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.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.