Support among House Democrats for impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is skyrocketing, nearly doubling in the last week to 100 co-sponsors.
That’s an unprecedented level of support for an impeachment effort during President Trump’s second term, with lawmakers who have bristled at the topic in the past now warming to the idea.
Kelly is urging Republicans to get on board with her efforts — even as no GOP lawmaker has come close to expressing support for Noem’s impeachment.
“As Secretary Noem continues to lie, obstruct Congress, and violate people’s civil rights, the support for her impeachment only grows,” she said.
It seems a little silly to me that they are talking about impeaching her, but not also Trump. Like who do they think she will be replaced with? My bet is someone worse. If Trump didn’t want what ICE is doing they wouldn’t be doing it.
Third time’s the charm!
It will change nothing, but still should be done for our collective conscience and historic record that we didn’t want this
Not only the Dog Murderer, the whole fucking lot needs to GTFO!
While I hope for the best, I have low expectations of our timeline.
Wait, they didn’t all want to impeach her after like the first week?
They’re weighing the “political consequences” of impeaching her, I’ve heard
Shouldn’t we want to impeach every Republican in any office ever for any reason? It’s not like they’ve ever done anything that want literally being a terrorist.
Its start if they impeach the worst ones first. Knowing dems though they’ll spend the whole time talking to their donors and republican media.
Dems are a dead end death trap for democracy. They need to feel the people’s pain
Its a lucky thing then that republican media junkies are murdering dem politicians.
At this point, there are MANY traditional Dems whose lives I don’t care about anymore. They made their bed. It’s not what I want, but they choose to continue the status quo. They are traitors. They have sold us out to the oligarchs and Israel.
Unfortunately, those most often targeted are not traditional Dems.
It’s all symbolic, which is what DC Democrats specialize in. We have a one-party authoritarian state, and the Ruling Party will never allow it.
The only reason Democrats are supporting this is because its failure is ensured.
Once again the controlled opposition plays lip service to what the people want. What’s the over/under on this effort dying and then going “welp, we tried! There’s nothing we can do”
I certainly understand, and even agree with that opinion, but there IS a strategic objective possible.
The MAGA Senate will likely let her off the hook, and they’ll have to run against that vote in November, when she will only be more reviled, and her poison will be dripping on anyone associated with her.
And there is always the remote possibility that enough MAGA Senators are tired of the nightmare, and decide to vote to convict her. If they do, and it looks likely to happen, the rest will all jump, too.
That’s exactly what happened with the Epstein Files vote. It was supposed to get covered up, but everyone ended up voting FOR it in this exact scenario - because they didn’t want to run against a No on Epstein. We have to make them fear a No on the Puppy Killer.
They will probably just replace her with Greg Bovino though…
Stop talking about it and fucking do it. People are dying in the streets every day.
What about trump? Impeach trump… remove him from office for being a dumb old super idiot man baby… why do we care about this person when the root of the problem is still running the USA…
Impeach trump
they did it twice. He was also convicted of being a felon. The sentence : nothing.
That’s not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the inaction, and inneffectual governance of the Democrats in the face of the Republican’s man-made sociopolitical crisis. -That’s why we’re here and that’s why nothing is going to happen.
He only has a couple months left to live anyways
He’s like fusion research, he’s always a comple of months away from exploring, and he never does.
His zombie hand doesn’t seem to be getting on with the job.
so do a lot of people in ice facilities
So does American democracy
And the VP will be so much better… Wait
Let’s not let the perfect get in the way of the good tho
Fair play!
He’s not going to be removed from office when he’s the sitting US president, unfortunately.
Do it! Quit fucking around!
Only now? Lmao
But the miDtErMs bro
The people have attention spans measured in microseconds. It’s a sad fact that they have to time this shit for maximum impact. Assume if it’s not in the news cycle it’s been forgotten.
Yes, I am admonishing the vast, VAST majority of the other people who live in the same cursed country as me.
Wow you’re so smart and different, clearly.
Wait a moment. I’m not American so I don’t understand. In the house there are 213 democrats, so that means more than half of them is thinking that is perfectly fine and normal having someone like her? It doesn’t seem like “skyrocketing numbers” to me. I understand that an alternate headline is “majority of House Dems are against impeaching noem”
I don’t understand. In the house there are 213 democrats, so that means more than half of them is thinking that is perfectly fine and normal having someone like her?
I AM an American and I don’t understand this either.
The sad reality is our democrat party is powered by the same donors and investors as the republican party. They’re all the same, the conflict is entirely Kayfabe, a type of vintage American-spawned brainrot from decades ago when people realized you could charm the population with absurd storylines.
If we had a proper opposition party, they would be capitalizing on this massive mandate against people like Noem and sweeping all of Trump’s henchmen out of office with huge public spectacles and their own World Wrestling Extreme Politics theater. Instead we get frowns, stern letters and finger-wagging at the masked death-squads and foreign-power kidnapping.
The impeachment process is complicated and difficult (by design). Congress is split in two parts, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Anyone in the House can introduce a bill to impeach someone (bring them to trial). But in order for anything to happen, you need a majority vote to adopt that bill. It then gets sent to the Senate, where they have another majority vote to decide if there will be a trial. If and only if there’s a trial, you need a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate to convict. This has happened exactly 8 times in the history of the United States, and never for a sitting president.
If you don’t have at least a majority in both parts of Congress, it’s basically pointless. Introducing an impeachment bill becomes a symbolic gesture. All the voters hear is “Democrats tried to impeach, and failed. Again.” This demoralizes Democrat voters and energizes Republican voters.
So, yeah, a lot of Democrat politicians aren’t on board because they already know how this will play out.
I don’t know. I find it much more demoralizing when they’re not even willing to make an attempt.
Thats exactly correct and anyone who tries to say otherwise is either being willfully ignorant or intentionally minimizing this fact. You might also be surprised to learn that many of these Dems voted against impeaching Trump for a third time last year. Their actions speak much louder than words.
They likely gave up because they realized that trying to impeach him is just adding fuel to his bases fire.
You gotta realize that Trump has a third of the country believing that he is a victim of political persecution. The “witch hunt” rhetoric was taken hook, line, and sinker. They sincerely and earnestly believe that Trump is a good man with a righteous vision, who is targeted by “the radical left”, which is “weaponizing” the DoJ or the impeachment process.
And unfortunately, that less than 1/3 of the country lives in the right place to make them worth more than half of the seats in the Senate, so impeachment was bound to go nowhere and ultimately hurt the democratic party going into the next elections.
And this plot predates even Trump’s first term. Part of the reason this guy is now Teflon is that he installed a lot of court seats. Partly due to Mitch holding back the nomination of Merrick Garland, but he was also holding back a shitload of lower court vacancies so that they could get filled by 45.
I agree that he should have been impeached, tried, and ultimately convicted. Honestly at this point, I feel like he should be hung for treason. But politics, sadly, can’t always align with justice.
They likely gave up because they realized that trying to impeach him is just adding fuel to his bases fire.
You gotta realize that Trump has a third of the country believing that he is a victim of political persecution. The “witch hunt” rhetoric was taken hook, line, and sinker. They sincerely and earnestly believe that Trump is a good man with a righteous vision, who is targeted by “the radical left”, which is “weaponizing” the DoJ or the impeachment process.
But if we apply this logic then Democrats should never oppose Trump or any other Republican, and where does that leave us? I find this quite ridiculous as not only does it excuse Democratic inaction but also mandates that they bend over backwards to support him in the future for fear of losing their job (a job that quite literally is to represent the people).
Merrick Garland lost his shot at SCOTUS because instead of fighting back when the law was fully on their side nearly a year before the 2016 election, they arrogantly thought that they were guaranteed to win and Clinton would then get the nomination. They again backed down in 2020 just a month before the election and allowed Republicans to ram a nomination through. They backed down in Texas and allowed the Republican legislature to gerrymander districts and pick up several seats. They backed down on the government shutdown and allowed Republicans to take away our healthcare. They backed down and allowed the passage of the BBB. They’re backing down and allowing the capture of a sovereign nation’s president. They’re backing down and allowing ICE to murder citizens in the streets.
These are all reasons why they’re losing elections. They’re supposed to be the opposition party yet they refuse to oppose anything and even vote alongside Republicans often enough. Refusing to acknowledge this is why Trump won in 2016. It’s why he nearly one again in 2020, and it’s why he won in 2024. With each passing day they look more and more like they’re all members of the same party because that’s the only logical explanation for what’s happening. Using the same tired excuses over and over and over only gets you so far before people see right through the BS.
But if we apply this logic then Democrats should never oppose Trump or any other Republican, and where does that leave us?
I respectfully disagree on this point, and this point only. They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn’t have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would’ve been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.
It was quite clear by that point what game the Republicans were playing…another impeachment would have played right into that hand. Having the cooperation of a not-insignificant portion of the media who only played up the victim rhetoric was also a big factor.
The legal system, which is supposed to be apolitical, was the best course of action. And continues to be the best course of action, because the majority of both houses continues to be Trump loyalists. Drown them in lawsuits, a million papercuts, etc.
It’s far from a perfect solution, though, due to the aforementioned blocking of lower-court appointments, Merrick Garland (who, like, bullshit, I agree, should’ve fought harder), and then RBG dying at a very inopportune time, leading to a vulgar show of hypocrisy on the right and another weak resistance on the left.
And, it plays into the continued “weaponizing the justice system” rhetoric. Like, dude…it’s not “weaponizing the justice system” if you’re continually doing unlawful and even unconstitutional things. But good luck explaining that to the 33% of the country who would struggle to get a D on a 6th grade Civics test.
I do agree that Democrat’s are really sucking as “The Resistance”. The biggest thing they need to work on is messaging and having a united front.
But honestly, what can they do, really? The American People have spoken, and this is what they asked for, by the democratically instilled laws of our country.
There is no way to win, inside the system, by continuing to play by the rules. But, as long as Republicans hold the trifecta and the fourth-estate, any attempt to break the rules will not be cast in their favor.
The only way, I think, starts with finding an effective antidote to their koolaid.
They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn’t have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would’ve been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.
And then again a few weeks ago in December…
I dont really care if it succeeds. At least it’s concrete action far beyond angry letters and tweets.
They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn’t have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would’ve been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.
And then again a few weeks ago in December…
I dont really care if it succeeds. At least it’s concrete action far beyond angry letters and tweets.
They attempted to impeach him twice. A third time, after he is out of office, wouldn’t have really done anything beneficial. Without a conviction in the senate, he would still have been eligible to run in 2024, and his base would’ve been even more fired up. It would be seen as more liberal virtue signaling and another witch hunt.
I dont really care if it succeeds. At least it’s concrete action far beyond angry letters and tweets.
Lemmy firmly believes that every American is as far left as them, sees things the way the front page sees things, and that Democrats are the real problem. It’s naive and self-absorbed, but there it is.
Wait a moment. I’m not American so I don’t understand.
House has to research and pass articles of impeachment
Senate has to hold a trial and convict
It doesn’t make it through both; nothing happens.
Senate by the numbers is 53:45:2 Republican:Democrat:Independent.
None of the republicans has so much as mentioned they’d be on board with it.
As seen in many troubling votes, some percentage of our Democrats in both the House and the Senate are probably not playing for the team they say they are.
So, let’s say the House decides to impeach to make a point, even though they know they have no chance of changing the outcome. There will be retribution. We have nazi slogans on podiums and Proud Boys policing the streets. On November 20th, the president called for the execution of democratic law makers five months after the democratic leader in Minnesota was executed in June in a politically motivated execution. I don’t love it, but I understand their apprehension; they’re not that brave.
So we wait until midterms (assuming the president doesn’t manage to start a war to avoid them), where there’s a good chance the senate will lose enough seats and any questionable democrats get displaced by at least centrists.
Then impeachments will happen and probably can succeed.
even if he starts a war, he can’t avoid the midterms. The president has no authority over elections, the states have that authority, overseen by congress. And if states don’t elect new congressmen and congresswomen and senators, then when the currently elected people have their terms end, then the states will not be able to just keep them in position, when their term ends they are out per the constitution, and won’t have a representative until a special election is performed.
Also… I distinctly remember something from my history classes about how Americans react to being taxed without representation… Or at least they did in Boston in the 1773.
We’re using the constitution as toilet paper at the moment. He’s not following laws now, why would he start?
If he says we’re not going to do it, and the scotus says he’s right and half of congress is fine with it, it’ll be a problem
I could also see a condition where the votes are “under the protection” of ICE and it comes out as a landslide victory.
I can see them try to place it “under the protection” but the states need to have a chain of custody for every vote, and whoever signed that custody chain is responsible for it. I dealt with this in the Army as an MP. And it would require the state to be complicit as well and I don’t think most states want to just hand over all their authority to the federal government and turn themselves into puppets. But we will see…
I’m less worried about a chain of custody as I am with them simply using ICE thugs to scare people away from the polling places.
Not everywhere in the country, but they’ll try to use them “for security” in blue, multicultural cities and that’ll fuck up the vote.
That’s my guess.
Hope is all I’ve got. Have a family to look after
Not exactly.
For context, a bill only needs one sponsor. Most bills have about 2 or 3 cosponsors. Signing a bill as a cosponsor is not the same as voting, which hasn’t happened yet.
deleted by creator
Skyrocketing / exploding numbers doesn’t imply a majority.
A number can grow significantly and still be a less than another number.
No excuse to be below 100%
Greed tho
Could be a strange form of nihilism where you are just looking to salt the earth after the ashes.
I now think Republicans welcome climate change to unlock shipping channels
The excuse that I’ve heard is that it’s the Democrats’ fault for making people throw away their vote.
None of this was necessary.
This is a perfect example of why they’re losing support. Less than half of them even support this despite there being zero repercussions from doing so. Remember when Republicans held 60+ separate votes to eliminate “Obamacare” throughout Obama’s second term despite them not having a majority to guarantee passage of the bill and it seeming completely fruitless? Look where they are ten years later and tell me which is the more effective approach.
Killing people is even more effective. Why aren’t they doing that either?
Probably spineless cowards!
Less than half of them even support this despite there being zero repercussions from doing so.
Well that’s just not true, unless they’re representing a solid blue area. You think Alabama, Arizona, Texas, or Washington Democrats aren’t going to get ‘repurcussions’ from their constituencies for impeaching the head of DHS? Why aren’t they socialist firebrands?
Well, the better question is why aren’t any socialist firebrands in office? (Yes, fine, Bernie. He’s from Texas, right?)
So your argument boils down to “Democrats shouldn’t oppose Trump & Co because it might hurt their chances at reelection?” What kind of nonsense is that?
There are no repercussions because they don’t have the numbers to actually get an impeachment without Republicans joining forces with them, which is unlikely to happen but even a potentially fruitless endeavor is better than sitting by doing absolutely nothing while the nation burns in front of our eyes.
Politics only happens with an election, so yeah that’s usually an omnipresent factor in pushing legislation. No, it’s not great.
And you do know he was already impeached twice, right. Once for staging a coup?
If there’s no chance in hell of getting out of the House (much less getting over the Senate) it’s not going to happen.
Yes, it should happen. Yes every single one of them should throw him out. They’re not going to. Yet.
Politics only happens with an election
This statement doesn’t make any sense.
And you do know he was already impeached twice, right. Once for staging a coup?
Yes.
If there’s no chance in hell of getting out of the House (much less getting over the Senate) it’s not going to happen.
Well then it must follow that there’s no reason to oppose anything he does and that we should be satisfied with that, right? Democrats should only go after the easy wins and instant gratification because nobody will remember any of this at any point in the future.
Yes, it should happen. Yes every single one of them should throw him out. They’re not going to. Yet.
So you think this should happen and this should be how things work yet argue against both those points for some faith-based future reward? If they’re not doing this now or at any point in the past, why would they do it in the future? What exactly would compel them to change their behavior if current events aren’t enough?
Well then it must follow that there’s no reason to oppose anything he does and that we should be satisfied with that, right?
Absolutely not. And that’s a weird jump to make.
So you think this should happen and this should be how things work yet argue against both those points for some faith-based future reward?
Yes to the former, nope to the latter. I’m saying the real world is significantly more complicated than rageposting on the intertubes. Like, sure we all wish all the nazis were dead, but getting there is gonna take more than tapping it out on a phone keyboard. And very possibly going on a killing spree by one or more of us is not the optimal way to move that particular project forward, you see? That’s just a hypothetical example, but you get my point there.
What exactly would compel them to change their behavior if current events aren’t enough?
Well, having the votes might be a good start. Professional political people do this thing called a “whip count” where the go around and ask everyone how their day is going, and oh those are great shoes and by-the-by would you vote for bill #12345? And if they don’t have enough votes to get the thing passed, sometimes they’ll redirect their efforts into other things. (Stupid republicans will still have the vote fifty or sixty times because they can’t figure out a better plan.)
So that’s a big one. Now if they just want to grandstand, maybe read a little Dr. Suess on C-SPAN, sure. “The People” would get the benefit of that speech, but little else.
And that’s if the Senate feels like doing a goddamned thing, which - unlikely, right? So just go out front, go on any show that’ll have you and talk about how he should be impeached. But that’s all that would happen.
The repercussions for those democrats would be greater numbers of people voting for them in the future. Arizona and Texas have more population that are vulnerable to dhs attacks, so any house members against the impeachment are acting against their constituents. Sure the state government won’t like it, but it would at least be something they do for the people.
The repercussions for those democrats would be greater numbers of people voting for them in the future.
Oh how I wish that was so. We just lost the most important election of our lifetimes because that isn’t so. Maybe some of our louder non-voters want to weigh in on that.
We just lost the most important election of our lifetimes because that isn’t so.
We lost that election because both the Republican and Democratic candidates thought pushing right wing ideology was the best tactic. Turns out that only works for one of the party’s base.
And all the people not voting against trump.
I’m saying that if Democrats fight for the people, they will see better voting outcomes. What does that have to do with the last election? Democrats didn’t fight for us from 2020-2024, so they lost voters, which is complimentary to my point.
It was great that Biden’s policies helped slow down inflation, but that’s pretty much all they did. There were no consequences for treason, no big investigations, no major reforms of the political system, no safeguards for rights put into place. The last thing a major Democrat did in TX was when Obama had tacos in Austin over 10 years ago.
Look at the voting record and it echoes my point.
In 2004, Bush 4.5 million, Kerry 2.8 million
In 2008, McCain 4.5 million, Obama 3.5 million after Obama ran a campaign about a better future giving us something to vote for
In 2010, the ACA passed
In 2012, Romney 4.6 million, Obama 3.3 million McConnell succeeded in preventing a lot of Democrat proposals from being passed and the democrats weren’t able to fulfill a lot of things during the tike before this election
In 2016, Trump 4.7 million, Clinton 3.9 million Marriage Equality had recently passed and Democrats proposed the Equality Act and were very vocal about the potential consequences of an election loss
In 2020, Trump 5.9 million, Biden 5.3 million, Democrats made promises and said they would fight for rights. Many democrats aligned themselves with protests and even with some tonedeaf messaging, attempted to show a united front against the chaos
In 2022, women lost the right to bodily autonomy In 2023, Women’s Health Protection Act was introduced but went nowhere
In 2024, Trump 6.4 million, Harris 4.8 million after democrats revealed the United front was a ruse and failed to follow through on issues that won them the 2020 election even though the threat of chaos was even worse than we had seen in 2020.
I’m saying that if Democrats fight for the people, they will see better voting outcomes.
I’d prefer they fight for the people either way, but the problem is “fighting for the people” is pretty subjective. Did they or did they not is a subjective opinion about which we only know what is public.
Democrats didn’t fight for us from 2020-2024, so they lost voters, which is complimentary to my point.
I’d say that’s a valid opinion, though one I don’t particularly share. They got some Big Shit Done for the gridlock that is Congress, imo.
Look at the voting record and it echoes my point.
I see you’re referring to Texas specifically which is fine, I was just confused at first.
The main problem with saying these numbers validate my opinion is that there’s no way to prove it one way or the other, and so you may be right, I may be crazy but I don’t see the numbers making the point that Democrats (in Texas? For Texas? Of Texas?) did or did not “fight for the people”.
In 2008, McCain 4.5 million, Obama 3.5 million after Obama ran a campaign about a better future giving us something to vote for
First off, it’s Texas, but secondly Obama was a superstar candidate with -at the time- limited experience. And he came after eight long terra-terra-terra years of -at the time- The Worst President in History. His getting higher numbers than Kerry (again, in Texas, with the global financial markets hanging by a thread under Bush the Dubz) doesn’t have anything to do with ‘fighting fir the people’.
I could go on, but I’d have the same arguments about some of the other numbers and you get my point.
What we don’t have numbers for are the votes that candidates didn’t get after ‘fighting for the people’, which again is a subjective call that could mean a bunch of different things.
Based strictly on Primaries and the platforms different candidates have, the most ‘fight for the people’ candidates don’t win - sometimes they don’t win a lot. And yes we can talk about how they screwed Bernie but that’s ultimately a side issue; lots of “fight for the people” candidates have lost in the primaries - including non-screwed Bernie.
It’s (a) subjective and (b) not a sure thing by any stretch. US politics is gnarly, and Jesus Christ by any other name would lose Texas to Romney.
We tried to warn you that genocide was a losing issue.
You were so devoted to netanyahu that you didn’t care.
Yes, thank goodness we saved Gaza by keeping those dems out of office.
Do you get that literally has nothing to do with what we are talking about here?
Strawman argument. People didnt abstain from voting for Harris because it would “save” Gaza. They did it because both candidates shared the common ideal of bombing Gaza to smithereens and they refused to support that.
It’s incredibly disgusting for people like you to now mock others for opposing genocide just because your preferred candidate thought that supporting slaughter was more important than defeating her opponent and it all blew up in her face.
Maybe you should hitch your wagon to better candidates if you don’t want to be disappointed. That’s on you not anyone else. Even now more than a year after the election was decided, you still think standing alongside genocide and Dick Cheney was the right call and can’t understand why you lost. You are the company you keep, buddy.
You make a good argument but I always get nervous when someone says “people like you”. It sounds kind of arrogant/superior. If that was your intention then so be it.
This person is using the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children as a tool to mock others all because they’re mad that a stranger didn’t win a contest. I don’t see what they’re doing as any different than what Republicans are doing now in comment sections across the internet over the murder of Renee Good.
This user and those Republicans share a lot more ideologically than either would care to admit, so I have no problem with my comment sounding arrogant/superior to their abhorrent behavior.
Neom wasn’t voted in. And your comment has nothing to do with the topic anyways.
Noem was selected by who was voted in. You see that, right? Having to impeach her is damage control from letting trump win. That’s on topic AF.
Yes yes
