United States: the article to read to understand everything at the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump which opens today
The former Republican president is accused of "incitement to insurrection" for having encouraged thousands of his supporters to go to the Capitol in early January.
We take the same one and start over. Donald Trump is facing a second impeachment trial in the Senate, starting Tuesday, February 9, just a year after the conclusion of the first (of which he had come out acquitted). The moment is historic: it is the first time that the highest official of the United States has been targeted by two impeachments; and it is above all the first time that a president has been tried by the upper house after the end of his mandate. As the proceedings get to the heart of the matter, franceinfo helps you revise the case.
I remember Trump was once targeted by an "impeachment": what is the concern this time?
Indeed, the Republican has already been prosecuted by the House of Representatives in 2019, for "abuse of power" and "hindering the smooth running of Congress". At the time, he was accused of pressuring his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate his main presidential rival, Joe Biden. The tenant of the White House was finally cleared by the Senate on February 5, 2020. This time, the House of Representatives voted to indict Donald Trump for "incitement to insurgency". Democrats (and a handful of Republicans) believe the president encouraged his supporters' assault on Capitol Hill.
On January 6, demonstrators violently entered the building as Congress voted on the certification of presidential results. Some elected officials remained barricaded for long minutes in the hemicycles, before being evacuated by the police. Images show activists calling to "hang Mike Pence", the former Conservative vice president who did not oppose certification, when others sought out Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "I thought I was going to die," said * elected progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who hid in her office bathroom for fear that supporters of Donald Trump would enter it. In total, five people died during the violence.
For the Democratic prosecutors of this second trial, it is Donald Trump who "incited a violent crowd to attack the Capitol". They recall that the Republican refused for months to recognize his defeat to Joe Biden, claiming without any evidence that the presidential election was tainted with electoral fraud. On January 6, he even spoke * at a rally of his supporters near the White House, calling on them to "march on Capitol Hill" and "fight" to prevent Democrats from "stealing this election" .
"It is impossible to imagine that the events of January 6 took place without the president having created a powder keg, struck a match and then sought to take personal advantage of the chaos that followed," prosecutors believe, in an argument of 77 pages published on February 2. "His willingness to stay in power at all costs is a betrayal of historic magnitude, they insist. If provoking insurgent riots against a joint session of Congress after losing an election is not a crime worth a impeachment, it's hard to imagine what could be. "
How will his trial in the Senate go?
Democrats and Republicans alike want Donald Trump's second trial to be "quick", Bloomberg * reports. "This is not something that should take a few months or even weeks, rather a few days," a majority senator told reporters. On Tuesday, senators will begin by voting to declare themselves competent or not to judge a head of state who is no longer in office. Depending on the outcome of this first ballot, each party will have 16 hours (spread over several days) to present their arguments. According to the New York Times *, the verdict could be known as early as the following week.
On the side of the prosecution, the elected Democrat Jamie Raskin is responsible for leading the team of prosecutors. Unlike the first impeachment trial, it is not the chief magistrate of the Supreme Court who will preside over the proceedings. This role is this time devolved to the dean of the upper house, Democrat Patrick Leahy, reports the CBS * channel. It is in fact traditionally the eldest elected representative of the Senate who supervises the impeachment trials of federal officials "who are not presidents", which is now the case for Donald Trump.
What is the Republican defense strategy?
Donald Trump's defense rests on two pillars, details Politico *. First, to challenge the legality of an impeachment trial against a president whose term has ended. "The Constitution requires that a person is in fact in office" to be dismissed, say his lawyers in a response to the arguments of prosecutors.
Second element: by asserting without proof that the presidential election was fraudulent, the billionaire simply "exercised his right guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution to express his opinion that the elections were suspect". "The evidence is insufficient to allow a reasonable lawyer to conclude whether his statements were true or not, and he therefore denies that they were false," add his lawyers in a 14-page document *.
For the Washington Post *, this line of defense is risky. Courts have systematically rejected appeals filed by Trump's team to overturn the presidential results. Most of the Republican Party has also recognized the victory of Joe Biden in the days preceding his inauguration. The argument could irritate conservative senators all the more since many of them were shocked by the violence of the assault on Capitol Hill, considered an attack on institutions.
If [his lawyers] start trying to prove the ballot was stolen in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, we're going to lose everyone.
However, Donald Trump insists that this argument be put forward during the trial. The Washington Post says this stubbornness prompted five of its lawyers to resign on Sunday, January 31, less than two weeks before the start of the trial. They have been replaced by new lawyers.
Will the billionaire speak at the trial?
Prosecutor Jamie Raskin asked Donald Trump on Thursday, February 4, to "testify under oath" about "his conduct on January 6," either "before" or "during" the trial. The billionaire's team immediately rejected him. "The president will not testify in unconstitutional proceedings," his press secretary told Fox News *. His lawyer Bruce Castor added, in a letter to Jamie Raskin: "Your [request] only confirms what everyone knows: you cannot prove your charges against [Donald Trump]."
For the Democratic prosecutor, this refusal "speaks volumes" and is "obviously" an element which "supports his guilt". "We will prove during the trial that his conduct is indefensible", he promised, in a statement quoted by Politico *.
But can we really dismiss a former president?
That's the whole debate! According to the AP * agency, the US Constitution specifies that "the president (...) can be removed from office if he is prevented and convicted of treason, corruption and other serious crimes and offenses". No mention, however, of former presidents. Jurists are therefore divided on the question.
Some believe that one cannot, obviously, terminate functions if the head of state no longer occupies them. Others recall that the impeachment procedure has two possible outcomes: the Senate can pronounce the dismissal, but also the ineligibility of a president. "The end of Donald Trump's mandate makes one of these options obsolete, but not both," said constitutional expert Stephen Vladeck on CBS *. This jurist also recalls that the Senate considered itself competent to "prevent" a Secretary of War in 1876, even though he had just resigned. The constitutionalist believes that the same rule can apply to the highest office in the country.
In theory, Donald Trump could try to challenge the legality of his trial in court. But it is unlikely to succeed, according to the AP agency. The Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that it could not be involved in an impeachment procedure because the Constitution specifies that "the Senate alone has the power to judge any indictment for impeachment".
Basically, what is the goal of the Democrats?
It is primarily symbolic. Democratic prosecutors want to mark the occasion and recall that "the Constitution governs the first day of a president's mandate, his last day, and all those in between".
Failure to condemn [Trump] would encourage future leaders to attempt to hold on to power by whatever means and suggest that there is no limit a president cannot exceed.
The other goal is to prevent Donald Trump from coming back to power. In the event of a conviction, senators can thus declare him ineligible, recalls the constitutionalist Stephen Vladeck in the New York Times *. It would only take a simple majority of 51 out of 100 votes to ban the Republican from running in a federal election. What thwart his desire to run for a second term in 2024.
Another consequence of a possible conviction of Donald Trump: depriving him of the presidential pension that will be paid to him, as well as the funding of a team and offices. "Condemning [Donald] Trump and declaring him ineligible may therefore not only determine whether he will one day be able to exercise a new federal mandate, but also have consequences on the way in which citizens will finance his activities in the years to come," insists Stephen Vladeck.
Can the procedure really succeed?
Nothing is less sure. Three US presidents have already been the subject of impeachment proceedings: Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton and (you guessed it) Donald Trump. Each time, the House of Representatives voted to indict them… but the Senate acquitted them. The Constitution indeed imposes a two-thirds majority in the upper house (67 votes out of 100) to remove a head of state.
During his first trial, Donald Trump was cleared because supported by all the Republican senators except one, Mitt Romney. This time, Democrats have 50 seats in the Upper House. 17 Conservatives would therefore have to decide to turn against the former president from their party. It seems unlikely: only five of them voted in favor of the trial, notes the Washington Post *.
According to the American daily, only Donald Trump's line of defense could change the situation. If his lawyers again claim the presidential election was fraudulent, it "could piss off Republican senators as some in the party face pressure from more moderate donors and voters to reject these kinds of conspiracy theories ".
I'm too lazy to read everything, can you give me a summary?
Donald Trump is on trial in the Senate, from Tuesday, February 9, for "incitement to insurgency". The former Republican head of state is accused of provoking the assault on the Capitol on January 6, in which five people were killed, by refusing to admit his defeat in the presidential election and then encouraging his supporters to walk towards Congress. According to Democratic prosecutors at the trial, he was guilty of "treason of historic proportions".
The billionaire's lawyers dispute the legality of this procedure, arguing that the Senate "cannot remove from office [a president] whose term has expired." The prosecution responds that "failure to condemn him would encourage future leaders to attempt to retain power by all means and suggest that there is no limit that a president cannot exceed." And the Constitution is unclear on this point. But the goal of the Democrats is above all to prevent the billionaire from returning to power, declaring him ineligible if found guilty.
Will it be? Some of the 50 Republican senators could vote with the Democrats. However, it is unlikely that they will be numerous enough to meet the necessary threshold of a two-thirds majority (67 seats out of 100). Donald Trump could therefore become the only American president to have escaped two impeachment procedures.
