On Monday evening, House managers delivered a single article of impeachment against former President Donald Trump to the Senate, related to his instigating a mob of his loyalists to attack the U.S. Capitol building on January 6. But Republicans have signaled a reluctance to convict him, with several of his legislative allies decrying attempts to do so simply because he’s out of office.
A number of Republican senators, in fact, have suggested that indicting Trump at this point would be an unconstitutional move.
“Our members, irrespective of what they might think about the merits, just believe that this is an exercise that really isn’t grounded constitutionally and, from a practical standpoint, just makes no sense,” South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the Senate Republican Whip, recently said.
Others have expressed a deeper indignation toward the concept of a Senate trial for a former president.
“I object to this unconstitutional sham of an ‘impeachment’ trial and I will force a vote on whether the Senate can hold a trial of a private citizen,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said on Monday.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) even went so far as to suggest there wasn’t a provision found in the Constitution that would justify “holding such a trial over a former president who is now a private citizen.”
“Where would we get the authority to do so?” he added in a tweet last week.
Although Republicans loyal to Trump are making forceful arguments about a Senate trial being unconstitutional, their claims aren’t backed up by evidence or historical record, and a number of experts disagree with their views. This past week, in fact, 150 legal scholars representing liberal and conservative viewpoints — including one individual who was a co-founder of the far right Federalist Society — signed an open letter disputing the arguments made by Trump loyalists against the constitutionality of impeaching a former president.
“We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation,” that letter stated. “But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.”
“I don’t buy that argument as anything other than an argument of convenience,” Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said to Talking Points Memo, noting that a person could theoretically resign office “moments before the Senate vote” to avoid being indicted in a Senate trial, under the theory that many Republican lawmakers are pushing.
Indeed, the provisions stated in the Constitution itself lend credence to the view that a Senate trial can be held for a former official, including a president.
The Constitution states that two-thirds of the Senate must vote to indict an impeached official, and if the vote is successful, another vote can be taken to disqualify the individual from being able “to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” Because of the provision to permanently disqualify a person from holding future office, many experts agree, the Constitution allows Congress to impeach and indict former officials for improper conduct while they were in office.
There’s precedent for this, too, dating back to the mid-19th century. William Belknap, who served as secretary of war in President Ulysses S. Grant’s administration, was accused of using his office to accept bribes. Tearfully, he resigned his office to avoid being impeached, but the House proceeded with the impeachment anyway, and the Senate held a trial shortly after. Although the Senate voted 35-25 in favor of indictment, Belknap avoided repercussions from his impeachment as the two-thirds threshold wasn’t met.
Republicans currently arguing against an impeachment trial in the Senate also appear to be forgetting that some among their ranks were once in favor of impeaching a former president not much more than a year ago. During Trump’s first impeachment, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) used false claims about former President Barack Obama purportedly wiretapping Trump while he was a candidate for office, as a bizarre defense against impeaching Trump — suggesting that he would attempt to impeach Obama even though the former president had been out of office for almost three years at that point.
Regardless of what Republicans say, an impeachment trial is set to move forward the week of February 8. At least 16 GOP senators were reportedly considering voting to indict Trump for his role in instigating the Capitol breach, but it appears that many are now wavering. Although a majority in the Senate may vote in favor of indicting Trump, it’s more likely than not at this point that Trump will avoid the two-thirds threshold to be convicted.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy