Trump SHAKEN as Congress DROPS Article 2 Section 4 Constitutional BOMBSHELL!!

Good morning everyone. On this solemn day, I recall that the first order of business for members of Congress is the solemn act to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is with great respect and gratitude that I thank the chairs of the committees, the six committees who have been working to help us honor our oath of office.

I also want to thank the staff of those committees and the committee members for all of their work over this period of time to help us protect and defend. I want to thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler, the Chair of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff, the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman, all these chairmen, Chairman...

Okay, this is developing right now and it marks a dramatic escalation. House Democrats have formally introduced a new impeachment resolution targeting Trump. This is not a continuation of previous efforts, and it's a dramatic escalation. House Democrats have formally introduced a new impeachment resolution targeting Trump. This is not a continuation of previous efforts and it's not a symbolic gesture. This is a fresh resolution built on a direct constitutional argument. Democrats are explicitly invoking article two, section four of the

constitution, the clause that governs presidential removal. That provision allows Congress to remove a president for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And now lawmakers are asserting that Trump's behavior squarely falls within that standard. They're making the case that this has crossed the line from political controversy into constitutional violation.

This is no longer routine politics. This is an extraordinary moment where the foundational rules of the system are being put to the test. What we're witnessing is the early stage of a constitutional crisis, not a typical legislative dispute. And this is exactly the kind of development you need to be aware of.

It's the type of information that often gets buried or softened by mainstream coverage, which is precisely why this channel exists. Before we move forward, watch this next segment.

Richie Neal of Massachusetts, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Elliot Engel of New York, the Chair of the Financial Services Committee. Maxine Waters of California, the Chair of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. I also want to acknowledge the important work that was done by our dear and departed, may he rest in peace, Elijah Cummings as chair of the oversight committee. Now pleased to yield to the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nathan. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Over the last several months, the investigative committees of the House have been engaged in an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump's efforts to solicit foreign interference in the 2000-

Look, so we have to talk about what is quickly becoming one of the most consequential political moves of Trump's second term, because this is not ordinary Washington drama. House Democrats have dropped a new impeachment resolution, H.Res. 939, and the way they are framing it is designed to hit harder than past efforts. Here is the basic situation. Congress has seen multiple waves of pressure building around Trump at the same time. You have court clashes, you have investigations, you have enforcement actions, you have institutional fights over executive power. And instead of treating those as isolated controversies, Democrats are packaging them into a single argument, that Trump has violated the Constitution in ways that meet

the standard for removal. H.R. 939 is being described as an Article II, Section 4 impeachment push. That language matters because Article II, Section 4 is the actual removal clause. It is the part of the Constitution that says presidents can be removed for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In other words, the resolution is not trying to litigate one narrow incident the way prior impeachment fights did.

It is trying to turn the entire pattern into a constitutional verdict. It is essentially saying, look, this is not about politics. This is about the survival of checks and balances. And yes, I know what you're thinking. Trump has already been impeached before. Twice, actually. So why would Democrats go back to that well again, especially when impeachment can feel like political theater to a lot of voters? The answer is that Democrats believe the current environment gives them a new opening. They believe the legal and institutional pressures

around Trump have escalated. They believe the public mood is shifting. And they believe Article 2's, to open with my own authority to hold to, Section 4 framing is a cleaner and more emotionally direct argument

than rehashing old fights. The other important context is timing. This is happening in December 2025. The midterms are in November 2026. That is close enough that every major move is also a positioning battle for 2026. Democrats want to force Republicans to take visible votes. They want to create a record. They want hearings. They want testimony. They want headlines. And they want to define Trump as constitutionally unfit

before the election cycle fully locks in. Let's slow down and unpack Article 2, Section 4, because it is the spine of this whole fight. The text is simple. The president shall be removed from office on impeachment and conviction for treason, bribery,

or other high crimes and misdemeanors. But the meaning is not simple. High crimes and misdemeanors. But the meaning is not simple. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a phrase taken from the criminal code. It is a constitutional category. It is about grave abuses of public trust. It is about a president breaking the oath to faithfully execute the laws.

It is about conduct that might be criminal, but that does not have to fit neatly into a single statute for Congress to treat it as disqualifying. That is why impeachment is different from indictment. Criminal cases are about statutes, evidence rules, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Impeachment is about whether the person holding the presidency is a danger to the system,

and whether Congress has the will to remove that danger. That distinction is exactly what Democrats are leaning on with H. Res. 939. They are trying to say, stop arguing like this is a court trial. Treat it like what it is, a constitutional emergency tool. And this is also why the resolution feels so aggressive. Democrats have already taken a run at impeachment this Congress.

Earlier in 2025, they pushed H.Res. 353. That resolution laid out seven different accusations tied to abuse of power. In other words, they have already built a formal record saying Trump's conduct crossed the line. Now they are coming back with a new resolution, with new framing, and with the removal clause front and center. They're sending a message that they believe what is happening has not calmed down. It has intensified.

The timing makes it even more volatile. December is usually when Washington wants to coast, pass must-do bills, and then disappear for the holidays. Instead, Democrats are throwing a constitutional grenade into the calendar. Trump is supposed to be focused on his second-term agenda and midterm strategy. Instead, he is being forced to defend his legitimacy. Even if this never reaches conviction, it turns his presidency into a constant crisis-man management operation.

And that is why Trump would take this personally. His power is built on the image of control. It is built on being the center of the political universe. A resolution that openly says Congress should remove him is an attack on the core of his brand. It is an attack on the identity he sells to his supporters. So Democrats are not just challenging his policies,

they're challenging his right to hold the office at all. Now here is how the mechanics work, because people mix this up all the time. The House impeaches by a simple majority. Impeachment is basically an accusation, like an indictment, but political. Then the Senate holds a trial. To convict and remove, you need a two-thirds vote in the Senate. That is a brutally high threshold, and it is why removal is rare. But conviction is not the only consequence. The Senate can also vote to disqualify a person from holding federal office again.

That means this is not only about Trump's current term, it is also about his future. So when Democrats invoke Article 2, Section 4, they are invoking the ultimate threat. They are saying Trump's presidency can end by constitutional force. That is why this resolution is not something that can be shrugged off as just messaging. Now, let's talk about what Democrats are tying into this resolution. Because the resolution is not coming out of nowhere. It is connected to multiple ongoing flashpoints. One, the courts. There are reports of judges demanding sworn testimony in relation to what

the administration has been doing. Like when you have a judge, or multiple judges, demanding sworn testimony, that is not routine. Courts do not escalate like that unless they believe something is seriously off. In the narrative Democrats are building, the judiciary has become one of the main obstacles to Trump's agenda. The resolution is trying to present Trump as someone who pushes past the legal boundaries, then dares the courts to stop him, and then attacks the courts when they do.

2. The Supreme Court fight over presidential firing power. This is a huge deal, and most people do not fully understand how much it matters. The question is whether the president can remove officials and reshape agencies more aggressively, even when those agencies are supposed to have some degree of independence. If the Supreme Court expands presidential firing authority, it could allow Trump to purge key officials, replace them with loyalists, and weaken internal resistance.

Critics argue that would turn watchdogs into servants. Supporters argue it is necessary control of the executive branch. Either way, it is a constitutional power struggle sitting right under this impeachment push. 3. The Civil Fraud Judgment and Asset Seizures This is another piece of pressure that is not theoretical.

Civil judgments can lead to real enforcement actions. That can mean financial consequences, liens, seizures, and a long list of very concrete problems. And Democrats are framing this as part of a broader accountability story. They are saying Trump is facing legal consequences and instead of respecting the process, he is trying to use political power to blur the lines between personal

interest and public office. Four, contempt probes. If courts believe orders are being ignored, contempt becomes an issue. If Congress believes subpoenas or oversight are being obstructed, contempt becomes a weapon. In the story being told by Trump's opponents, the pattern is clear.

Challenge the legitimacy of investigators, challenge the legitimacy of judges, delay, refuse, and then dare the system to enforce consequences. That is what Democrats are packaging into the idea of constitutional violation.

Five. The refusal to spend appropriated funds. This one matters because Congress controls the purse. If a president refuses to spend funds that Congress has appropriated, that is not just a policy dispute. That is a separation of powers fight. Congress appropriates money. The executive executes the law.

When those lines get blurred, you get constitutional conflict. So Democrats are pointing to this as another example of Trump operating as if the normal boundaries do not apply. Six, Trump's Mass Deportation Program This is not just an immigration debate in this framing. It is being tied to broader accusations of constitutional abuse, due process violations, and executive overreach. Again, you do not have to agree with Democrats for the structure of

their argument to be clear. They are building a narrative of a president who treats the law as optional, treats courts as enemies, and treats constitutional limits as obstacles to be bulldozed. So the resolution tries to take all of that and turn it into a single claim. That Trump has violated the Constitution in multiple ways, that his conduct rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress should act. And this is where the Article 2, Section 4 angle, becomes strategic.

Prior impeachments often centered on specific labels like obstruction of justice, abuse of power, or contempt of Congress. Those charges can be powerful, but they are also easy to drown in legal arguments. You get lost in debates over what fits a statute, what

meets a standard, what a prosecutor might prove, and what a court might do. Article 2, Section 4 is different as a political argument because it does not pretend to be a criminal indictment. It goes straight to the constitutional standard. It says, the Constitution itself gives Congress the power to remove a president for extreme

misconduct and Trump meets that threshold. It is a way of bypassing the technical maze and speaking directly to the public. It is also a way of forcing Republicans into a more uncomfortable vote, because you cannot easily dismiss the removal clause as partisan overreach when it is literally the Constitution. Now here is the bigger question this raises. Are we about to normalize impeachment as a routine weapon? Because that is what Democrats are risking here. We have now had

impeachment during Trump's first term. We have had multiple impeachment resolutions during his second term. And now we have another one framed under Article 2, Section 4 itself. If impeachment becomes a standard tactic

every time Congress does not like the president, it will lose its moral force and destabilize the system. Think about the future. If Republicans win control of Congress, they will file Article 2 in Section 4 resolutions against Democratic presidents. Democrats will do it right back when they regain power.

That would mean permanent impeachment warfare, constant removal threats, endless hearings, and a government that cannot function. It would paralyze the executive branch and consume Congress. That is why normalizing impeachment is dangerous for democracy. It turns a constitutional emergency tool into a partisan habit. But here's the second point, and it is the one that matters most for Trump personally. This might actually have a path to removal in a way prior attempts did not. Why?

Because this is being framed as the constitutional standard itself. It is not built around one narrow statute. It is not based on a technical legal theory that Republicans can dismiss as overreach. It is built on the claim that Trump has violated the Constitution at the highest level, and that can be more persuasive to members who want a simple justification. Republicans cannot easily say Congress is acting outside its authority when Congress is invoking the Constitution's own removal language.

Republicans cannot as easily hide behind procedural excuses or narrow arguments about individual charges. The question becomes simpler and more brutal. Do you believe Trump has violated the Constitution in a way that justifies removal? Yes or no? And that matters? Because if Republican unity breaks, even slightly, the Senate math changes. Conviction requires two-thirds. That is extremely hard.

But impeachment is not only about the numbers on paper. It is also about political survival. If a president becomes toxic enough, members of his own party start thinking about the future. They start thinking about their own seats. They start thinking about 2026.

They start thinking about 2028. And that is where public opinion becomes a pressure point. In the discussion around this impeachment push, Trump's approval situation is being described as bleak. The number being cited is 58% disapproval. If that is the environment, then Trump is not governing from a position of broad public confidence. He is governing while a majority of the country is already skeptical or hostile. And when a president is unpopular, Congress is

more willing to move against him. Members become less afraid of backlash. They become more willing to break ranks. They become more willing to treat loyalty as optional. That is why Democrats are moving now. They believe Trump is unpopular enough that the idea of conviction is not pure fantasy. They believe the public mood could support it. They believe some Republicans could decide removal is safer than loyalty. And that leads to point three, the impact on Republican unity. Article two, section four framing puts Republicans in an unusually tight corner.

In past impeachment votes, Republicans could say the evidence is not specific enough. They could argue that charges are too narrow or too broad. They could hide behind procedure. They could claim the process is unfair. They could vote no while saying it is not because the president is innocent, but because the case is flawed.

This time, the framing force is a constitutional judgment. Republicans have to decide whether Trump meets the constitutional threshold for removal. Some Republicans will instinctively say no because Trump is their party leader and because breaking with him risks political retaliation. But some Republicans may quietly believe the answer is yes, especially if they think the pattern of court conflict, contempt issues, and executive overreach is becoming unsustainable.

If even a handful of Republicans peel away, it fractures the perception of total party loyalty. And perception matters. Once the wall breaks, more people feel free to move. That is how political landslides start, not with a flood, but with the first cracks. And remember, this is not happening in isolation.

Trump is dealing with multiple pressure fronts at once. Judges demanding sworn testimony. Supreme Court decision looming over executive power. Civil fraud judgments and enforcement risks, contempt probes, investigations. And now in Article Two, section four impeachment resolution on top of

everything, that is the kind of convergence that can overwhelm an administration. It is the kind of storm that can shift momentum fast. And Trump is not exactly known for calming storms. He tends to escalate them. Now, 0.4, the future impact on 2026 and 2028. This resolution is being introduced a year before the midterms.

That alone makes it a political earthquake. If impeachment advances, it dominates the news cycle. It shapes campaign messaging. It forces candidates to answer questions they do not want to answer. It forces Republican candidates to either defend Trump loudly or distance themselves and risk his base.

It forces Democratic candidates to decide whether they want to run as the party of accountability or the party of stability. If Trump were to be convicted and removed under an Article 2, Section 4 case, everything changes. Trump is no longer president. He loses the full power of the office. The Republican Party is thrown into a succession crisis. The 2028 race is reshaped. The entire ideology of the party could splinter between loyalists and people who want to move on. It would be the biggest political shock in

modern times. Even if Trump survives, the damage could still be enormous. A president can remain in office and still lose political power. If he is weakened, it changes his ability to pressure Congress. It changes his ability to pass an agenda. It changes how foreign leaders perceive him. It changes how the public reads every move. It can also change turnout dynamics in the midterms. A wounded president can drag down his party.

A wounded president can create chaos inside his own coalition. And there is another layer to this. If Republicans lose Congress in 2026, Trump loses an institutional shield. That matters because legal jeopardy does not vanish. It grows, oversight expands, the risk of further investigations increases. And the question of what happens after Trump leaves office becomes even more

serious because without the presidency, the protection and leverage are smaller. So do not treat this as just another impeachment headline. Whether you think it is justified or not, it is a move that forces the system to confront the boundary between presidential power and constitutional limits. The founders created impeachment for one purpose, to remove presidents who abuse power in ways that threaten the republic. Article 2 in Section 4 is the safeguard. It is the emergency brake. And now Congress is putting its hand on that brake again.

That is where we are right now. House Democrats have filed H. 939 with an Article 2, Section 4 framing. They are invoking the Constitution's removal clause. They are arguing Trump's conduct meets the high crimes and misdemeanors threshold. And now Congress is going to be forced to deal with it.

Congress will have to vote. Congress will have to take positions. Congress will have to answer the constitutional question. And whatever the final outcome, the impact is already real. The mere filing reshapes the political battlefield. It raises the stakes. It amplifies every court conflict.

It changes the incentives for Republicans who are already uneasy. It sets the tone for 2026. It sets the tone for 2028. And it puts the country in a moment where the system of checks and balances is either going to assert itself or show that it cannot.

Next time, we are going to break down how this resolution could move through Congress, what the pressure points are, and what would have to happen for it to become a serious removal fight rather than just another filed document. Because the truth is, in this environment, momentum can shift overnight. Because the truth is, in this environment, momentum can shift overnight. One court order, one defiant response, one new enforcement action,