Could Trump be impeached for not taking the daily security briefings?

Please give me his phone number.  Please tell me he is accurate.  PLEASE.  LOL

 At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The 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." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.

Impeachment proceedings may be commenced by a member of the House of Representatives on her or his own initiative, either by presenting a list of the charges under oath, or by asking for referral to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be initiated by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of actions constituting grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, or state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition.

The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence (as opposed to the House of Lords in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, who vote upon their honor). After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. The U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds majority for conviction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

XX

Spunky.  Well, how about the rule that says you have to win because you got the most damn votes?  How about THAT fking rule?  Where is that one?

Ah, now you see - there isn't such a rule.  When the Founding Fathers called for the Electoral College, it pretty much eliminated the majority votes win rule. 

I would remind people that the language for impeachment means, ultimately, impeachment is a POLITICAL, not a legal, process.

The President makes enough unpopular decisions which could be characterized as "high crimes" (i.e. crimes related to abuse of office) that Congress can impeach almost anytime it wants to. There are some Constitutional scholars who suggest there is evidence the Framers intended Congress to use impeachment much more often than it ended up being used, and that it was intended as a tool similar to a vote of no confidence in parliamentary systems.

Whatever the intent was, the practical reality is Congress doesn't impeach often, and there is essentially ZERO chance the GOP-controlled House of Represenatives will impeach President Trump, unless he murders a (white) person in Times Square in broad daylight. This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 24, 2016 8:53 PM MST

The House of Representatives brings impeachment articles, but the Senate "tries" the issues, so in a sense, it is a legal process.

@SS -- Yes, impeachment is a legal-style proceeding. But my point is Congress could, if it collectively wanted to, impeach the President (or other Executive Branch officers) on almost ANY pretense.

There would be no appeal to other authorities. There would be no judge to say "No, this evidence is insufficient to bring charges." The only brakes upon Congresses' impeachment power are the messiness of the process (Congress tends to shut down while impeachment goes on), the high hurdle to get a "conviction" (2/3rds majority in the Senate), and any political backlash against Congress for using the power without reasonable cause. We saw a bit of the last in 1998 when, in the kind of election the party NOT holding the presidency tends to make significant gains, instead the Democrats picked up 5 House seats and the Senate composition didn't change. Many observers believe backlash against the impeachment of President Bill Clinton was a major reason the GOP did not make more gains in Congress that election.

See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis."

This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

"If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

@SS -- In reviewing your links and some other info on Walter Nixon v. United States, I think the preponderance of the information supports my view Congress can impeach any government official for almost any reason it so chooses.

Yes, SOME SCOTUS justices believe the judiciary might be compelled to intervene in SOME instances,  but the ACTUAL LEGAL JUDGEMENT of W. Nixon v. US was that Nixon's impeachment was NOT reviewable by the court and that Congress was allowed to set its own rules/procedures for carrying out its impeachment function.

The problem with the "well, if Congress oversteps its bounds the Court must intervene" notion is there is no Constitutional language or established prodcedure for the Court doing so. The Court is dependent upon the Executive and Legislative branches abiding by its decisions. If both branches ignore the Court, then the Court is powerless to invoke its role or enforce a judgement.

No, there is no Constitutional provision, but it doesn't mean things can't change. 

Don't be silly, OS.   They have that one covered already.   If Trump feels like offing anyone?  You know they have plenty of black people to blame that on. Or Muslims.  Or Mexicans.  Or ...... This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at November 24, 2016 8:56 PM MST

The House of Representatives must bring charges. The Senate votes on removal from office or not. 

And if she should screw up because it falls on the day of her period, we can always count on Baron Von Trump.  Who could defeat a Baron?

His daughter is not a member of his cabinet or his administration, she has no duties and/or responsibilities, so why in the name of all that is common sense, should her attendance be adequate?  If he didn't want to fulfill the duties of his office, why did he run for president? 

Yep.

Obama has been to less than 44 percent of the vital meetings, the White House admits, with his attendance reaching a low spot towards the end of 2011 and the start of this year.