Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump
The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States (in office from 2017 to 2021), began on February 9, 2021, and concluded with his acquittal on February 13. Donald Trump had been impeached for the second time by the House of Representatives on January 13, 2021. The House adopted one article of impeachment against Trump: incitement of insurrection. He is the only U.S. president and only federal official to be impeached twice. He was impeached by the House seven days prior to the expiration of his term and the inauguration of Joe Biden. Because he left office before the trial, this was the first impeachment trial of a former president.[1] The article of impeachment addressed Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results (including his claims of election fraud and his efforts to pressure election officials in Georgia) and stated that Trump incited the attack on the Capitol in Washington, D.C., while Congress was convened to count the electoral votes and certify the victory of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.[2]
For the impeachment in the House of Representatives, see Second impeachment of Donald Trump.Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump
January 26, 2021 – February 13, 2021
(2 weeks and 4 days)
Acquitted by the U.S. Senate, 57 guilty, 43 not guilty (10 short of 67 needed to convict)
Trump's conduct before and during the U.S. Capitol attack; Trump–Raffensperger phone call
At the beginning of the trial, Senator Rand Paul forced a vote to dismiss the impeachment charge on the basis that it was unconstitutional to try a former president, arguing that impeachment only applies to current federal officers and that the punishment of removal from office was moot under the circumstances. Supporters of proceeding with the trial argued that the Constitution also permits disqualification from holding future office, which the House had requested in its article of impeachment. The motion was defeated in a 55–45 vote, with all Democrats, both independents, and five Republicans (Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania) voting against the motion.[3][4] This was the first time that a former president had been tried, and only the second time the Senate tried someone who had already left office, after Secretary of War William W. Belknap in 1876. Jamie Raskin was the lead impeachment manager and the primary author – along with Representative David Cicilline and Representative Ted Lieu – of the impeachment article, which charged Trump with inciting an insurrection by sparking the Capitol attack. Joaquin Castro, Eric Swalwell, Madeleine Dean, and Stacey Plaskett also assisted in delivering the oral arguments for conviction.
Trump's defense was led by Michael van der Veen, a personal injury lawyer from Philadelphia, along with David Schoen and Bruce Castor. Van der Veen's style and substance during the trial drew ridicule and criticism from many, with gasps and laughter in the Senate when he stated that he would seek to depose at least 100 people at his Philadelphia office, including Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris.[5][6] Trump had originally hired Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier to represent him, but they quit along with three other lawyers after "the former president wanted the lawyers representing him to focus on his allegations of mass election fraud" and his false claim that "the election was stolen from him."[7]
At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate voted 57–43 to convict Trump of inciting insurrection, falling 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution, and Trump was therefore acquitted. Seven Republican senators joined all Democratic and independent senators in voting to convict Trump, the largest bipartisan vote for an impeachment conviction of a U.S. president or former U.S. president.[8][9] After the vote on the acquittal, Mitch McConnell said, "There's no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day."[10] but he voted against conviction due to his interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]
Argument preparation[edit]
Prosecution[edit]
In preparation for the trial, House Democrats built a detailed case against Trump, emphasizing what Trump knew in advance of the attack on the Capitol on January 6 and the effect of Trump's words and actions on his rioting supporters, with the goal of showing that Trump "summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack".[123] In a notable departure on strategy, the managers declined to discuss the logistics of their case, whereas in the previous impeachment trial they had engaged in numerous communication platforms to advance their position to the public. The managers also sought to apply the lessons learned in the last impeachment trial: not antagonize Republicans, use lots of videos, and make succinct arguments.[52][124] The managers prepared to conclude in a week, forgoing witnesses as they believed it would be unnecessary and hinder Biden's priorities on passing legislation and confirming nominees.[125] The managers intended to use the evidence collected in FBI affidavits charging hundreds of the Capitol insurrectionists, many of whom cited Trump's comments as permission to storm the Capitol. On certain filings, Trump is described as a "de facto unindicted coconspirator" for the Capitol riots and the driving force behind the breach, according to Proud Boys organizer Ethan Nordean.[109] Accordingly, the House was reported to present their case like a "violent crime criminal prosecution."[126] House impeachment managers and the staff, aided by the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton, compiled audio and video footage of Trump's rally and the ensuing attack on the Capitol, as well as details about the injuries sustained by police.[123][127][128]
According to The New York Times, the managers were also concerned about implicating Republican lawmakers who entertained the president's claims of election fraud, notably those who questioned and objected to the 2021 Electoral College vote count, as well as in the case of Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, played a role in the Capitol storming. The managers sought to make clear that it is not his party but Trump himself who is on trial, so as to not alienate the GOP senators.[129][52]
Defense[edit]
Trump's defense team indicated that they would present their opening arguments in one day. Bruce Castor, David Schoen, Michael van der Veen and William J. Brennan were all expected to speak.[130] Trump announced that he would not testify for the impeachment trial.[131]
On the evening before the defense's opening arguments, Senators Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee were seen going into a room that Trump's lawyers were using to prepare for their arguments. Cruz downplayed the meeting as an opportunity to "share [their] thoughts" about the defense's legal strategy. When reporters confronted Schoen on the appropriateness of impartial jurors consulting with the defense team, he claimed that the trial did not have "any semblance of due process whatsoever".[132]
Question-and-answer session[edit]
On the fourth day of the hearing, senators had four hours to submit questions to the House managers and the counsel for Donald Trump.[183]
The first question from Schumer and Feinstein (Q1) was whether the attack on the Capitol would have happened if not for Trump's conduct; impeachment manager Castro responded by quoting Cheney's statement on Trump's actions. Graham, Cruz, Kevin Cramer, and Roger Marshall submitted a question (Q2) on whether politicians' raising bail for rioters encouraged more rioters; Castro said it did. Raphael Warnock asked (Q3) if it was true that dozens of courts had previously rejected Trump's efforts to overturn the election. Lisa Murkowski asked (Q4) when Trump learned of the Capitol attack and what specific actions he took to end the rioting. Van der Veen accused the House impeachment team of not carrying out a proper investigation to determine those facts, claiming the House relied on "hearsay". Jacky Rosen asked (Q5) if there was evidence that Trump should have known that his tolerance of anti-Semitic hate speech and rhetoric could have incited the violence. Plaskett answered that Trump had a recorded history of encouraging violence.[182]
Van der Veen discussed Brandenburg v. Ohio, which he called a "landmark case on the issue of incitement speech", to argue that Trump had not meant for his supporters to storm the Capitol, calling Trump's speech metaphorical. Ed Markey and Tammy Duckworth asked (Q7) when Trump learned of the breach and what actions he took to stop the violence. Plaskett stated, "The answer is, nothing."[182] Mitt Romney and Susan Collins asked both sides (Q8) whether Trump knew that Pence had been escorted from the Senate when Trump tweeted to disparage him.[184] Castro said he had known, referring to Tuberville's call. Van der Veen, however, said that this was hearsay and that there was no solid evidence due to "lack of due diligence". Marsha Blackburn and Mike Crapo asked (Q10) whether a former official could be impeached, and Van der Veen argued that it was not constitutional, despite the Senate having already voted that it was. Amy Klobuchar, Bob Casey, and Sherrod Brown asked (Q9) what message the Senate would send if it did not convict Trump. Plaskett warned that there would be consequences and quoted Trump's words, "This is only the beginning". Alex Padilla asked (Q11) if Trump's allegations of fraud had led to the "radicalization" of his supporters to attack the Capitol. Castro responded that Trump's "big lie" had incited them. Josh Hawley and Kevin Cramer asked (Q12) if the Senate could disqualify sitting presidents without removing them. Castro answered in the negative, which Raskin disputed. Elizabeth Warren asked (Q13) the managers whether Democrats objecting to previous Electoral College votes had intended for rioters to storm the Capitol. Raskin called that a false comparison and noted that Democrats did not cause any violence. Jeff Merkley asked (Q17) the managers whether the president was innocent because he told the rioters later to be "peaceful". Raskin compared that to robbing a bank and then yelling "respect private property".[182]
Bernie Sanders asked both sides (Q15) whether, in their judgment, Trump lost the 2020 election. Plaskett said that Trump lost the popular and Electoral College vote, and that the DOJ and courts had agreed that all legal votes were counted. Van der Veen, however, refused to answer the question on the basis that his judgment was "irrelevant" to the proceeding, causing a ruckus on the Senate floor before Leahy restored order.[184][182]
Ron Johnson asked (Q16) why law enforcement would have been surprised and overwhelmed if the storming was premeditated. Van der Veen praised but did not answer the question. Plaskett stated that Trump knew the rioters would come and cultivated them, yet did not deploy the National Guard.[182]
Cruz asked a question (Q18) equating Kamala Harris's statement that she would raise bail money for Black Lives Matter protesters with the behavior described in the House's article of impeachment. Raskin replied that he would let Harris speak for herself and said outgoing presidents should be held to account for their conduct. Raskin noted that the original permit for the rally had said attendees would not march, but that the plan was changed after Trump intervened. Van der Veen criticized Raskin for being unfamiliar with Harris' "protected speech" and asked that the Senate protect Trump's.[182]
Patty Murray asked (Q19) whether Trump's 6:01 pm tweet was relevant to his guilt. Castro responded by asking why, if Trump was not guilty and the storming was not his intention, he would have sent the tweet. Joe Manchin asked (Q21) whether Trump would have been responsible for not protecting Congress given that he had FBI and domestic intelligence at his disposal. Plaskett stated that Trump was fully aware and thus fully responsible. Bill Cassidy asked (Q20) if Trump knew about the rioters and Pence's presence in the Capitol. Van der Veen said those facts were based on hearsay. Raskin countered that Trump's defense team had refused to have Trump provide direct testimony to establish a record.[185] Dan Sullivan asked (Q22) about the House's assertion that due process was "discretionary" and about the constitutional ramifications of establishing that precedent. Van der Veen said that was why senators needed to acquit. Richard Blumenthal asked (Q23) whether the relevant Supreme Court case prohibited officials from being held accountable through impeachment for inciting violence. Raskin noted that Trump's lawyers were trying to treat the trial as a criminal trial and Trump as a criminal defendant.[182] Marco Rubio asked both sides (Q26) whether, in the future, Congress could impeach a former secretary of state, alluding to Hillary Clinton. Raskin called the hypothetical "irrelevant", and Van der Veen stated that conviction would lead to a "slippery slope".[182]
The Senate adjourned after giving a standing ovation to Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman for his actions during the riot and passing a bill to award him the Congressional Gold Medal.[182]
Closing arguments[edit]
The impeachment managers made their closing arguments on February 13. Raskin argued that Trump's "dereliction of duty ... was central to his incitement of insurrection, and inextricable from it," and that Trump's call with McCarthy confirmed he did not care for the safety of lawmakers.[195] Dean played a video montage of Trump's repeating the 'big lie'. Mike Lee briefly interrupted their arguments to object to using the video, as new evidence is not allowed to be admitted during closing arguments, but Dean argued that statement was already on record, and so Dean was allowed to continue and use it.[196][197][198] Neguse concluded with an emotional appeal to senators and alluded to Martin Luther King Jr, warning of a "dark future" if senators did not convict Trump.[199] Neguse rebutted the defense's arguments of lack of due process by arguing that the defense fully presented their evidence and declined invitations to testify and provide exculpatory evidence, and the defense's video montage of Democrats using words like "fight" by stating they did not end in attempting to overturn an election in the Capitol.[200]
Trump's attorney Michael van der Veen made a closing argument containing many false and misleading claims.[201] He falsely claimed that the Capitol insurrection was "preplanned and premeditated by fringe left and right groups"; the attack was perpetrated by right-wing rioters, some of whom pre-planned the attack and others who participated spontaneously.[201] Van der Veen asserted that nothing Trump said "could ever possibly be construed as...encouraging or sanctioning an insurrection," although many of those who attacked the Capitol specifically said that Trump's words inspired them to take action.[201] Echoing a claim that Trump had previously made, Van der Veen falsely accused President Biden and Vice President Harris of having "repeatedly refused to condemn" acts of violence during riots in 2020 over police violence; in fact, Biden and Harris publicly condemned riots, violence, and lawlessness in statements in August and October 2020.[201] Van der Veen lambasted the Democrats for pursuing impeachment, calling it a "complete charade from beginning to end" and the "unhinged pursuit of a long-standing political vendetta" against Trump, and claiming that the Democrats' fear of Trump getting re-elected is fueling the trial. He ended their marks, calling it a "maniacal crusade," urging senators to not "go down this dark path of anonymity and division."[202] He falsely asserted, "One of the first people arrested was the leader of antifa," though federal authorities had not linked the man in question, John Earle Sullivan, to antifa,[203] and the FBI said there was no evidence of antifa involvement in the incident.[204][205][206]
Reactions[edit]
Senate[edit]
In remarks on the Senate floor after the adjournment of the "Court of Impeachment", Minority and Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who voted for acquittal, said his vote was based on his belief that the Constitution did not permit the Senate to convict an ex-president.[189]: S735 He noted that Trump "didn't get away with anything yet" because the criminal justice system could still deal with the situation.[218] He added:
Aftermath[edit]
After being acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial, Trump has continued to face legal troubles, including the threat of criminal action or civil litigation.[228] The prospect that Trump could face a criminal prosecution or civil lawsuit arising from the Capitol assault was raised by a number of Republican members of Congress, including Representative Liz Cheney,[229] Senator Marco Rubio and Senator minority leader Mitch McConnell.[228]
The office of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger started an investigation into Trump's attempts to overturn the state's election results, including a phone call the former president made to Raffensperger. The Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, has also started a criminal investigation into whether Trump should be charged for soliciting election fraud, a violation of Georgia state law.[230] Trump has expressed concern that he could be criminally charged for his actions surrounding the Capitol storming.[231] Trump separately faces an investigation in Manhattan relating to his company's business dealings.[228]
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution disqualifies from federal or state office[232] anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution[233][234] and either "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution,[235] or "given aid to the enemies" of the US.[236] Although the section's text does not explicitly describe how it is invoked, by congressional precedent, disqualification is invoked by a simple majority of both chambers, and can be removed by a supermajority of both chambers.[235][236] During the second impeachment of Donald Trump, Section 3 was cited in the Article of Impeachment as part of the basis for barring Trump from holding future office.[237][238] It is disputed whether Section 3 can be used as a potential "alternate path to disqualification [from office]" if the Senate votes to acquit Trump of the impeachment charge.[233][235][239] Democrats such as Richard Blumenthal, Chris Murphy, Dick Durbin, and Ben Cardin, have considered invoking Section 3 to bar Trump from holding office again, though such a move would enter uncharted constitutional and legal territory.[240]
