Efforts to impeach Donald Trump

Various people and groups assert that U.S. president Donald Trump has engaged in impeachable activity both before and during his presidency, and talk of impeachment began before he took office. Formal efforts were initiated by representatives Al Green and Brad Sherman, both Democrats, in 2017, the first year of his presidency. On September 24, 2019, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi announced that six committees would undertake formal impeachment inquiries after reports about controversial interactions between Trump and the country of Ukraine. Grounds asserted for impeachment have included possible violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by accepting payments from foreign dignitaries; alleged collusion with Russia during the campaign for the 2016 United States presidential election; alleged obstruction of justice with respect to investigation of the collusion claim; and accusations of "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred", which formed the basis of a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017. Since the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during 2017 and 2018, the likelihood of impeachment during that period was considered by all to be low. A December 2017 resolution of impeachment failed in the House by a 58–364 margin. The Democrats gained control of the House in 2019 and launched multiple investigations into Trump's actions and finances. Speaker Nancy Pelosi initially resisted calls for impeachment. In May 2019 she indicated that Trump's continued actions, which she characterized as obstruction of justice and refusal to honor congressional subpoenas, might make an impeachment inquiry necessary. An increasing number of House Democrats and one Republican were requesting such an inquiry. In December 2016, Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, Chris Coons, Ben Cardin, and Jeff Merkley introduced a bill that would require the president of the United States to divest any assets that could raise a conflict of interest, including a statement that failure to divest such assets would constitute high crimes and misdemeanors "under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution". Vanity Fair characterized this as a preemptive effort to lay the groundwork for a future impeachment argument. Concerns had previously been expressed that Trump's extensive business and real estate dealings, especially with respect to government agencies in other countries, may violate the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, sparking debate as to whether that is the case. Immediately after his inauguration, The Independent and The Washington Post each reported on efforts already underway to impeach Trump, based on what the organizers regard as conflicts of interest arising from Trump's ability to use his political position to promote the interests of "Trump"-branded businesses, and ongoing payments by foreign entities to businesses within the Trump business empire as a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. In March 2017, China provisionally granted 38 "Trump" trademark applications set to take permanent effect in 90 days, which were noted to come in close proximity to the president's making policy decisions favorable to China. The Washington Post further noted the creation of ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org by Free Speech For People and RootsAction, two liberal advocacy groups. On February 9, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D, NY) had filed a resolution of inquiry titled "H.Con.Res. 5" to force the Trump administration to turn over documents relating to potential conflicts of interest and to ties with Russia. Some sources identified this as the first step in the process of impeaching Trump. Fox News outlined two potential bases for impeachment, one being the Emoluments Clause and the other being complicity with Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election. On March 21, it was widely reported that Congresswoman Maxine Waters tweeted "Get ready for impeachment," which Waters explained was in reference to the allegations of collusion with Russian interference in the election. On January 17, 2019, new accusations involving Trump surfaced, claiming he instructed his long-time lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie under oath surrounding Trump's involvement with the Russian government to erect a Trump Tower in Moscow. This also sparked calls for an investigation and for the president to "resign or be impeached" should such claims be proven genuine. The Mueller Report was released on April 18, 2019, and Robert Mueller himself made follow-up comments on May 29. The report reached no conclusion about whether Trump had or had not committed criminal obstruction of justice. Mueller strongly hinted that it was up to Congress to make such a determination. Congressional support for an impeachment inquiry increased as a result. A formal impeachment inquiry was launched on September 24, 2019, as a response to the Trump–Ukraine scandal, in which Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani pressed the Ukrainian government repeatedly since at least May 2019 to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden. The purpose of the requested investigation was alleged to be to hurt Biden's campaign for President. In July Trump issued a hold on military aid scheduled to be sent to Ukraine, releasing it in September after controversy arose. There was widespread speculation that the withholding of the aid was intended to force Ukraine to investigate Biden; Giuliani seemed to confirm that there was such a connection. In an October 8, 2019 letter to House Democratic leaders, the White House stated it would not cooperate with "their partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances." The eight-page letter was widely interpreted by legal analysts as containing political rather than legal arguments. On December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives impeached Donald Trump almost entirely along party lines. Timeline: February 2017: The Impeach Trump Leadership PAC was started by California Democratic Party congressional candidate Boyd Roberts. May 2017- Actions and revelations: Following Trump's dismissal of FBI director James Comey, multiple Democratic members of Congress discussed an "impeachment clock" for Trump, saying that he was "moving" toward impeachment and raising the future possibility of bringing forth articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice and criminal malfeasance, if proof of illegal activity were found. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said in an interview: "It may well produce another United States v. Nixon on a subpoena that went to United States Supreme Court. It may well produce impeachment proceedings, although we're very far from that possibility." Later in May, news of Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia led to further discussions about the possibility of impeachment, with Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) in particular alluding to the possibility. Around the same time in May, the revelation that the president had asked Comey to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn led still more observers, including Senator Angus King (I-ME), to say impeachment might be in the offing. The developments led Senator John McCain (R-AZ) to venture that matters had reached "Watergate scope and size". Preparations for possible proceedings: Impeachment proceedings begin with a resolution being introduced in the House of Representatives. The first two Representatives to publicly suggest such an action were Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Al Green (D-TX). Two Republican representatives, Justin Amash (R-MI) and Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), called for impeachment on the grounds that obstruction of justice charges against Trump were proven true. Curbello was defeated in his bid for reelection in 2018, but Amash was reelected, and following his reading of the redacted Mueller Report, reaffirmed his position, stating the evidence supported the conclusion that Trump had committed impeachable offenses. In July 2019, Amash left the Republican Party to become an independent member of Congress. On May 17, Representative Green made a call for impeachment on the house floor and House Oversight Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) announced that he was issuing subpoenas on the memo FBI director James Comey wrote detailing possible obstruction of justice by the president. On May 24, Green told CSPAN in an interview that he was drafting articles of impeachment and would shortly submit them as a privileged resolution, to begin the formal impeachment process. However, some major Democratic figures stressed the need for caution, patience and bipartisanship in any potential impeachment process. Administration officials said that White House lawyers were indeed researching impeachment proceedings and how to deal with them. Independent counsel appointment: On May 17, former FBI director Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, acting after the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to lead a Special Counsel investigation to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and any cover-up related to it by Trump or any White House officials. According to sources close to the White House, the Trump administration is considering using various obscure legal means to slow down the investigation and undermine the special counsel. June 2017: Former FBI director James Comey agreed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8. Some legal experts and politicians, such as Representative Eric Swalwell of California, argued that Trump's numerous comments in news interviews and on Twitter regarding the subjects Comey would testify on (such as whether or not Trump tried to improperly influence or coerce Comey and the reasons why Trump fired him) may well have voided the validity of an executive privilege claim in this instance. On June 7, an advance copy of Comey's prepared congressional testimony was submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee in which he said the president attempted to persuade him to "let go" of any investigation into Michael Flynn on February 14. He added that Trump had requested his personal loyalty, to which Comey replied he would give his "honest loyalty" to the president. Comey said Trump on several occasions inquired whether there were an investigation into the president himself and Comey replied each time there was not. Comey states that Trump requested he publicly declare this so Trump's image could be improved, but Comey says he told the president he would need to have approval from the attorney general's office for reasons of legality. Comey recounted his final conversation with President Trump on April 11: On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I "get out" that he is not personally under investigation. I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that "the cloud" was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel. He said he would do that and added, "Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know." I did not reply or ask him what he meant by "that thing". I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended. That was the last time I spoke with President Trump. On June 7, Congressman Al Green announced that Congressman Brad Sherman would join with him in drafting articles of impeachment against President Trump. On June 12, Sherman began circulating an article of impeachment among his colleagues. Sherman said: "I'm not going to be deterred." Green stated: "In the spirit of keeping the republic, I have concluded that the president has obstructed justice and in so doing, the remedy for obstruction of justice is impeachment. The president will not be indicted while he is in office, and while there is some merit in talking about the judicial process, the impeachment process is the one that will bring him before the bar of justice." Former United States attorney Preet Bharara said in a June 11 interview with ABC News that "there's absolutely evidence to begin a case" regarding obstruction of justice by Trump. Bharara went on to note: "No one knows right now whether there is a provable case of obstruction. But there's no basis to say there's no obstruction." On June 14, The Washington Post reported that Trump was being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for possible obstruction of justice relating to his actions in regard to the investigation into Russia. Early hearings: In the late summer and fall of 2019, the House Judiciary Committee held a series of hearings and filed a number of lawsuits associated with drafting possible articles of impeachment. Start of formal impeachment proceedings: The start of official proceedings was first revealed to the public in a court filing dated July 26, 2019. This assertion was repeated in another court filing in a suit seeking to compel the testimony of former White House Counsel Don McGahn, stating: The Judiciary Committee is now determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president based on the obstructive conduct described by the special counsel, But it cannot fulfill this most solemn constitutional responsibility without hearing testimony from a crucial witness to these events: former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II. Later that day, Chairman Jerrold Nadler went on both CNN and MSNBC and said proceedings had indeed begun and that impeachment hearings would begin in September. Politico reported that during August, Nadler and other majority members of the HJC had been drafting a formal document delineating the legal parameters of an official inquiry and that this would be voted on September 11, 2019. The draft resolution was released to the public on September 9, 2019, and approved on a party-line vote two days later. Impeachment hearings- Testimony of Lewandowski: The first hearings against a president in 21 years took place on September 17, 2019, and featured the testimony of former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. Lewandowski exhibited a letter from President Trump stating that he was forbidden to answer questions due to executive privilege, even though he had never worked in the White House and was not entitled to it. Several Republican members of the committee attempted to use a number of procedural laws but were ignored by democrats to continue the proceedings. Lewandowski, however, did admit to doing the things he was stated as doing in the Mueller Report. There were two other witnesses scheduled that day, and President Trump directed former top aides, Rob Porter and Rick Dearborn, not to appear to testify before Congress, which they did not. Emoluments: On September 23, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee was scheduled to hear the testimony of those suing the president over alleged violation of the Emoluments Clause. However, it was indefinitely postponed. Ukraine: Pelosi agrees to proceedings: In July 2019 a whistleblower complaint was filed by a member of the intelligence community, but the Director of National Intelligence refused to forward it to Congress as required by law, saying he had been directed not to do so by the White House and the Department of Justice. Later reporting indicated that the report involved a telephone conversation with a foreign leader and that it involved Ukraine. Trump and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, had been trying for months to get Ukraine to launch an investigation into former vice president and current presidential candidate Joe Biden as well as his son Hunter Biden. Trump had discussed the matter in a telephone call with the president of Ukraine in late July. It was also revealed that Trump had blocked distribution of military aid to Ukraine, although he later released it after the action became public. The controversy led House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to announce on September 24 that six House committees would commence an impeachment inquiry against Trump. Impeachment vote by full House: On December 18, 2019, the House passed two articles of impeachment against president Donald Trump. The trial took place in January and February of 2020. On February 5th 2020, Trump was acquitted by the Senate of all charges. Subpoenas and lawsuits: Several committees in the House of Representatives have issued subpoenas for materials and testimonies from people and institutions within the Trump administration as well as external entities. The president's personal lawyers have issued letters saying all such requests will be ignored or opposed and have filed several lawsuits to prevent the release of any information to Congress. Unredacted version of Mueller report: The House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed the unredacted Mueller report and Attorney General Barr has rebuffed this, leading to a contempt citation from the committee. A lawsuit is also contemplated. On July 26, 2019, the Judiciary Committee asked federal judge Beryl Howell, who oversaw the Mueller grand juries, to unseal the secret testimony because the Committee is "investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment" to the full House. Howell ruled in favor of the request on October 25, 2019, finding the impeachment investigation legitimate. On November 18, 2019, The House counsel filed a brief with Judge Howell to release the materials immediately, as redacted grand jury testimony appeared to show the President perjured himself before the Mueller probe and it was part of the impeachment inquiry. On December 16, another brief by the HJC, said that they still needed the materials, as some redacted materials appear to be related to the Ukraine matter Previously, an appellate court had scheduled oral arguments in the case for January 3, 2020. Trump et al v. Mazars et al: The House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to the Mazars accounting firm for Trump's financial information from before his election to the presidency. The President and his lawyers have tried to delay or prevent this information from getting to the committee by seeking a court injunction against both the committee's leadership and Mazars. On April 23, 2019 U.S. district judge Amit Mehta set a May 14 date for the preliminary hearing, although several weeks later he decided the entire suit would be heard on that date. May 20, Mehta ruled that accounting firm Mazars had to provide its records of Donald Trump's accounts from before his presidency to the House Oversight Committee in response to their subpoena. In a 41-page opinion, he asserted that Congress has the right to investigate potential illegal behavior by a president, including actions both before and after the president assumed office. The ruling was appealed by Trump's personal legal team and briefs for such were due by no later than July 12, 2019, when oral arguments were scheduled. Trump's attorneys filed an appeal brief with the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on June 10, 2019, contending that Congress may not investigate a president for criminal activities except in impeachment proceedings. The brief asserted Congress's investigation was an "exercise of law-enforcement authority that the Constitution reserves to the executive branch". In an opinion piece two days later, attorneys George Conway and Neal Katyal called the brief "spectacularly anti-constitutional," arguing it places the president above the law while noting that Congress routinely investigates criminal matters. Oral arguments took place on July 12, 2019, before a three-judge panel consisting of Neomi Rao, David Tatel, and Patricia Millett. On August 8, the Justice Department filed a brief supporting the president's position. On October 11, 2019, the appeal panel affirmed the ruling 2–1 with Neomi Rao dissenting. On November 18, The US Supreme Court blocked the transfer of the subpoenaed materials temporarily and required the HJC to submit a response to the president's appeal by Friday, November 22, so they could have the full arguments before deciding to take the case on an emergency basis. Trump et al v. Deutsche Bank et al: The House Financial Services and Intelligence committees issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One Bank asking for financial records relating to Trump, his adult children, and his businesses. Trump's personal attorneys tried to delay or prevent the information from being given to the committees by getting a court injunction. Although the defendants are Deutsche Bank and Capital One Bank, U.S. district judge Edgardo Ramos permitted representatives of the House committees to take part. Ramos canceled a May 9 preliminary hearing when the committees agreed to hand over "substantial portions" of the subpoenas to the plaintiffs. On May 22, Ramos affirmed the validity of the subpoenas. Trump's lawyers had asked Ramos to quash the subpoenas, but Ramos said such a request was "unlikely to succeed on the merits". The committees later reached an agreement with Trump's lawyers to delay enforcement of the subpoenas while an appeal is filed, provided the appeal is filed in an "expedited" manner. On May 28, Ramos granted Trump's attorneys their request for a stay so they could pursue an expedited appeal through the courts. and briefs for it were due by no later than July 12. On June 18, The Trump legal team filed a brief similar to the one in the Mazars case. Oral arguments began on August 23. On August 8, 2019, it was reported by The Wall Street Journal that Deutsche Bank, as well as others, had complied with the subpoenas despite the suit, handing over thousands of documents. Suits filed by Trump opponents: Many of the lawsuits filed against Trump ask for declaratory relief. A court's declaratory judgment compels no action as it simply resolves a legal question. A declaration that the president has accepted emoluments would make the work of House Managers easier in an impeachment. Blumenthal v. Trump asks for declaratory relief as to emoluments. In CREW and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP, a declaratory finding that the administration willfully failed to retain records would support a charge of obstruction of justice. The CREW v. Trump case was dismissed in December 2017 for lack of standing, but in September 2019 this ruling was vacated and remanded upon appeal. Blumenthal v. Trump, on the other hand, was not. Commentary and opinion- Statements by Trump: During an August 2018 Fox & Friends interview, Trump was asked about the possible ramifications of him being potentially impeached after his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to charges and implied he had done so by Trump's direction. Trump said, "I don't know how you can impeach someone who's done a great job. I tell you what, if I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash, I think everybody would be very poor. Because without this [points at his head, referring to his brain and his thinking], you would see numbers that you wouldn't believe in reverse." In a January 2019 tweet, Trump expressed bewilderment at the possibility, saying among other things, "How do you impeach a president who ... had the most successful first two years of any president?" In late April 2019, Trump vowed to take a possible impeachment to the Supreme Court, even though the Supreme Court has twice ruled that the judiciary has no power over the process. On May 30, 2019, Trump stated, "I can't imagine the courts allowing his impeachment." On May 22, Trump walked out of a planned White House meeting about infrastructure with Pelosi and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, because he said Pelosi had earlier that morning met with the House Democratic Caucus "to talk about the I-word" and because Pelosi had accused him of carrying out a cover-up. He said he would refuse to work with the Democrats on infrastructure or anything else until they end all investigations into him. Statements by Democrats: On March 11, 2019, at the time, House speaker Nancy Pelosi in an interview with the Washington Post's Joe Heim said that "I’m not for impeachment. This is news," breaking away from other Democrats wanting impeachment. "I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it." In May 2019, House Pelosi suggested that Trump is goading House Democrats to impeach him "to solidify his base". She said his recent actions are "almost self-impeaching ... he is every day demonstrating more obstruction of justice and disrespect for Congress' legitimate role to subpoena." She added, "That's where he wants us to be ... The White House is just crying out for impeachment" to divide Democrats and distract from Trump's policies. By May 2019, an increasing number of Democrats and one Republican member of Congress were concluding that impeachment, or at least an impeachment inquiry, could be the only alternative should Trump continue to "stonewall" their demands for information and testimony. On September 22, 2019, Pelosi wrote a letter addressing Congress about an anonymous whistleblower complaint about Trump's call to Ukraine's leader, stating "if the administration persists in blocking this whistle-blower from disclosing to Congress a serious possible breach of constitutional duties by the president, they will be entering a grave new chapter of lawlessness which will take us into a whole new stage of investigation ..." Commentary: Some analysts have speculated that Trump actually wants to be impeached, in order to remain the focus of national attention, rally his supporters, and obtain a perceived political advantage. Juan Williams suggested Trump would consider being impeached by the House but acquitted in the Senate a victory, allowing him to reiterate that all accusations against him are false. Greg Gutfeld suggested that Trump might feel it would actually add to his legacy, and to be impeached while the economy was doing well would elevate him to the status of folk hero. Rich Lowry, writing for Politico, has argued that Trump would relish the drama of an impeachment fight and is temperamentally better suited to engage in that than to engage in governance. If Trump is impeached but is acquitted by the Senate and then goes on to win a second term in the 2020 election, it would be unprecedented in U.S. history. Axios interviewed legal and political experts who concluded that if that happened, it might be politically impossible to impeach Trump again because of the political blowback. Other proposed reasons for impeachment: Some commentators have argued that Trump has abused the Presidential pardon power, specifically offering to pardon federal officials who commit crimes such as violating the rights of immigrants and any necessary to build the Trump border wall before the next presidential election. Trump also declared he had an "absolute right" to pardon himself. Controversial Trump pardons include those of Joe Arpaio, convicted of ignoring a court order to stop police misconduct with regard to immigration enforcement; Dinesh D'Souza, convicted of campaign finance violations; and three military servicemembers convicted of war crimes. Impeachment has notably been suggested as a remedy for abuse of pardon power by James Madison during the debate over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and William Howard Taft in a 1925 Supreme Court decision. Symbolic municipal resolutions: City councils that have made formal resolutions calling for the impeachment of President Trump include those in the San Francisco Bay Area cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Oakland and Richmond as well as the city of Los Angeles. On the East Coast, the Cambridge, Massachusetts city council passed a policy order to support a House resolution to investigate Emoluments Clause conflicts. Public opinion polling on impeachment: Public opinion is a key factor in impeachment proceedings, as politicians including those in the House of Representatives look to opinion polls to assess the tenor of those they represent. Any action would have to be based on the requisite legal grounds for impeachment, but such action is more likely to be taken in the face of support from public opinion. As of January 26, 2017, Public Policy Polling reports that 35% of voters supported the impeachment of President Trump, while 50% opposed. By the following week, after the controversial rollout of Executive Order 13769, which barred people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States, support for impeachment had grown to 40%. The following week, support for impeachment reached 46%, matching opposition to impeachment. In May 2017, after the firing of James Comey, for the first time more Americans supported impeaching Trump (48%) than opposed impeaching Trump (41%), with 11% not sure. At the beginning of August 2017, one poll showed that number falling substantially with 53% of people being opposed to impeachment and 40% in favor, according to PRRI studies, but by the end of August 2017 and following political fallout from the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, 48% of people were again in favor of impeachment and 41% were opposed. In December 2017, Public Policy Polling conducted the first public poll showing majority support for impeachment (51% support, 42% oppose, 7% not sure). In March 2019, a CNN Poll found that 36% of respondents support the impeachment. In May 2019, a NBC/WSJ poll with Republican pollster Bill McInturff found that 17% thought enough evidence existed for the House to begin impeachment hearings, 32% wanted Congress to continue investigating and decide on impeachment later, and 48% said the House should not pursue impeachment. A Reuters/Ipsos poll taken in the same month found 45% of Americans supported impeachment, while 42% opposed. On June 16, 2019, Trump tweeted, "Almost 70% in new Poll say don't impeach." According to NBC News, Trump was apparently referring to their poll, according to which 27% of Americans believe there is now sufficient evidence to begin impeachment hearings. Later that day, Fox News released a poll showing 43% of registered voters supported Trump's impeachment and removal from office, while 48% opposed impeachment. After Nancy Pelosi formally announced an impeachment inquiry into Trump on September 24, 2019, several opinion polls reflected an increase in support for an impeachment inquiry. According to a Morning Consult poll, 43% of Americans support impeachment proceedings, a 7-point increase, tying with Americans who do not support such proceedings. additionally, an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll showed support for an impeachment inquiry into Trump at 49%, while 46% opposed. An analysis of polls showed that through mid-December, Americans remained sharply divided on whether Trump should be removed from office. According to a CNN poll taken on December 12–15, 45% of Americans support the impeachment and removal of Trump from office, while 47% oppose impeachment.