0

There's an article on CNN and one of its headers says that

There's no time limit on the impeachment process - but Democrats want to move quickly

What happens if the legal process takes multiple years (like the Muller Report), and Trump leaves office? Will he be tried as a regular citizen?

  • 4
    It would be pointless to continue the impeachment (or the Senate trial) impeached person leaves office, e.g. when Nixon resigned because his impeachment & conviction seemed certain. If the offenses he's impeached for are actual crimes, then after he leaves office he could be tried for them through ordinary legal processes. (Nixon was not tried because Ford gave him a Presidential pardon.) – jamesqf Oct 3 '19 at 3:53
  • 5
    @jamesqf that sounds like an answer. – phoog Oct 3 '19 at 4:57
3

There are, in essence, three parts to the impeachment process: the inquiry, the debate and vote on the articles of impeachment, and the impeachment trial. The inquiry could take multiple years; but that is unlikely. The other parts may take a month or so, each.

What happens if the legal process takes multiple years (like the Muller Report), and Trump leaves office? Will he be tried as a regular citizen?

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The primary goal of the impeachment process is removal from office. Should an official leave office at any time, prior to the conclusion of the impeachment process, there is no need to continue that process. It simply terminates.

However, that person may be still be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law regardless of how they leave. This process is separate from the impeachment process and any alleged crimes may be different than those alleged during the impeachment process.

Whether a person, such as Donald Trump, will be tried depends on the specifics of the alleged crimes and whether a grand jury and prosecutor are willing to bring any charges. Imagine the difficulty of meeting the requirements of Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, ...; particularly, when that person is a former president. [Emphasis added.]

|improve this answer|||||
3

Since the end-goal of an impeachment hearing is removal from office, then under normal circumstances, Congress wouldn't bother continuing further if an official leaves office due to resignation or due to the end of their term.

However, there is at least one historical example of this happening:

In 1876, the Senate voted to proceed with the impeachment trial of Secretary of War William Belknap for his role in the "trader post scandal", despite the fact that he had already resigned. The Senate vote ultimately fell short of the required 2/3rd super-majority (at least in part due to the fact that he had already left office).

One possible motivation for continuing is that an impeachment proceeding can (optionally) disqualify someone from holding future public office:

From Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution (emphasis mine):

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

This has been understood to mean that a separate vote is taken if the vote to convict/remove passes. This separate vote only needs to be a simple majority:

The Senate in 1862 and 1913 considered that the supermajority requirement was designed as a safeguard against removal that, once satisfied, did not extend to the separate imposition of disqualification.

|improve this answer|||||

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .