ON TO THE SENATE — to try Trump

  1. The House Managers divide up the presentation to the Senate of the two articles, abuse of power and obstruction, different manages taking on different responsibilities, so that different managers will:

IMPEACHMENT PRIMER:
It is of some interest to compare what the Republican House Managers said in the Clinton impeachment, as those views plainly appear to be the standard by which we may and should judge the articles lodged against Trump that will be heard in his ”imminent” Senate Trial. That said, it appears quite fair to say that Mr. McConnell and the Republican Senate Conference have already contradicted what they said in the Clinton impeachment, as compared with what they are saying and will continue to say with even more force during the course of the upcoming Senate Impeachment Trial of Mr. Trump.The remarks that follow are found in the Clinton Senate Impeachmeant trial including the references to the historical and legal and constitutional context that creates the ”awesome” mechanism by which a Republic may remove a Chief Executive.,,In the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton wrote: ”The subjects of [the Senate’s] jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”This view was a descendant of a long history of impeachment. In the impeachment of Lord Chancellor Macclesfield in 1725, Sergeant Pengelly summed up the purpose of impeachment, that it was ”for the ”punishment of offenses of a public nature which may affect the nation.”The British legal historian Holdsworth said the impeachment process is the mechanism in service of the ”ideal ...[of] government in accordance with law.”Rep. Canady, a Republican House Manager, charged with prosecuting President Clinton at the Clinton impeachment trial said, ”Those who were impeached and called to account for ’high crimes and misdemeanors’ were ’those who by their conduct threatened to undermine the rule of law.’”Rep. Canady, a House Manager, said, “there is not a bright line separating official misconduct by a president from other misconduct of which the president is guilty. Some offenses will involve the direct and affirmative misuse of governmental power. Other offenses may involve a more subtle use of the prestige, status and position of the president to further a course of wrongdoing. There are still other offenses in which a president may not misuse the power of his office, but in which he violates a duty imposed on him under the Constitution.”Rep Canady argued, ”[P]erjury and obstruction of justice are by their very nature akin to bribery. When the crime of bribery is committed, money is given and received to corruptly alter the course of official action. When justice is obstructed, action is undertaken to corruptly thwart the due administration of justice. .... The fundamental purposes and the fundamental effect of each of these offenses ...is to defeat the proper administration of government. They all are crimes of corruption aimed at substituting private advantage for the public interest.”Rep. Canady said, ”The Constitution imposes on the president the duty to ”take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and ”[a] president who commits a calculated and sustained series of criminal offenses has - by his personal violations of the law - failed in the most immediate, direct, and culpable manner to do his duty under the Constitution.”Rep. Canady observed, ”Will a President who has committed serious offenses against the system of justice be called to account for his crimes, or will his offenses will be regarded of no constitutional consequence? Will a standard be established that such crimes by a president will not be tolerated or will the standard be that - at least in some cases, a president may ‘remain in office with all his infamy’...”Rep. Graham said, ”You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this Constitutional Republic if this Body [the Senate] determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Thank God you [founding fathers] did that, because impeachment is not about punishment, Impeachment is about ... restoring honor and integrity to the office.”[To dig deep into the history of impeachment, there is the report, ”Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment” - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3-5-6.pdf

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store