“Where do you go to get your reputation back?”
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) recently asked that question, reported Fox News, in reference to the president and the fact that Democrats constantly refer to him as a twice-impeached felon.
Issa cannot do anything about the felon tag, but he is trying to do something about the impeachment tag, presenting legislation to have both of Trump’s impeachments expunged from the record.
Issa has a case to overturn both impeachments, especially the first one, but will he find enough people to cooperate to deliver this to Trump? Furthermore, is it even constitutionally legal to expunge an impeachment?
Of the two impeachments, the first one has the best case for a reversal, as it was based on a whistleblower with no real firsthand knowledge, who also coordinated with Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) office before filing, reported Fox News.
The political bias of the individual, a registered Democrat, was not revealed before the filing.
The filing was based on an August 12, 2019, complaint from an anonymous whistleblower filing a complaint against Trump over his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, reported NPR. In the complaint, he admitted:
"I do not have direct knowledge of private comments or communications."
Before the complaint had been filed, or even presented to Congress, the whistleblower met with Schiff and his House Intelligence Committee staff (September 9, 2019).
Publicly, Schiff denied having ever met with the whistleblower, stating:
"We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower."
That was a lie, reported CNN. And the whistleblower was no better, having withheld the meeting information from the Inspector General’s office.
On April 13, 2026. DNI Tulsi Gabbard released never-before-seen documents related to the impeachment, which she claimed showed a “coordinated effort” by elements of our intelligence communities to “manufacture a conspiracy” for the purpose of impeaching Trump.
These documents showed that the IG’s office never conducted a formal investigation, only a 14-day preliminary one. The transcript of the call was never requested. And he relied heavily on secondhand information, despite the fact that the transcript of the call existed.
A corroborating witness in that preliminary investigation also happened to be a co-author of the 2017 Russia Hoax Intelligence Community Assessment.
After Inspector General Michael Atkinson referred the case to the DOJ, which was solely based on secondhand information, the DOJ found "no basis for a criminal case.”
Atkinson’s closed-door testimony transcripts were withheld from the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment. They were not released until House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford (R-AR) voted to have them released in March 2026.
Gabbard has since sent a criminal referral to the DOJ against the whistleblower and Atkinson, reported CNN. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) dismissed the referral as a stunt, stating:
"This is a nothingburger — just another sad attempt by Tulsi Gabbard to get in Donald Trump's good graces.”
If it were a court of law, the impeachment would have been thrown out on Schiff’s actions alone. But the procedural errors made throughout only make the case stronger.
The call itself was damaging, but far from a smoking gun. Trump did ask for an investigation into Joe Biden, and he even referenced the DNC server in that conversation. But even that is open to interpretation. Was Trump trying to get Ukraine to work with him to take out Biden, or did Trump have a real concern he wanted investigated? Each side interpreted this action differently.
All that aside, there is no denying the fact that the evidence in this case was severely compromised, there was notable bias, and the preliminary investigation failed to meet the standard. All of that adds up to a system that was weaponized to go after a sitting president, and the vote to acquit can easily be justified.
This is an impeachment that should be expunged for both compromised evidence and procedural errors, IF the Constitution permits it.
I have made my stance on Trump’s appearance at the January 6 rally very clear, as I do not believe he should have been there. But did Trump incite an insurrection, and was there clear evidence to prove it?
This is a textbook case of procedural error, possibly even more so than the first impeachment.
The impeachment was introduced on January 13, 2021, just one week before Trump’s term expired, reported The New York Times. From the introduction to the passage, it took only two days.
There were no fact witnesses. There was no extended investigation.
The only true procedure was a very brief committee hearing with constitutional experts.
The trial started on February 9, 2021, nearly three weeks after Trump left office. Chief Justice John Roberts declined to preside over the trial, and he was replaced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
The Constitution specifically calls for the Chief Justice to preside over the Senate impeachment trial, so this could be dismissed with that caveat alone.
A total of 56 senators voted to proceed with the hearing, reported Time Magazine. In my view, 56 senators who voted to proceed failed their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
After the trial, 57 senators voted guilty, 43 not guilty, according to The Hill. With 10 Republican senators finding Trump guilty, this was the most bipartisan impeachment vote in the history of the country.
On May 11, 2026, Issa introduced HR 1211, which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The committee is chaired by a Trump ally, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). He supports the resolution, as did more than 20 co-sponsors.
The resolution calls for the impeachments to be "expunged as if such Article had never passed the full House of Representatives.” (There were two prior efforts in 2022 and 2023 that died before ever making it to the floor.)
The “sole power of impeachment” lies with the House, via the Constitution, which would include having authority over its records. Issa, in supporting the resolution, stated:
"An impeachment is basically an indictment and it's an indictment that you can't really be acquitted from. Where do you go to get your reputation back?"
There is precedent to back this move, as Republicans could lean into the expunging of its censure against President Andrew Jackson.
Georgetown Law professor Joshua Chafetz disagrees, however, according to U.S. News & World Report. He stated:
"An impeachment cannot be expunged because it has effect outside of the House — it causes the Senate to hold a trial."
The problem for Issa is that there is no specific clause in the Constitution to address, and even Jonathan Turley, who I consider to be one of the most respected Constitutional voices we have today, agreed:
"Impeachment is not like a constitutional DUI. Once you are impeached, you are impeached.”
The table below gives a breakdown of what was claimed and what we know about both impeachments:
| Factor | First Impeachment (2019) | Second Impeachment (2021) |
|---|---|---|
| Charge | Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress | Incitement of insurrection |
| Basis | Whistleblower complaint — filed by a registered Democrat with no firsthand knowledge of the call | Trump's public statements at the January 6 rally and in the weeks prior |
| Process | Multi-month investigation with multiple witnesses and public hearings | Introduction to passage: two days. No fact witnesses. No extended investigation. |
| Key flaw | Whistleblower coordinated with Schiff's staff before filing. IG Atkinson ran a 14-day preliminary probe and never requested the call transcript. Exculpatory evidence concealed from the Senate. | Chief Justice declined to preside — a Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy, presided instead. Trial held after Trump left office. 44 senators voted the proceedings were unconstitutional. |
| Senate vote | 48 guilty, 52 not guilty — acquitted | 57 guilty, 43 not guilty — acquitted (67 required to convict) |
| Bipartisan? | Sen. Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote guilty — the lone crossover vote | 10 Republicans voted to impeach in the House. 7 Republicans voted guilty in the Senate — the most bipartisan presidential impeachment vote in history. |
| New evidence | Gabbard declassification (April 13, 2026): coordinated IC effort, concealed political bias, IG never conducted a formal investigation. Criminal referrals filed against Atkinson and the whistleblower. | No new evidence. Procedural arguments remain the primary basis for expungement. |
| Verdict on expungement case | Strongest case — documented, sourced, and supported by declassified government material | Stronger procedural case than substantive case — bipartisan vote weakens the weaponization argument |
| Trump was acquitted by the Senate both times. Those acquittals are in the permanent record alongside the impeachments. Rep. Issa's resolution seeks to expunge the charges — but legal scholars across the political spectrum, including Jonathan Turley who testified against Trump's impeachment, say no constitutional mechanism exists to erase a completed impeachment. The resolution is before the House Judiciary Committee. It has no path through the Senate.
Sources: DNI press release (ODNI.gov, April 13, 2026); H.Res.1211, 119th Congress (Congress.gov); Fox News Digital (Issa interview, May 11, 2026); Georgetown Law (Chafetz, Super); Cornell Law (Constitution Annotated); Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; Washington Examiner; CBS News; Congress.gov (H.Res.24 text). |
||
The first obstacle for Issa is to get this through the House, and with only one vote to spare, that will be tough. I think we can all agree that Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), at the very least, would vote present, if not against the resolution. And there is a significant contingent of moderates in office that have already signaled hesitation in supporting the resolution.
If it gets through the House, it will still have to get through the Senate. Simply put, the GOP does not have the numbers, and I suspect a handful of GOP senators would vote against it.
The positive note for Trump is that he was acquitted… twice. That is on record, and it cannot be changed. Even though the impeachments currently stand, so do those acquittals.
But I want to leave you with one final observation here:
If the system was violated in the course of the impeachment, which could be argued to have happened in both of these impeachments, is that impeachment still valid?
If not for Trump’s reputation and legacy, I believe that question needs to be answered to prevent further weaponization of Congress to remove a sitting president. Otherwise, to be quite frank, these trials are nothing more than a kangaroo court for the sole purpose of entertainment and scoring political points.
