How long after a Presidency could the President be impeached? Even after his lifetime? Could we impeach GWB? How about Herbert Hoover?
John Quincy Adams said he was liable to impeachment for life:
My intuitive response would be that you can’t impeach someone who has left office, but if you impeach him before he leaves office, you can try the case. I’d suggest following the criminal justice system’s general guidelines wrt ensuring that the accused not be denied his right to a speedy trial.
ETA: JQA’s opinion be damned. If he’s so fucking smart, why’s he so fucking dead?
Except is that focussing too much on the penalty (removal from office) and not enough on the substance: an allegation that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanours? The founders chose to use a quasi-criminal process, rather than a quick political removal like a non-confidence motion.
Does a president get away from being convicted of high crimes and misdemeanours by just running out the clock, or resigning before judgment?
What if, two years after a president leaves office, incontrovertible evidence comes to light that while in office the president was on the pay of a foreign power and was regularly passing on state secrets. Is the former president immune from prosecution from high crimes and misdemeanours, and cannot be barred from federal office?
I’d say for the rest of the perp’s life.
IANAL
The first time he was impeached, he claimed immunity because he was still presidenting. So we waited patiently for him to leave office and the immunity is gone.
I thought I heard was talk of waiting 90 days for the trial. That way, Biden can get up and running; confirmations take time and Trump’s resistance to transition left people in the dark.
So first things first, and now that Trump can’t tweet giving Biden the spotlight is a good move IMO.
The founding fathers held an impeachment trial for a senator who had already been expelled from the senate. It seems pretty clear that the original intent of the constitution included the ability to convict on impeachment after removal from office.
Admittedly in that case the senator was not convicted but there was nothing wrong with the constitutionality of the trial.
Federal judges have been impeached after they left office. The process is the same as the one for the office of president. So there’s not much of a question about whether it can be done.
Impeachment and possibly conviction in the Senate, happens or doesn’t happen entirely independently from criminal indictment, trial, and possible conviction, and conversely. If the alleged activity is an actual crime, a former president could be indicted, tried, and convicted. (ETA: In the case of your specific hypothetical, about passing on state secrets, the dispute would turn on whether that was actually a criminal thing for a president to do.)
I agree with those who say the possibility of impeachment remains for the rest of a former president’s lifetime. Because the penalties that can be imposed as a result of impeachment - inability to hold federal office, loss of pension, loss of Secret Service protection, banishment from the townhouse - are held for life. So impeachment is still a meaningful process while a former president is alive but becomes moot once he dies.
There is technically one exception; the widow of a former president can collect a $20,000 a year pension after her husband dies. This seems to be the only official benefit given to former presidents that outlives them. But I can’t see any Congress seeking to impeach a dead man in order to deny his widow a pension.
There are certainly a number of current representatives and senators who would, and I’m not entirely confident the US electorate continuing in the direction of electing that sort is a zero probability possibility.
With the number of Republican Senators voicing their opinions that the impeachment is unconstitutional, why not settle that issue first? I’ll provide my own answer (not withstanding any procedural issues): They don’t want to because it allows them to vote against conviction on what they claim are legal grounds while not addressing the underlying behavior. Its kind of like jury nullification. “We don’t care what the evidence says. We don’t even want to hear it. We are going to acquit anyway because we think its not fair.” Its a cowards way out. Try getting one to go on the record as to whether or not they believe the election was actually stolen. They just can’t do it.
Sorry, if that’s a rant.
That’s what he would like you to believe.
Does Melania know this?
So she would be eligible for Obamacare, how nice.
How would it be settled?
Exactly: it can’t be “settled first” (because that’s not how constitutional review works in the USA), so they have perfect cover to vote against while claiming to be rejecting the process itself.
If senators abstain from voting as a protest to the constitutionality of the process do the numbers required to convict change?
Some of those Senators are trying to figure out where their best interests lie. (It’s the kind of calculation you have to make when you don’t have principles or morals to guide you.)
They’re wondering if they should impeach Trump now so he won’t be a factor in the 2024 election. Even the Trump supporters in the crowd would rather be Trump’s successor than his follower. Their problem is that while they collective want Trump to be impeached, they all individually would rather the other guys impeached him while they stayed out of it.
Impeachment requires 2/3 of the senate to vote for impeachment. Abstaining doesn’t change that.
What I am curious about is does it have to be 2/3 of ALL senators or just 2/3 of those present (assuming a quorum is present)?
For example, let’s say two senators are in a coma in the hospital. Do they need 66 votes or 65 votes to convict on impeachment?