House Votes to Impeach Trump A Second Time — What’s Next?

Share:
Gettyimages

By Gabriella Garcia

Now a week since the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, the House of Representatives has voted 232 to 197 to impeach Donald Trump. He is the first U.S. president to be impeached twice by the House.

The Senate must now either convict or acquit Trump. Despite the pressure from the Democratic Party, current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refuses to begin the trial before Jan. 19—the day before president-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated. CNN reports this may be so Trump can serve out his final days in office. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has been urging McConnell to reconvene the Senate earlier in order to address the trial, but his efforts have since been rejected by the Senate Leader. 

In a press conference on Jan. 12, Schumer cited legislation passed in 2004 that allows the two Senate Leaders to reconvene the Senate in times of emergency without congressional approval. 

“This is a time of emergency,” Schumer asserted. “McConnell claims he needs unanimous consent, the agreement of all 100 senators, but it’s not so.”

Nevertheless, Schumer assures the public a trial will take place. After the impeachment vote, Schumer released a statement announcing, “… make no mistake, there will be an impeachment trial in the United States Senate; there will be a vote on convicting the president for high crimes and misdemeanors…”

Although the term “impeachment” is commonly understood to simply mean a president’s removal from office, it also results in other consequences that make the impeachment process just as important after Trump’s presidency comes to an end. 

Impeaching Trump, through what is called a “late impeachment,” would mean denying him the ability to run in future elections and withhold post-presidential benefits such as pension, lifetime security and more. 

Conviction requires two-thirds of those present, but the specific number of votes required depends on who is present the day of the trial. 

Georgia’s Senate race just experienced a runoff which resulted in the success of two Democratic candidates—Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. CNN reports that should the new senators be seated come the day of the trial, and should there be 100 senators present, 67 senator votes are necessary. 

However, should the newly-elected senators not have a seat in office just yet, then 66 votes are required. Furthermore, if, say, certain senators wish to be exempt from voting, the ratio and thus overall vote count would change. 

The days following Jan. 19 will be an incredibly busy time for the Senate, as it will be tasked with confirming Biden’s Cabinet nominees in addition to Trump’s trial. 

As of now, the Senate will hold a confirmation hearing for four nominees during the week of the inauguration: Lloyd Austin for Defense Secretary; Anthony Blinken for Secretary of state; Alejandro Mayorkas for Secretary of Homeland Security and Janet Yellen for Treasury Secretary.  

It is also likely Biden will seek to introduce legislation that addresses the pandemic and economic assistance during this time, in hopes of keeping up with his 100-day COVID-19 plan. 

Gabriella Garcia is originally from the Bay Area, California and is completing her fourth year at UC Davis as a Political Science major and Professional Writing minor.

Share:

About The Author

Related posts

40 thoughts on “House Votes to Impeach Trump A Second Time — What’s Next?”

  1. Ron Oertel

    I think this is the second time that David and his interns have written duplicative articles (same topic).

    Maybe check with each other, the night before?  😉

  2. Chris Griffith

    Interesting topic

    As Biden sits in his basement eating is little can of peaches and Ms Harris is somewhere trying to figure out the 25th amendment I find this article fully describes what our future beholds.
    During the ongoing pandemic, Facebook has decided to crack down on any posts that encourage activities violating edicts from local governments, such as mass protests or leaving one’s house. As part of this effort, the platform is now removing any posts that quote the First Amendment, as they say all it does is encourage illegal activity
    Remember the First Amendment,” read a post by Facebook user Samantha Tucker. “It says, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    The post was immediately taken down by Facebook admins, who noted that “free exercise of religion” and “peaceably assembling” and “petitioning the government in times of crisis” are strict violations of local laws. The warning did note that “free speech is allowed,” but only if it stays within “Facebook’s strict guidelines.”
     
    The First Amendment isn’t the only amendment to be scrutinized by Facebook, as quoting the Second Amendment results in an immediate lifetime ban. Anyone can quote the Third, though, as no one really cares about that one

    1. Richard_McCann

      If you had bothered to look at the Babylon Bee’s website from which you pulled this post, you would see that it’s a satirical news site much like the Onion (with a right wing view vs. the left wing view from the Onion.) You should do more research before quoting from your “news sources”. Post your sources next time. LOL!

      https://babylonbee.com/news

      https://babylonbee.com/news/facebook-pulling-down-any-posts-quoting-the-first-amendment-for-encouraging-illegal-activity

      1. Ron Oertel

        I understood it to be satire in the first place (in the same vein as impeaching Trump for a “third time”), but you’re right – sources should be cited.

  3. Richard_McCann

    Chris G

    Because you’ve so said so many outlandish, undocumented things, its really impossible to tell when you’re saying something satirical. I could just fill up the Onion with what you’ve posted here. The Babylon site definitely has some humorous headlines, but if you have a track record that you have, you’re going to have to try harder at showing when you’re being satirical or ironic. (Alan M does a much better job.)

    1. Alan Miller

      (Alan M does a much better job.)

      Um . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   ¿ thank you ?

    1. Richard_McCann

      I knew that it came from an article, but it could have come from Breitbart or Newsmax which believes that it puts out serious news. And your sources for information appear to be coming from those types of media sites that are full of disinformation.

       

        1. Ron Oertel

          And yet, you said this:

           its really impossible to tell when you’re saying something satirical.

          Which is it?

          And when can we expect your “apology”? 🙂

        2. Richard_McCann

          Ron O

          As I’ve said, Chris G hasn’t shown an ability to screen and understand his sources of news, so he appears to be a prime candidate to be “punked” by a satirical news source. I took his posting as such, especially since he didn’t include the source, or even a reference such “just in from Babylon News…”

        3. Ron Oertel

          I don’t think you’re giving Chris enough credit.  He seems pretty sharp.

          Maybe it’s “us” who aren’t as sharp. (Trying to avoid singling anyone out.) 😉

          1. David Greenwald

            People in glass houses might be more careful about throwing stones. BuzzFeed had an epic fail last year, the media site rates them mixed in terms of failed fact checks, but Washington Times has a far worse record and yet you have no problem using them.

    1. Ron Oertel

      Effective jokes have an element of truth. That’s the basis of satire.

      Personally, I think you’ve added something interesting to the comments on this blog.

        1. Richard_McCann

          You are not getting the seriousness of seditious actions by the President as shown by your other comments. There are times to joke and there are times not to do so.

          As I said Alan M does a much better job of satire without having to post “JOKE”.

        2. Ron Oertel

          And yet, it was already posted on the site you referred to, and was clearly satire – as you’ve since acknowledged.  So apparently, there isn’t universal agreement regarding appropriateness – even on here.

          There’s terminology for those who try to shut-down other points of view, or conform with what they view as “correct”. Which almost never really works, by the way.

        3. Alan Miller

          As I said Alan M does a much better job of satire without having to post “JOKE”.

          I’m not sure I’m comfortable with someone being put down on the basis of:  they are ‘worse at it than Alan M’.

        4. Alan Miller

          There’s terminology for those who try to shut-down other points of view, or conform with what they view as “correct”. Which almost never really works, by the way.

          McCarthy would disagree.

    2. Richard_McCann

      between a joke and a disparaging remark as well.

      There is so much disinformation about what this issue right now that its impossible to tell if something with a political perspective knows that what they are saying is wrong. You illustrated this a couple days ago when you said the Twitter could be sued by Trump under the First Amendment for suspending his account, when in fact this is settled law for now (and would require a major legislative change.) Given your demonstrated lack of knowledge on this matter its difficult to distinguish when you are trying to be humorous when there’s little truth behind your supposed joke.

      1. Ron Oertel

        Wasn’t it you who tied that to the first amendment? As opposed to the impact of a monopoly?

        Hopefully, no one is taking legal advice on here, regardless.

        1. Richard_McCann

          No, Chris G asserted the suit would occur under the First Amendment rights of Trump. I then pointed out that Facebook faces a threat as a monopoly in the future, but that as of now that is not a valid legal issue. If you’re going to try to pull up your recall of what I’ve said, please go find my earlier comment and reread it, and post it if you have a different interpretation of what I said. (I’m OK with trying to generally characterize my view.)

          And while I’m not a lawyer, much of professional work involves interpreting state and federal laws, and often helping craft briefs submitted to courts.

        2. Ron Oertel

          Maybe.

          I recall some arguments regarding First Amendment rights of companies, as well.  Not sure who said what, at this point.

          But I think there was some satire involved in those communications, as well.

          Tough for me to get worked-up about any of that.

        3. Richard_McCann

          Ron O

          Yes, you’re correct that I also pointed out that Twitter and Facebook also have First Amendment rights as to who’s views they choose to carry. The First Amendment is a right to free speech, but not a right to means in which that speech is conveyed broadly, and to no consequences as a result of that speech.

        4. Ron Oertel

          I am not sure if there are “first amendment” issues involved if monopolies exist, resulting in control of distribution of information.

          But there certainly are legal challenges regarding alleged monopolistic practices.  I posted a reference from the FTC, the other day.

          As another commenter noted, this type of thing can impact more than Trump.

          You’ll forgive me if (like air quality at a proposed development site), I don’t assume that everything posted on here is accurate – regardless of how many times its repeated.

  4. Chris Griffith

    You know this whole story was about where the country is headed after Trump gets impeached well if this thread is any indication I think we’re doomed what do you guys think?

    And by the way this wasn’t meant as a joke 😁

    1. Ron Oertel

      Truthfully, I don’t think that most people care all that much if Trump is removed from office.

      Nor are they basing their lives on who the president is, or what’s said on a blog.

      And only a relative few are willing to waste their time and energy making comments on a blog. 😉

      1. David Greenwald

        One point I would make in response, the past election shattered turnout levels for previous highs. I mean Trump got more votes than anyone in history previously by a large margin, and he lost by 7 million votes. So I think you’re underestimating the importance that a lot of people assigned to who is president.

    2. Alan Miller

      if this thread is any indication I think we’re doomed what do you guys think?

      I always assume we’re doomed.   That way, anything above that is coming up roses.

  5. Ron Oertel

    In reference to the title of this article, another commenter has already clarified “what’s next” – after a “second time”. 

    A third time, of course.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for