Impeached Twice, Convicted Once, Never Tried Federally: The Trump Record and the Test It Puts to You

Donald Trump is the only president in American history to be impeached twice, the first former president convicted of a crime, and the first president to issue a blanket pardon covering people convicted over an attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Those are not opinions. They are entries in the public record. How you feel about them probably depends on how you feel about him. That is exactly the problem this article is about.

The Moral Decay Index does not exist to tell you whether to like Donald Trump. It exists to ask whether Americans apply the same standards to their own side that they demand of the other. There is no bigger test of that question in modern politics than this one. So here is the record, drawn from primary documents, followed by the test.

The record, step by step

Two impeachments, two acquittals

On February 5, 2020, the Senate voted on two articles of impeachment. On the first, abuse of power, 48 senators voted guilty and 52 voted not guilty. On the second, obstruction of Congress, the vote was 47 guilty and 53 not guilty. Senate roll call vote, Article I, February 5, 2020; Senate roll call vote, Article II.

On February 13, 2021, after he had left office, the Senate voted on a single article charging incitement of insurrection over the January 6 attack. Fifty-seven senators voted guilty and 43 voted not guilty. That was a majority, but conviction requires two-thirds, or 67 votes. He was acquitted. Senate roll call vote, February 13, 2021.

Precision matters here. Impeachment is a charge brought by the House. Conviction is a Senate verdict. Trump was impeached twice and acquitted twice. Both statements are true, and anyone who tells you only one of them is selling something.

A state criminal conviction

On May 30, 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, tied to concealing a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. New York court opinion reporting the verdict.

On January 10, 2025, ten days before his second inauguration, Judge Juan Merchan sentenced him to an unconditional discharge: no prison, no fine, no probation. The conviction remains on his record. The judge said the discharge was “the only lawful sentence that does not encroach on the office of the president.” The night before, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court declined to halt the sentencing. Trump said he would appeal. NPR, January 10, 2025.

Presidential immunity

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States, 6–3. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that a former president has absolute immunity for acts within his core constitutional powers, at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented. Supreme Court opinion.

The federal election case

Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Trump in federal court over efforts to overturn the 2020 election. After Trump won the 2024 election, the case was dismissed. Smith’s final report, dated January 7, 2025, explained the reason: the Justice Department’s longstanding position that the Constitution forbids the federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting president. The report also stated that his office had concluded “the admissible evidence would be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.” No jury ever heard the case. Special Counsel’s Report, Volume One.

That leaves an uncomfortable fact: the most serious charges ever brought against a former president were never tested at trial. The prosecutor believed he could win. The defendant maintained his innocence and called the prosecution political. Neither claim was ever put to a jury.

The January 6 clemency

On his first day back in office, January 20, 2025, Trump signed a proclamation commuting the sentences of 14 January 6 defendants to time served, among them Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl, all of whom had been convicted in January 6 cases. It granted “a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,” and directed the Attorney General to seek dismissal of all pending January 6 indictments. White House proclamation, January 20, 2025.

The pardon power is written into the Constitution. Its use here was lawful. Whether it was right is a separate question, and it is the one that matters most. We have covered the wider clemency record separately in Pardons, Inc..

Here is why it matters beyond this one president. Every person pardoned had been convicted of a January 6 offense, whether by guilty plea or at trial, in a court of law with evidence, lawyers and the right to appeal. Those still awaiting trial had their cases ordered dismissed. The police officers who defended the Capitol that day were not political actors. They were doing their jobs. A pardon does not erase what happened to them. What it does is send a message about whose side the government is on when political violence is committed in its name. If a future president of the other party pardons people who attack a government building for his cause, the precedent will already be set, and the people cheering today will have no standing to object.

What his defenders say

A fair record includes the other side’s case. Trump and his supporters argue that the impeachments were partisan exercises that failed to persuade two-thirds of the Senate. They argue the New York case stretched a records charge into a felony through an unusual legal theory, brought by an elected prosecutor who campaigned on pursuing him. They argue the federal cases were timed to interfere with an election, and that voters heard all of it and elected him anyway in 2024. They point out that the Supreme Court sided with him on immunity.

Those arguments deserve a hearing. Some of them are strong. None of them change what the records show happened.

The test

Here is where this stops being about Trump and starts being about you.

Take every item above and swap the name. Imagine a Democratic president who was impeached twice, convicted on 34 felony counts by a jury, charged federally with trying to overturn an election he lost, spared trial by winning back the office, and then pardoned the people convicted of attacking the Capitol on his behalf.

Now ask yourself honestly how you would describe that record. If your answer changes when the letter after the name changes, then your standard is not about conduct. It is about team.

That test cuts both ways. If you believe presidents should face consequences for abusing power, that belief has to survive the next time the abuse comes from your side. If you believe prosecutions of political figures are dangerous weapons, that belief has to survive when the target is someone you despise.

The verdict

The institutions did what they were designed to do, and the outcomes were shaped by the rules of each one. The House impeached. The Senate did not reach two-thirds. A jury convicted, and a judge imposed no penalty because of the presidency. The Supreme Court expanded immunity. The Justice Department ended its own case by policy. The voters returned him to office. The Constitution gave him the power to pardon, and he used it.

What the record cannot tell you is whether the country still believes that one set of rules applies to everyone. That answer is not in any court filing. It is in how each of us responds when the rules land on someone we support.

Sources

If this made you angry, good. Now turn it inward. The Moral Consistency Journal is a 30-day audit of the places where your own standards bend. More Case Files and data breakdowns live at themoraldecayindex.com. Books that go deeper are in our Bookshop.org store, which supports independent bookstores.

Editorial standards · Report an error · Subscribe