It’s the US Constitution that gives us the mechanism for dealing with the US President. Just follow the Constitution; there’s no need for “contortions” when it’s outlined so clearly in the Constitution.
When someone ignores a the clear provision of the US Constitution designed specifically to deal with an issue (like a President committing crimes in office) - then that’s a pretty clear sign that they know they ARE NOT ABLE TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION in doing what they say they want to accomplish.
Again, it’s REAL SIMPLE ... follow the US Constitution and get the US House of Representatives to put forth Articles of Impeachment. Then get the US Senate to convict.
Good luck ...
Article 1 deals with Congress. From Section 8:
“1. The Congress shall have Power To...pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...
11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water...
14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as my be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Article 2 deals with the executive, and this is the sum total of what it says about his role with the military:
Sec 2 (1): “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
Congress has the major involvement in setting up how the military works, and the POTUS is simply to execute that. Congress provides for the common defense, and the way they have done that is through the NDAA, which gives authority for the military to determine if someone is an enemy combatant and to detain them BEFORE they can attack the country. If POTUS is the person who intends to attack the country - either directly or by aiding others to successfully attack the country - then the NDAA authorizes the military to detain him. Unless you can show me where in the NDAA Congress makes the POTUS a king with an absolute right to destroy the country unhindered.
Show me where that is, or else the NDAA authorizes ANY enemy combatant - including anybody within government - to be detained for the national defense of the country, which the Constitution places in the hands of Congress.
I am not talking about removing a POTUS, so the Constitution’s provisions for removing a POTUS is irrelevant. I am talking about national defense - protecting the country from its enemies wherever they may be found. And I just cited the Constitutional authorization for CONGRESS to do that, which they did in the NDAA.