There Is Precedent For Trying A Former Government Official, Established 145 Years Ago

Enlarge this image

An engraved portrait of William Belknap, a secretary of war who was impeached in 1876 after he tearfully resigned.

hide caption

toggle caption

Kean Collection/Getty Images

Politics
Sen. Portman Warns Biden Against Going It Alone On COVID-19 Relief

«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.»

Given that, there’s good reason to believe impeachment applies to former officeholders.

«If impeachment does not apply to former officials,» the CRS report notes, «then Congress could never bar an official from holding office in the future as long as that individual resigns first.»

There is also evidence that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention accepted that officials could be impeached after stepping down, according to the CRS report. And it notes, «This understanding also tracks with certain state constitutions predating the Constitution, which allowed for impeachments of officials after they left office.»

There is actually an example of a former British governor, Warren Hastings, who was impeached by the British government two years after he left office. He was tried for corruption and was eventually acquitted, but all of it happened at the time of the Constitutional Convention.

Capitol Insurrection Updates
After Riot, Acting Capitol Police Chief Calls For Permanent Fencing Around Complex

His impeachment «was noted expressly by the delegates without expressing disapproval of the timing,» according to the CRS report. «While the Framers were aware of the British and state practices of impeaching former officials, scholars have noted that they chose not to explicitly rule out impeachment after an official leaves office.»

Former President John Quincy Adams, who wasn’t a Founding Father, but was the son of one, also subscribed to this view.

«I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office,» he said in 1846, after he left office.

The CRS report also makes another important point — that impeachable offenses are not necessarily ones a politician can or will be tried for in the court system:

«Alexander Hamilton noted that impeachable offenses were ‘political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.’ For example, Congress has impeached federal judges for misconduct and corruption that was not necessarily criminal. One scholar notes that impeachment after an official leaves office is important because it ‘reaches offenses and provides punishment that the criminal process’ does not.»

Even the professor whom Republicans lunched with Tuesday, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, who now claims «removal of a president is the primary purpose of such a trial,» was saying something very different 22 years ago, as pointed out by University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck.

Drawing on the 1876 Senate impeachment trial of William Belknap — who was war secretary under President Ulysses S. Grant and who was tried after he resigned — Turley argued that the Senate «was correct in its view that impeachments historically had extended to former officials, such as Warren Hastings.»

He wrote in the Duke Law Journal that a trial of a former officeholder would serve as a «deterrent to the executive branch» and stand up for «core values in a society,» even if the person wasn’t convicted and «even if the only penalty is disqualification from future office.»

That was in 1999, the year after Democratic President Bill Clinton was impeached.

Who was William Belknap?

Belknap was a former Iowa state legislator who went on to be a Civil War hero and general for the Union Army. Grant made him his secretary of war, a post he held for eight years.

But Belknap became known in Washington instead for his high-society living and lavish parties and spending, according to the Senate Historical Office.

No one knew where the money was coming from — until they did.

Belknap made a salary of $8,000 a year, about $200,000 in today’s money. That’s a very good salary, but not enough to prop up the kind of lifestyle Belknap was leading.

It turned out Belknap was on the take. Someone he installed to run a military trading post in Indian territory promised kickbacks for the appointment. And he delivered.

Belknap was pulling in some $20,000 a quarter from the scheme, 10 times his salary, for an equivalent today of about $2 million a year.

When Congress found out about it, articles of impeachment were filed that included «basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.»

In an effort to stave off the impeachment, «Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears,» the Senate Historian’s office notes.

It didn’t work. The House impeached him later that day. When the case moved to the Senate, Belknap’s lawyer argued that he couldn’t be tried because he was now a private citizen.

The House impeachment managers countered that all the charges stemmed from things Belknap did when he was war secretary.

After three days of hearing arguments about it and two weeks of secret deliberations, the Senate voted 37-29 that Belknap was «amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.»

In the end, a majority of senators voted to convict Belknap, but that was short of the two-thirds necessary. Nearly two dozen senators who voted to acquit cited their belief that the Senate lacked jurisdiction. Just three said their vote was because of the evidence.

In a report after the case, the House impeachment managers said those who voted to acquit because they didn’t think the Senate had the right to try the case showed they «refused to be governed by the deliberate judgment of the majority.»

In the end, though, they thought going through with the case was important because it would set the precedent that just because someone had left office didn’t mean the person was immune from consequences of Congress.

«It has been settled thereby that persons who have held civil office in the United States are impeachable, and that the Senate has jurisdiction to try them,» they wrote.

They said the effort was «worth infinitely more than all the time, labor, and expense of the protracted trial closed by the verdict of yesterday.»

• impeachment trial
• trump
• Senate
• President
• Congress