House impeaches Trump after U.S. Capitol siege; his fate in Senate hands

[webfact]

House impeaches Trump after U.S. Capitol siege; his fate in Senate hands

By David Morgan and Richard Cowan

 

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) presides over the vote to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, a week after his supporters stormed the Capitol building, on the floor of the House of Representatives in Washington January 13, 2021. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to make Donald Trump the first U.S. president ever to be impeached twice, formally charging him in his waning days in power with inciting an insurrection just a week after a violent mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol.

 

The vote in the Democratic-controlled House was 232-197 following a deadly assault on American democracy, with 10 Republicans joining the Democrats in backing impeachment.

 

But it appeared unlikely that the extraordinarily swift impeachment would lead to Trump's ouster before the Republican president's four-year term ends and Democratic President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated on Jan. 20. The Senate's Republican majority leader, Mitch McConnell, rejected Democratic calls to convene the Senate in emergency session to begin an immediate impeachment trial, according to a spokesman.

 

The House passed a single article of impeachment - a formal charge - accusing Trump of "incitement of insurrection," focused upon an incendiary speech he delivered to thousands of supporters shortly before the pro-Trump mob rampaged through the Capitol. The mob disrupted the formal certification of Biden's victory over Trump in the Nov. 3 election, sent lawmakers into hiding and left five people dead, including a police officer.

 

During his speech, Trump repeated false claims that the election was fraudulent and exhorted supporters to march on the Capitol.

 

With a large presence of rifle-carrying National Guard troops inside and outside the Capitol, an emotional debate unfolded in the same House chamber where lawmakers had crouched under chairs and donned gas masks on Jan. 6 as rioters clashed with police officers outside the doors.

 

"The president of the United States incited this insurrection, this armed rebellion against our common country," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, said on the House floor before the vote. "He must go. He is a clear and present danger to the nation that we all love."

 

No U.S. president ever has been removed from office through impeachment. Three - Trump in 2019, Bill Clinton in 1998 and Andrew Johnson in 1868 - previously were impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate.

 

The impeachment comes at a time of gaping political divisions in a pandemic-weary United States near the end of a tumultuous presidency in which Trump governed with a right-wing populist message preaching "America First."

 

Democratic congressman Julian Castro, a former presidential candidate, called Trump "the most dangerous man to ever occupy the Oval Office." Congresswoman Maxine Waters accused Trump of wanting civil war and fellow Democrat Jim McGovern said the president "instigated an attempted coup."

 

Some Republicans argued that the impeachment drive was a rush to judgment that bypassed the customary deliberative process such as hearings and called on Democrats to abandon the effort for the sake of national unity and healing.

 

"Impeaching the president in such a short time frame would be a mistake," said Kevin McCarthy, the House's top Republican. "That doesn't mean the president is free from fault. The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters."

 

Trump's closest allies, such as Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, went further, accusing Democrats of recklessly acting out of pure political interest.

 

"This is about getting the president of the United States," said Jordan, who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Trump in a private White House ceremony this week. "It's always been about getting the president, no matter what.

 

It's an obsession."

 

'I'M CHOOSING TRUTH'

A handful of Republicans backed impeachment, including Liz Cheney, the No. 3 House Republican.

 

"I am not choosing a side, I'm choosing truth," Republican Jamie Herrera Beutler said in announcing her support for impeachment, drawing applause from Democrats. "It's the only way to defeat fear."

 

In a break from standard procedure, Republican House leaders refrained from urging their members to vote against impeachment, calling the vote a matter of individual conscience.

 

Under the U.S. Constitution, impeachment in the House triggers a trial in the Senate. A two-thirds majority would be needed to convict and remove Trump, meaning at least 17 Republicans in the 100-member chamber would have to join the Democrats.

 

McConnell has said no trial could begin until the Senate was scheduled to be back in regular session on Jan. 19, one day before Biden's inauguration. The trial would proceed in the Senate even after Trump leaves office. McConnell said in a memo to his fellow Republicans he has not made a final decision on how he will vote on impeachment in the Senate.

 

The Capitol siege raised concerns about political violence in the United States once considered all but unthinkable. The FBI has warned of armed protests planned for Washington and all 50 U.S. state capitals ahead of Biden's inauguration.

 

Trump on Wednesday urged his followers to remain peaceful, saying in a statement, "I urge that there must be NO violence, NO lawbreaking and NO vandalism of any kind. That is not what I stand for, and it is not what America stands for."

 

'HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS'

Impeachment is a remedy devised by America's 18th century founders to enable Congress to remove a president who has, according to the Constitution, committed "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." If Trump is removed, Vice President Mike Pence would become president and serve out his term.

 

The House impeached Trump after he ignored calls for his resignation and Pence rebuffed Democratic demands to invoke a constitutional provision to remove the president.

 

The House previously voted to impeach Trump in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress stemming from his request that Ukraine investigate Biden and his son Hunter ahead of the election, as Democrats accused him of soliciting foreign interference to smear a domestic political rival. The Senate in February 2020 voted to keep Trump in office.

 

Wednesday's article of impeachment accused Trump of "incitement of insurrection," saying he provoked violence against the U.S. government in his speech to supporters. The article also cited Trump's Jan. 2 phone call asking a Georgia official to "find" votes to overturn Biden's victory in the state.

 

During his Jan. 6 speech, Trump falsely claimed he had defeated Biden, repeated unfounded allegations of widespread fraud and irregularities in a "rigged" election, told his supporters to "stop the steal," "show strength," "fight much harder" and use "very different rules" and promised to go with them to the Capitol, though he did not.

 

"If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," Trump told his supporters.

 

Democrats could also use a Senate impeachment trial to try to push through a vote blocking Trump from running for office again.

 

Lawmakers delivered speech after speech, wearing masks amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

"This is a moment of truth, my friends," Democratic congressman Gerry Connolly told his colleagues ahead of the vote.

 

"Are you on the side of chaos and the mob or are on the side of constitutional democracy and our freedom?"

 

(Reporting by David Morgan and Richard Cowan; Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Doina Chiacu, Susan Heavey and James Oliphant; Writing by Joseph Ax; Editing by Will Dunham and Scott Malone)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-01-14

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[cmarshall]

Unfortunately, trying the President for impeachment after he has left office is probably unconstitutional.  If McConnell were serious about getting rid of Trump he and Schumer would have called the Senate back into emergency session to conduct the trial before Trump leaves office.  

 

The Impeachment Clause, Article II, Section 4 states:

 

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

It seems pretty clear that the point of impeachment is removal from office.  A former president cannot be removed from office and is therefore not subject to impeachment.

 

Therefore, if the Senate goes ahead and tries Trump after Jan. 20 and if, big "If," they can muster a two thirds vote in the Senate to convict, I expect a court will subsequently overturn the conviction.

 

I understand the case that is being made for the opposite view, but I think it is weak.

[Tug]

10 courageous republicans willing to put country and dare I say their political careers on the line kudos true patriots well he’s been charged twice now let’s get this epic failure of a president convicted!!

[zzaa09]

An even more important aspect about this article of impeachment was the firm clause that bars Trump from taking any [elected/appointed] public office in the future. 

[simple1]

3 minutes ago, Tug said:

10 courageous republicans willing to put country and dare I say their political careers on the line kudos true patriots well he’s been charged twice now let’s get this epic failure of a president convicted!!

 

More akin to gesture politics. Does anyone believe Senate republicans will vote in sufficient numbers to impeach trump? 

[polpott]

13 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Unfortunately, trying the President for impeachment after he has left office is probably unconstitutional. 

Not so, there is precedent.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/13/impeachment-blount-belknap-trump/

 

"There is some historical precedent: The impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 both occurred after the men were no longer in office."

[polpott]

17 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

An even more important aspect about this article of impeachment was the firm clause that bars Trump from taking any [elected/appointed] public office in the future. 

This isn't a given. First the Senate must uphold the impeachment by 2/3rds majority, then an application to the Senate can be made to bar him from holding Federal office for life which requires a simple majority to pass, which would almost certainly pass now the Democrats hold the Senate.

 

McConnell is privately advocating this as it would wash that man right out of their hair, essential if the currently fractured Republican Party is to reunite and move forward as one.

 

It would also serve to remove any hopes of his base that their glorious leader will make a comeback. The Trump cult is a personality cult, remove the leader and the cult dies.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by polpott

[herfiehandbag]

22 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

More akin to gesture politics. Does anyone believe Senate republicans will vote in sufficient numbers to impeach trump? 

It may not proceed in the Senate, but it is an important symbol, a gesture if you like. It establishes that the House of Representatives holds Trump responsible for the physical attack upon it.

 

In the last days of his Presidency he has achieved a legacy!

[car720]

Just get rid of the idiot once and for all.

[Mama Noodle]

Unfortunately, Democrats won what they were trying to win. It was a horrible slugfest as predicted from the very beginning, and they narrowly squeaked out their goal. Right or wrong, they got it. 

 

Only thing left to do is allow them to govern, impeach, go after political rivals, and do what they always do, and in a few years there will be another republican government. 

 

[cmarshall]

4 minutes ago, polpott said:

Not so, there is precedent.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/13/impeachment-blount-belknap-trump/

 

"There is some historical precedent: The impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 both occurred after the men were no longer in office."

 

Not good precedents.  Blount was a US senator and therefore his impeachment by the House was undoubtedly not constitutional in the first place.  Only members of the Executive and Judicial branches are subject to impeachment.  Senators and congressmen can be expelled by their respective chambers, but not impeached.  Blount had already been expelled by the Senate.  When it came to consider the trial of the former senator, the Senate passed a resolution it lacked jurisdiction to try Blount's impeachment and the case was dismissed.  Belknap was acquitted.

 

So, there is no precedent of a successful impeachment trial after the accused has left office.

 

 

[polpott]

4 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Not good precedents.  Blount was a US senator and therefore his impeachment by the House was undoubtedly not constitutional in the first place.  Only members of the Executive and Judicial branches are subject to impeachment.  Senators and congressmen can be expelled by their respective chambers, but not impeached.  Blount had already been expelled by the Senate.  When it came to consider the trial of the former senator, the Senate passed a resolution it lacked jurisdiction to try Blount's impeachment and the case was dismissed.  Belknap was acquitted.

 

So, there is no precedent of a successful impeachment trial after the accused has left office.

 

 

Bellknap's trial was held in the senate, it only failed because it failed to reach a 2/3rds majority. Lets hope it does reach a 2/3rds majority this time.

[cmarshall]

14 minutes ago, polpott said:

Bellknap's trial was held in the senate, it only failed because it failed to reach a 2/3rds majority. Lets hope it does reach a 2/3rds majority this time.

 

At Belknap's trial the 23 senators who voted to acquit did so, because the Senate lacked jurisdiction.  So, that hardly makes a strong precedent.

[mtraveler]

15 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

Unfortunately, Democrats won what they were trying to win. It was a horrible slugfest as predicted from the very beginning, and they narrowly squeaked out their goal. Right or wrong, they got it. 

 

Only thing left to do is allow them to govern, impeach, go after political rivals, and do what they always do, and in a few years there will be another republican government. 

 

It's nice to see you accepting the situation with equanimity.  It's just a shame that so many Republican voters and lawmakers were unable to accept this back in November when it was more than clear that Biden had won.  And that they bought the whole "fraud" story that Trump was selling. And even after 60 visits to various courts (many with Republican judges), the reality would still not be accepted.  Which brought us to the awful events of last Wednesday.   

 

As to your assertion that they "narrowly" squeaked out their goal...  as to control of the Senate, you are absolutely correct (and thank you Ms. Abrams and Mr. Trump for helping that happen), but as to popular vote and the Electoral College, it was far from a squeaker.  

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

Unfortunately, trying the President for impeachment after he has left office is probably unconstitutional.  If McConnell were serious about getting rid of Trump he and Schumer would have called the Senate back into emergency session to conduct the trial before Trump leaves office.  

 

The Impeachment Clause, Article II, Section 4 states:

 

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

It seems pretty clear that the point of impeachment is removal from office.  A former president cannot be removed from office and is therefore not subject to impeachment.

 

Therefore, if the Senate goes ahead and tries Trump after Jan. 20 and if, big "If," they can muster a two thirds vote in the Senate to convict, I expect a court will subsequently overturn the conviction.

 

I understand the case that is being made for the opposite view, but I think it is weak.

You think wrong:

1) Trump is already impeached

2) Removing him from office which need 2/3 off the senate has indeed not much effect as he will be leaving anyway BUT the senate can decide to punish him by not allowing him to have a public office ever again. This would only need a normal majority vote which the Democrats will have soon.

 

So it will be goodbye to Trump and he will never be allowed to run again. He or Pence can't clear him from any state prosecutions, so public citizen Trump will have a lot of court cases coming this year. One of them being from the Deutche bank who will either get paid in full for the hundreds of millions he borrowed or will foreclose on his properties.

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by FritsSikkink

[Salerno]

Looks like at least his speech writer is worried:

 

 

Too little, too late IMO and should have dropped the social media part.

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Salerno
Typo

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

It seems pretty clear that the point of impeachment is removal from office.  A former president cannot be removed from office and is therefore not subject to impeachment.

 

Therefore, if the Senate goes ahead and tries Trump after Jan. 20 and if, big "If," they can muster a two thirds vote in the Senate to convict, I expect a court will subsequently overturn the conviction.

Not sure if the courts would intervene with this political process.  This is not a criminal or civil trial but a political one.  The rules of evidence and due process is not the same.  Having said that, a 2/3 majority is still a high bar.  If the senate manages to convict, it would be huge message to the GOP.  It all depends on the political winds during the trial. 

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, FritsSikkink said:

You think wrong:

1) Trump is already impeached

2) Removing him from office which need 2/3 off the senate has indeed not much effect as he will be leaving anyway BUT the senate can decide to punish him by not allowing him to have a public office ever again. This would only need a normal majority vote which the Democrats will have soon.

 

So it will be goodbye to Trump and he will never be allowed to run again. He or Pence can't clear him from ant state prosecutions, so public citizen Trump will have a lot of court cases coming this year. One of them being from the Deutche bank who will either get paid in full for the hundreds of millions he borrowed or will foreclose on his properties.

 

 

The impeachment is entirely constitutional, but conducting a Senate trial after he has left office is not.  If the Senate does conduct such a trial and if they get a conviction and if they then vote to disqualify him from holding office in the future, that decision is likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court.  

 

The Senate could try him and impose such a penalty before Jan 20, but McConnell has cannily prevented that course of action.  

[cmarshall]

8 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Not sure if the courts would intervene with this political process.  This is not a criminal or civil trial but a political one.  The rules of evidence and due process is not the same.  Having said that, a 2/3 majority is still a high bar.  If the senate manages to convict, it would be huge message to the GOP.  It all depends on the political winds during the trial. 

 

If Senate convicted Trump after he left office and disqualified him from future office, Trump would test that in court claiming that he was unconstitutionally deprived of his right to run for office.  The Supreme Court would certainly take the case.

 

There were only ten Republican members of Congress who voted not impeach while there were 140 who signed on to the court case that tried to overturn the legitimate vote.  We have not turned the corner.  Just as in the Access Hollywood case the early opinions that Trump's actions had doomed him may not turn out to be the case.

 

It's quite possible that rather feeling disgraced by their failed coup, the Trumpites will be energized by their near success.

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by cmarshall

[Captain Monday]

9 minutes ago, Salerno said:

Looks like at least his speech writer is worried:

 

 

Too little, too late IMO and should have dropped the social media part.

 

Under duress and with some much on the line he could not help make it about himself his grievances and false narratives. Where was the contrition and concession? Where was congratulation to Biden on a fair election won? Months late, a million dollars short. 

 

He should admit to his followers that he lied to them and to stay home!

[PatOngo]

The Trump fanboys have been very quiet of late or disappeared altogether, I miss there comments!

[Mama Noodle]

11 minutes ago, mtraveler said:

It's nice to see you accepting the situation with equanimity.  It's just a shame that so many Republican voters and lawmakers were unable to accept this back in November when it was more than clear that Biden had won.  And that they bought the whole "fraud" story that Trump was selling. And even after 60 visits to various courts (many with Republican judges), the reality would still not be accepted.  Which brought us to the awful events of last Wednesday.   

 

As to your assertion that they "narrowly" squeaked out their goal...  as to control of the Senate, you are absolutely correct (and thank you Ms. Abrams and Mr. Trump for helping that happen), but as to popular vote and the Electoral College, it was far from a squeaker.  

 

I still dont "accept" that it was fair, or right, or that the playing field was in any way level. 

 

And it was a very narrow win in the presidency. Only a few 100k votes spread across 3 states and it took a huge, 4 year long campaign of attacks, a pandemic, government shutdowns without aid, a tech monopoly influencing readers, legacy media picking sides, and changing voting rules at the last minute just to squeak out this narrow win. (Nobody cares about popular vote) 

 

They got their very narrow senate majority, but they won't pass anything substantial because its so narrow. Plenty of red state dems careers on the line.  

 

My prediction going forward is that its only going to get worse. 

[J Town]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

"I am not choosing a side, I'm choosing truth," Republican Jamie Herrera Beutler said in announcing her support for impeachment

Kudos, and may more wake up to the truth - this was a coup attempt instigated by domestic terrorists at the clarion call spewed by 45.

[Salerno]

12 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

The Senate could try him and impose such a penalty before Jan 20, but McConnell has cannily prevented that course of action.  

 

Or is he just waiting to see what way the wind is blowing for a day or two of being impeached (bombing past week https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/)? IMO it's too good an opportunity to get the albatross from around their neck to pass up for the Reps.

[J Town]

54 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

Unfortunately, Democrats won what they were trying to win. It was a horrible slugfest as predicted from the very beginning, and they narrowly squeaked out their goal. Right or wrong, they got it. 

 

Only thing left to do is allow them to govern, impeach, go after political rivals, and do what they always do, and in a few years there will be another republican government. 

 

So you approve of an attempted coup by domestic terrorists that did so because 45 told them to? And don't try to squeak by saying "No he didn't." As a life long con man, his words were carefully chosen to achieve his desired goal. You know deep down inside he was rooting for them in real time!

Edited January 14, 2021 by J Town

[Mama Noodle]

2 minutes ago, J Town said:

So you approve of an attempted coup by domestic terrorists that did so because 45 told them to?

 

If you can sow me any instance where ive supported political violence in any form, Ill never post on this forum again. 

[cmarshall]

4 minutes ago, Salerno said:

 

Or is he just waiting to see what way the wind is blowing for a day or two of being impeached (bombing past week https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/)? IMO it's too good an opportunity to get the albatross from around their neck to pass up for the Reps.

 

We could have hoped that was McConnell's intention, but it's clearly not.  Despite the remarks attributed to him, but not spoken in public, McConnell isn't lifting a finger to remove Trump, which it is entirely within his sole power to accomplish.  Instead he dumps the Senate trial in Schumer's lap where it will waste time and suck oxygen out of the the first hundred days of Biden's term and is certain to achieve exactly nothing.  

 

The only hope for retribution for Trump is that he does not get a pardon from Pence somehow and then Biden's Attorney General prosecutes him.  Even if he has self-pardoned such a prosecution is likely to succeed.  

[sirineou]

If I read this correctly, even if the impeachment proceeds are successfully challenged in court, it still leaves trump subject to  charges and prosecution for inserection in the legal system   after he leaves office. 

"Trump Could Face Prosecution for Inciting Capitol Riot After Leaving Office, D.C. AG Suggests "

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-could-face-prosecution-inciting-capitol-riot-after-leaving-office-dc-ag-suggests-1560628

if that is the case he can be removed under the provisions of the 14th amendment , section 3

"

Section 3

 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Edited January 14, 2021 by sirineou

[J Town]

Just now, Mama Noodle said:

 

If you can sow me any instance where ive supported political violence in any form, Ill never post on this forum again. 

And you also choose your words carefully as a con man supporter.

[J Town]

34 minutes ago, Salerno said:

Looks like at least his speech writer is worried:

 

Too little, too late IMO and should have dropped the social media part.

 

The first 15 seconds show it's once again a mere hostage video. I didn't need to listen to any more from the YUGEST liar ever to disgrace the oval office.