Gaza Strip—globally condemned as genocide—since October 2023.
"Russia once again significantly increased its military spending, widening the spending gap with Ukraine," noted SIPRI researcher Diego Lopes da Silva. "Ukraine currently allocates all of its tax revenues to its military. In such a tight fiscal space, it will be challenging for Ukraine to keep increasing its military spending."
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday announced an upcoming three-day truce to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for an immediate monthlong cease-fire.
All NATO members boosted military spending last year, which SIPRI researcher Jade Guiberteau Ricard said was "driven mainly by the ongoing Russian threat and concerns about possible U.S. disengagement within the alliance."
"It is worth saying that boosting spending alone will not necessarily translate into significantly greater military capability or independence from the USA," the expert added. "Those are far more complex tasks."
Another SIPRI researcher, Lorenzo Scarazzato, highlighted that "for the first time since reunification Germany became the biggest military spender in Western Europe, which was due to the €100 billion special defense fund announced in 2022."
"The latest policies adopted in Germany and many other European countries suggest that Europe has entered a period of high and increasing military spending that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future," Scarazzato said.
As for the Middle East, SIPRI researcher Zubaida Kari said that "despite widespread expectations that many Middle Eastern countries would increase their military spending in 2024, major rises were limited to Israel and Lebanon."
In addition to slaughtering at least tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza over the past nearly 19 months, Israel has killed thousands of people in Lebanon while allegedly targeting the political and paramilitary group Hezbollah. Kari said that elsewhere in the region, "countries either did not significantly increase spending in response to the war in Gaza or were prevented from doing so by economic constraints."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Not Just for the Battlefield: Rights Group Warns of Dystopian World Where Killer Robots Reign
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," according to the author of the report.
Apr 28, 2025
In a report published Monday, a leading human rights group calls for international political action to prohibit and regulate so-called "killer robots"—autonomous weapons systems that select targets based on inputs from sensors rather than from humans—and examines them in the context of six core principles in international human rights law.
In some cases, the report argues, an autonomous weapons system may simply be incompatible with a given human rights principle or obligation.
The report, co-published by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, comes just ahead of the first United Nations General Assembly meeting on autonomous weapons systems next month. Back in 2017, dozens of artificial intelligence and robotics experts published a letter urging the U.N. to ban the development and use of killer robots. As drone warfare has grown, those calls have continued.
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," said the author behind the report, Bonnie Docherty, a senior arms adviser at Human Rights Watch and a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, in a statement on Monday.
According to the report, which includes recommendations on a potential international treaty, the call for negotiations to adopt "a legally binding instrument to prohibit and regulate autonomous weapons systems" is supported by at least 129 countries.
Drones relying on an autonomous targeting system have been used by Ukraine to hit Russian targets during the war between the two countries, The New York Timesreported last year.
In 2023, the Pentagon announced a program, known as the Replicator initiative, which involves a push to build thousands of autonomous drones. The program is part of the U.S. Defense Department's plan to counter China. In November, the watchdog group Public Citizen alleged that Pentagon officials have not been clear about whether the drones in the Replicator project would be used to kill.
A senior Navy admiral recently toldBloomberg that the program is "alive and well" under the Department of Defense's new leadership following U.S. President Donald Trump's return to the White House.
Docherty warned that the impact of killer robots will stretch beyond the traditional battlefield. "The use of autonomous weapons systems will not be limited to war, but will extend to law enforcement operations, border control, and other circumstances, raising serious concerns under international human rights law," she said in the statement
When it comes to the right to peaceful assembly under human rights law, which is important in the context of law enforcement exercising use force, "autonomous weapons systems would be incompatible with this right," according to the report.
Killer robots pose a threat to peaceful assembly because they "would lack human judgment and could not be pre-programmed or trained to address every situation," meaning they "would find it challenging to draw the line between peaceful and violent protesters."
Also, "the use or threat of use of autonomous weapons systems, especially in the hands of abusive governments, could strike fear among protesters and thus cause a chilling effect on free expression and peaceful assembly," per the report.
Killer robots would also contravene the principle of human dignity, according to the report, which establishes that all humans have inherent worth that is "universal and inviolable."
"The dignity critique is not focused on the systems generating the wrong outcomes," the report states. "Even if autonomous weapons systems could feasibly make no errors in outcomes—something that is extremely unlikely—the human dignity concerns remain, necessitating prohibitions and regulations of such systems."
"Autonomous weapon systems cannot be programmed to give value to human life, do not possess emotions like compassion that can generate restraint to violence, and would rely on processes that dehumanize individuals by making life-and-death decisions based on software and data points," Docherty added.
In total, the report considers the right to life; the right to peaceful assembly; the principle of human dignity; the principle of nondiscrimination; the right to privacy; and the right to remedy.
The report also lists cases where it's more ambiguous whether autonomous weapons systems would violate a certain right.
The right to privacy, for example, protects individuals from "arbitrary or unlawful" interferences in their personal life. According to the report, "The development and use of autonomous weapons systems could violate the right because, if they or any of their component systems are based on AI technology, their development, testing, training, and use would likely require mass surveillance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absolute Insanity': Right-Wing Activist Asks If Trump Will Suspend Habeas Corpus to Expel More Migrants
"Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution," said one policy expert.
Apr 28, 2025
With the Trump administration making space in the press briefing room for right-wing podcasters and other conservative "new media" content creators, viewers of briefings since President Donald Trump took office have seen his press secretary field questions about the Ukrainian president's clothing during an Oval Office meeting, compliments about Trump's "fitness plan," and attacks on reporters who have long reported from the White House.
On Monday, the first question of the briefing was derided by one Democratic politician as "absolute insanity," as right-wing commentator and influencer Rogan O'Handley—also known by the handle "DC Draino"—was given the floor to ask whether Trump will suspend the writ of habeas corpus in order to circumvent several judges' rulings and "start shipping out" undocumented immigrants without due process.
"Can you please let us know if and when the Trump administration is planning to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to circumvent these radical judges?" asked O'Handley after accusing federal judges of "thwarting [Trump's] agenda with an unprecedented number of national injunctions."
O'Handley shared some familiar right-wing talking points—saying federal judges have provided "more due process to violent MS-13 and Tren de Aragua illegal aliens than they did for U.S. citizens who peacefully protested on January 6"—as he suggested the administration should abandon the legal principle under which people who are detained are permitted to challenge their imprisonment in court.
"You have got to be kidding me," wrote Sara McGee, a Democrat running for the Texas House of Representatives.
His question came amid escalating attacks by Republicans and the administration on judges who have ruled against the White House. A Republican congressman said last month that Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. should be impeached for issuing an order against Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to expel hundreds of undocumented immigrants to El Salvador. Last week, the FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly helping a migrant evade arrest by escorting him out of her courtroom.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, noted that O'Handley and press secretary Karoline Leavitt also repeatedly cited at least one statistic that was "completely made up"—that the Biden administration allowed 15 million undocumented immigrants into the United States—as they suggested Trump should take legal steps to force all of them out of the country without the input of the judicial system.
The undocumented population in the U.S. in 2023 was 11.7 million, according to the Center for Migration Studies, down from the peak of 12 million, which was reached in 2008.
"They've been pushing this on the right for about a week now," said Reichlin-Melnick of the push to suspend habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants. "Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution."
Leavitt responded to O'Handley's question by saying while she has "not heard such discussions take place... the president and the entire administration are certainly open to all legal and constitutional remedies" to continue expelling people from the United States.
Several cases of undocumented immigrants who have been sent to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center have made national headlines in recent weeks, including that of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia; Merwil Gutiérrez, a 19-year-old who federal agents acknowledged was not who they were looking for during a raid; and Andry Hernandez Romero, a makeup artist who was accused of being a gang member solely because he had tattoos.
O'Handley's suggestion that the bedrock legal principle be suspended for undocumented immigrants—hundreds of whom have already been forced out of the country without due process—came ahead of Trump's scheduled signing of two new immigration-related executive orders.
One would direct the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to publish a list of sanctuary cities and states—those where local law enforcement are directed not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement as it seeks to arrest undocumented immigrants.
The other, Leavitt said, would "unleash America's law enforcement to pursue criminals." The New York Postreported that the order would be related to providing local police agencies with military equipment and legal support for officers accused of wrongdoing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular