Good answer, but I'm confused by Criminal indictments originate from the Executive Branch. Isn't that the judicial branch? Or would it violate separation of powers because the President appoints (supreme court) judges?

@gerrit It means indictments come from the Department of Jusitce, which is ran by the executive branch. That applies to indictments outside of impeachment. When the president is impeached, he is charged by congress.

I see. One could also wonder how independent half of the Senate is from the President, but I understand that formally it is independent.

@gerrit Just because two groups of politicians are of the same party, doesn't mean that they agree on everything, or will work together, or even not drastically oppose one another. Nixon was in the process of getting impeached by his own party when he resigned, for example.

@Gryphon-ReinstateMonica When all Democrats think what he did is bad, and all Republicans think what he did is fine, then there is clearly no de facto independence. None of this is directly related to policy differences.

@gerrit You could also argue that the charge itself is partisan, or that the defense is partisan. But basically, that's why the 2/3rd of the Senate is required: only when both parties agree, removal will happen. A partisan impeachment process is doomed to fail, by design.

I don't think you go far enough in explaining that the impeachment process is not a criminal trial. Regardless of the results of the impeachemnt - whether or not the House impeachs him, and if it does, whether or not the Senate votes to convict, he could STILL be be brought up on criminal charges after he leaves office. This was the reason Ford granted Nixon a pardon after he resigned, because otherwise he would almost certainly have faced a criminal trial, with penalties if convicted.

@Gryphon-ReinstateMonica Technically, he was in the process of being impeached by a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, which would then lead to a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate. And Republicans were staunch defenders of Nixon, and the impeachment was expected to result in an easy acquittal in the Senate, until the infamous tapes became public. That was when Republicans finally turned against him enough that his fate in the Senate was now likely conviction, and so he bailed before the House could even do its part.

@Sjoerd Of course, members of both major US parties are (pretty much by definition) partisan. Although my question is inspired by recent events, I'm deliberately phrasing my question neutrally. It would be interesting to get an independent party to do fact-finding and judging, but apparently that's not possible as long as the President is in office.

@gerrit Indictments, which are sought by prosecutors after being given evidence from law enforcement, are almost entirely products of the executive branch, since both law enforcement and the prosecutors are part of the executive branch. Of course, once a criminal indictment is actually made, then the case is tried by judges who are part of the judicial branch.

Its possibly worth noting that the notion of "fairness" that gets brought up by the republican-leaning news media (hasn't been said by any elected official as far as I know) is also because (1) it isn't a criminal trial and (2) its an investigation. "Fair" is not a part of determining "the true sequence of events." Fairness only matters in a criminal trial due to the potentially serious results if the outcome is wrong (i.e. sentencing someone to death: you can't undo that).

@Putvi Nobody is voting on guilt.

@Joe the senate votes to convict, which is a finding of guilt, legally.

I think it's worth strongly pointing out that the media spin it as a guilt/innocence ploy (both so they can project their own political bias) along legal lines, and this is what leads to the general voting public's confusion about what impeachment is. Whilst the implication of impeachment is the President has done something wrong (sufficient to be impeached), it'd be more apt to describe it as 'removal from office'. A criminal indictment, on the other hand, is an investigation into guilt.

The difference between “indict,” “charge,” or “impeach” is only in who does it. If the House impeaches, they will be in effect charging him with something they have decided is a “high crime” or “misdemeanor.” And it is true they are biased, but that’s why we require a two-thirds vote to convict.

You keep saying that "nobody is voting on guilt", but that's not really true, because a decision that the President should be removed from office is a decision that he's done something to deserve that action, and I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that such a "thing" would always be inherently negative (and thus something you deem one to be "guilty of").

@LightnessRaceswithMonica It is not guilt in a criminal sense. The problem the questioner has is that they are confusing criminal trials with impeachment.

@Joe That second sentence is true. The first one is not - it needlessly constrains the meaning of the word "guilt" beyond what anybody else has done.

Although conviction in the Senate of at least one of potentially many articles of impeachment automatically results in immediate removal from office, the act of doing so does not by itself bar the person removed from again seeking elected office. That requires a separate vote, this time with a simple majority.

@reirab furthermore, indictments, while prepared and signed by the executive branch, must be approved by a grand jury, which is organized by the judicial branch.

@zibadawatimmy the Senate was also controlled by democrats during the 93rd congress. There were 56 seats held by democrats, though, so a 2/3 majority would not have been possible without a number of republicans voting in favor of conviction (or even more republicans abstaining).

@Joe actually, guilt is precisely the subject of the Senate vote, at least under the rules in place for the Clinton trial (video link). I don't think the rules have changed significantly since then.

@gerrit legislators who belong to the president's party are independent from the president in that (1) the president is not one of them, and (2) they are not responsible for having put the president into office. This is in contrast to most parliamentary systems.

@phoog: Grand juries are not organized by the judicial branch; see here.

@LeeMosher the federal rules of criminal procedure, under which grand juries are organized, are set by the supreme court, and grand jurors are called and paid by the courts. Grand juries are indeed organized by the judiciary.

@LightnessRaceswithMonica What Joe means is that the Senate doesn't decide guilt in the sense of criminal law. A President (or any other government official for that matter) who has been impeached and removed from office by Congress has not been tried for or convicted of a crime. Criminal charges can be brought separately after the removal from office, though (unless the President issues a pardon, as Ford did with Nixon.)

@reirab I know what he means, and he's not substantively wrong, but I'm saying the wording is off.