Trump Triumphs as Divided Democrats Kill Impeachment—Again

Paul Riverbank, 12/13/2025Democrats split as House quashes latest Trump impeachment bid, prioritizing caution over confrontation.

It wasn’t just Republicans Green was up against. Instead, some of his fellow Democrats—over twenty of them, actually—found themselves opposed to posting another impeachment fight. They ended up siding with the GOP in a decisive 237-187 vote to bury the measure, while even more, including top party figures like Hakeem Jeffries and Katherine Clark, settled for a cautious “present.” The sort of vote that speaks less to conviction than to a wariness about re-living recent battles.

Green’s pitch boiled down to two main charges. He cited Trump’s explosive comments after six Democrats posted a provocative video urging military members to disregard unlawful orders. Trump’s reaction? He accused them of sedition and made ominous references to capital punishment—remarks that made the rounds on conservative media and even enticed the FBI into scrutinizing the lawmakers. Green claimed such rhetoric contributed to a hostile, even dangerous environment, arguing that the president’s willingness to threaten adversaries risked not only personal safety, but the independence of America’s courts.

On the House floor, Green’s words crackled with a sense of mission, referencing the sacrifices of the civil rights movement. But that impassioned call found little echo among colleagues who, in the end, seemed more interested in sidestepping a repeat of past impeachment drama. Democrats like Tom Suozzi and Jared Golden, who’ve previously shown flashes of independence, lined up with Republicans to table the resolution. Others, perhaps not wanting to stick out in either direction, quietly registered “present” and faded into the procedural tapestry.

Hakeem Jeffries, ever the tactician, answered questions with a familiar refrain—he noted that as long as the GOP holds the gavel, impeachment has nowhere to go, as Republicans in the House would shut it down on Trump’s orders. From Jeffries’s perspective, there are other ways to show accountability. “A meaningful investigation, maybe even a bipartisan one, that’s what’s on the table,” he suggested just a few months ago as the appetite for raw confrontation seemed to ebb.

House Republicans wasted no time. Steve Scalise, shepherding his caucus, steered the chamber to a swift shelving of Green’s resolution. There wasn’t much grandstanding; most in the room seemed to recognize the futility and, perhaps, the exhaustion of the exercise. With the Senate still in GOP hands, the broader drama wasn’t just unwelcome—it was practically unthinkable.

If there’s a message here, it’s buried in numbers and nuance, not rhetoric. Democrats may bristle privately at Trump’s conduct, but the will to throw the House back into a high-stakes constitutional fight simply isn’t there. Over the last year, calls for impeachment have faded, replaced by talk of committees and oversight hearings—tools that play better with wary voters and allow lawmakers to signal resolve without crossing a point of no return.

Green, for his part, stands by his convictions, willing to go it alone, even if that means standing apart from the broader party. His speeches channel history and personal belief, but this latest effort lands as more symbol than certainty. For now, at least, the House—fractious, hesitant, and deeply aware of the stakes—has chosen another path.

The House chamber was restless on Wednesday as Representative Al Green, no stranger to political brinkmanship, stood up once again to advocate for impeaching President Donald Trump. This wasn’t the first time Green had ventured down this road; previous efforts had fizzled. Still, he pressed on, invoking the language of history and the high stakes of ideology, though you’d be forgiven for missing any sense of genuine suspense about the outcome.It wasn’t just Republicans Green was up against. Instead, some of his fellow Democrats—over twenty of them, actually—found themselves opposed to posting another impeachment fight. They ended up siding with the GOP in a decisive 237-187 vote to bury the measure, while even more, including top party figures like Hakeem Jeffries and Katherine Clark, settled for a cautious “present.” The sort of vote that speaks less to conviction than to a wariness about re-living recent battles.Green’s pitch boiled down to two main charges. He cited Trump’s explosive comments after six Democrats posted a provocative video urging military members to disregard unlawful orders. Trump’s reaction? He accused them of sedition and made ominous references to capital punishment—remarks that made the rounds on conservative media and even enticed the FBI into scrutinizing the lawmakers. Green claimed such rhetoric contributed to a hostile, even dangerous environment, arguing that the president’s willingness to threaten adversaries risked not only personal safety, but the independence of America’s courts.On the House floor, Green’s words crackled with a sense of mission, referencing the sacrifices of the civil rights movement. But that impassioned call found little echo among colleagues who, in the end, seemed more interested in sidestepping a repeat of past impeachment drama. Democrats like Tom Suozzi and Jared Golden, who’ve previously shown flashes of independence, lined up with Republicans to table the resolution. Others, perhaps not wanting to stick out in either direction, quietly registered “present” and faded into the procedural tapestry.Hakeem Jeffries, ever the tactician, answered questions with a familiar refrain—he noted that as long as the GOP holds the gavel, impeachment has nowhere to go, as Republicans in the House would shut it down on Trump’s orders. From Jeffries’s perspective, there are other ways to show accountability. “A meaningful investigation, maybe even a bipartisan one, that’s what’s on the table,” he suggested just a few months ago as the appetite for raw confrontation seemed to ebb.House Republicans wasted no time. Steve Scalise, shepherding his caucus, steered the chamber to a swift shelving of Green’s resolution. There wasn’t much grandstanding; most in the room seemed to recognize the futility and, perhaps, the exhaustion of the exercise. With the Senate still in GOP hands, the broader drama wasn’t just unwelcome—it was practically unthinkable.If there’s a message here, it’s buried in numbers and nuance, not rhetoric. Democrats may bristle privately at Trump’s conduct, but the will to throw the House back into a high-stakes constitutional fight simply isn’t there. Over the last year, calls for impeachment have faded, replaced by talk of committees and oversight hearings—tools that play better with wary voters and allow lawmakers to signal resolve without crossing a point of no return.Green, for his part, stands by his convictions, willing to go it alone, even if that means standing apart from the broader party. His speeches channel history and personal belief, but this latest effort lands as more symbol than certainty. For now, at least, the House—fractious, hesitant, and deeply aware of the stakes—has chosen another path.