Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, Justice, and the Courts

Episode: "Time to Impeach Trump Again?"

April 11, 2026

Episode Overview

This urgent episode of Amicus explores the renewed debate over using constitutional mechanisms—impeachment and the 25th Amendment—to address President Trump's increasingly alarming behavior, including recent nuclear threats. Host Dahlia Lithwick seeks answers as to why the nation's constitutional "toolkit" appears so inadequate in confronting a seemingly unrestrained, dangerous president. The show features in-depth interviews with Congressman Jamie Raskin (the House's leading Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and a former lead impeachment manager) and Professor Michael Gerhardt (noted impeachment scholar), examining both the practical and philosophical limits of America's checks and balances.

Key Topics and Discussion Highlights

1. The Current Crisis: Presidential Threats and Constitutional Panic

• Trump’s Alarming Nuclear Threats

  • Dahlia Lithwick opens with Trump’s recent escalatory nuclear rhetoric and the collective helplessness it has spawned in the U.S. (00:50)
  • Quote: “The same president who stood on a balcony next to a goggle-eyed Easter bunny while threatening to bomb sovereign nations is actually not a joke.” (01:37)

• The Limits of Traditional Remedies

  • The episode focuses on why impeachment and the 25th Amendment are "back on the table," and why voting is an increasingly fraught remedy in the current climate. (02:55)

2. Interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin (04:29–27:08)

A. Why the Constitutional "Toolkit" Falters

• The Framers' Blindspot

  • Raskin: The framers “had no concept of what it would mean to live in a nuclear age... The Constitution wasn’t really set up for it.” (05:22)
  • He notes the 25th Amendment was designed for physical incapacity, not for a president making active, dangerous decisions.

• Impeachment Process Limitations

  • “Impeachment... that takes months to put into play... it’s a very tall order for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” (07:41)
  • Context: High threshold (two-thirds Senate) is "sufficiently roomy" for egregious acts but practically difficult without bipartisan consensus.

B. The 25th Amendment: Anatomy and Mechanics

• Procedural Inertia

  • Only the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet can act; even then, Congress can overrule with two-thirds majorities if the President resists. (Section 4)
  • Raskin argues for establishing the legislative "body" envisioned in the amendment, which could initiate action if the Cabinet refuses (12:00)
  • “That body’s never been set up... but I think should be a permanent, continuing body for whomever’s president.” (11:28)

• Real-World Obstacles

  • Current Vice President J.D. Vance is described as “morally invertebrate,” making this avenue implausible. (12:00)

C. Structural and Political Failures

• Congressional Fear and Learned Helplessness

  • “A president was allowed to walk after [Jan 6]... the fear is real...” (17:17)
  • Congress is not "supine" but "terrified"—paralyzed by fear of violence, backlash, or personal risk.

• Party Loyalty Overrides Branch Loyalty

  • “The framers were much more afraid of what one mad king... might do rather than the representatives of all the people.” (14:45)

D. The Limits of Electoral Remedies

• Voting as a Check—But It’s Not Enough
  • Raskin: “Plan C was always Plan A... the major check... is to throw the bums out...” (21:13)
  • Notes some electoral victories for Democrats as signs of hope.
  • Cautions: “Winning the election is just half the battle. We got to defend the election.” (23:30)

E. Should Impeachment and 25th Amendment Discussions Continue?

• Rejects the “Don’t Rock the Boat” Argument
  • Raskin: “Impeachment and the 25th Amendment cannot be a fetish for us... On the other hand, they should be no kind of constitutional taboo...” (24:52)
  • “The whole country has gotten an intensive education into the mechanics of the constitutional process and that's good. And then we have to act with political shrewdness and strategic sensibility.” (25:55)

3. Interview with Prof. Michael Gerhardt ("Mr. Impeachment") (28:31–63:52)

A. The Failure of Checks and Balances

• Presidential Power Expansion
  • Gerhardt: “What we've seen over the last 250 years is more the dismantlement of checks and balances on the presidency than actually the establishment of reliable guardrails.” (29:10)

B. The 25th Amendment: Born of Hope, Limited by Design

• Why It's Ineffective Today
  • “It depends entirely on whether the president’s Cabinet is capable of initiating a procedure... When would a Cabinet assembled by a president ever do that? ... Especially for this president...” (30:27)
  • Notes amendment's original intent was for incapacitation—not for dangerous or reckless decision-making by a president still in command. (32:37)

C. Impeachment: History, Philosophy, and Misconceptions

• Framers' Original Fears

  • “Every example given of misconduct that could justify impeachment was an example of a presidential abuse of power...” (37:19)
  • The real flaw: the framers did not foresee “the rise of political parties, the lust for power... when a faction... takes control of the entire federal government.” (39:01)

• Impeachment Meant to Deter Demagogues

  • “It definitely was designed... to protect against demagogues... Those are a lot of the characteristics of a Trump presidency...” (40:29)

• Shame as a Lost Mechanism

  • “I’m not so sure the framers... were focused on shame as a check... they were trying to deal with a president who was corrupt for whatever reason.” (43:55)
  • Now, the system is less about moral restraint, more about raw partisan maintenance of power.

D. The Real (and Political) Purpose of Impeachment

• Setting Precedent and Preserving the Record

  • “If nobody impeached the president for this, if they all thought it was futile, what kind of precedent does that set? That precedent helps produce more corrupt presidents...” (50:32)
  • “If impeachment were used, it does achieve a couple things. First... it establishes record. And that's a record that will stand for all of time... and you get the stain [of impeachment].” (51:09)

• Presidential Sensitivity to Stigma

  • “We know how much the first two impeachments got under Trump’s skin. Not just because of the erasure... but just this week [DOJ actions]... go after Cassidy Hutchinson... it’s the same reason to go after Adam Schiff or Jack Smith.” (53:18)
  • Trying to "rewrite history" and punish truth-tellers is part of Trump's defensive strategy.

E. Refuting Arguments Against Impeachment

• Impeachment as Necessary, Not Futile
  • “Oh, we don’t want to impeach him because he might hurt us. That sounds like the language of abuse... That's what Snyder calls anticipatory compliance...” (58:51)
  • “Impeachment may not be very effective if you want to get them out, but it may become very effective because it irritates him... Trump’s gonna be Trump, regardless…” (59:58)

F. The Cultural Context: Why These Failures Endure

• It’s Structure and Culture, Not Just Law
  • “If culture... becomes more tolerant of... extramarital behavior, that will help Bill Clinton, and arguably it did. If people tolerate ignoring the rule of law... that is going to hurt the rule of law... our values are not the ones the framers would have wanted us to be following.” (61:07)

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• Dahlia Lithwick

  • “The learned helplessness of a nation that has persuaded itself that nothing can be done about this, as this demonstrably dangerous man tips us forever closer to the next crisis... is not a tenable plan for a country that styles itself as a democracy.” (02:20)

• Jamie Raskin

  • “The reason Congress is in Article 1... is because the framers were much more afraid of what one mad king or somebody drunk on power might do rather than the representatives of all the people.” (14:45)
  • “Impeachment... cannot be a fetish... On the other hand, they should be no kind of constitutional taboo... We would never take anything off of the table.” (24:52)
  • “So I guess I would say it is important to be talking about the War Powers act, to be talking about impeachment, to be talking about the 25th Amendment, to be talking about the First Amendment, to be talking about the congressional elections and what comes after.” (25:28)

• Michael Gerhardt

  • “What we've seen over the last 250 years is more the dismantlement of checks and balances on the presidency than actually the establishment of reliable guardrails.” (29:10)
  • “If nobody impeached the president for this, if they all thought it was futile, what kind of precedent does that set? That precedent helps produce more corrupt presidents...” (50:32)
  • “Impeachment may not be very effective if you want to get them out, but it may become very effective because it irritates him. And by the way, anybody who thinks that we shouldn't do anything because it's gonna irritate Trump, they're truly naive because everything seems to irritate him. And he's gonna be this way anyway. Trump's gonna be Trump, regardless...” (59:58)

Major Segments & Timestamps

• Introduction, Trump’s Threats, Show Setup — 00:00–04:29
• Jamie Raskin Interview
  • Framers and the nuclear age — 05:22
  • 25th Amendment—mechanics and limitations — 07:41–13:57
  • Structural/partisan failures of Congress — 14:45–20:21
  • Voting as remedy and current efforts — 21:13–23:30
  • Impeachment, political taboos — 24:52–26:27
• Michael Gerhardt Interview
  • 25th Amendment history and failure — 29:10–34:18
  • Impeachment’s intended scope, historical and structural limits — 37:19–47:14
  • Definitional misconceptions — 47:14–50:01
  • Impeachment as historical record and deterrent — 51:09–53:18
  • Cultural norms and collapse of checks and balances — 61:07–63:52

Summary Takeaway

This episode makes clear that while both the 25th Amendment and impeachment are constitutionally available, their effective use is stymied by partisan politics, institutional fear, and structural limits the framers could not anticipate. Both Raskin and Gerhardt agree: doing nothing sets a dangerous precedent, and even "futile" impeachment creates a needed historical record and stains that matter for future accountability. Meanwhile, the final safeguard—the vote—is under stress amidst ongoing efforts at voter suppression and doubts about electoral integrity. The show concludes with a sobering reminder that only reengaged citizens and robust civic courage can ultimately revive the constitutional system's defenses against demagogues and tyrants.

Recommended further reading:

• Jamie Raskin, Trauma, Truth, and the Trials of American Democracy (2022)
• Michael Gerhardt, The Law of Presidential Impeachment: A Guide for the Engaged Citizen