The Question of Conviction in the Senate

Over the next few days, we will be witnesses to the unprecedented second Trial of Impeachment for a President of the United States. The arguments that we already heard are silly. No, this is not unconstitutional. And yes, it has happened in the past with lower-level officials, as a Secretary of War.

The good man resigned just as he was going to face the trial. Why? He wanted to short circuit the outcome, and the Senate said nope, you are going to face a trial. From the Senate history of the Trial we read:

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.

On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles. As each vote fell short of the necessary two-thirds, however, he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further; he died in 1890.

President Donald Trump did not resign from office. Ironically, if he had, like Richard Nixon, he might have avoided the second impeachment and trial. But that is neither here nor there. The good Secretary was tried because he lived a lavish lifestyle…