Why Senate Democrats are the real challenge to full impeachment trial
By Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor — 12/21/19 10:00 AM EST
When Shakespeare wrote that “All the world’s a stage … and one man in his time plays many parts,†he could have had in mind Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). In 1999, Schumer famously opposed witnesses in the trial of President Bill Clinton as nothing more than “political theater.†Now Schumer has declared that witnesses and a full trial are essential for President Donald Trump, and that any trial without witnesses would be the “most unfair impeachment trial in modern history.â€
Of course, that would not include the Clinton trial, where Schumer sought to proceed to a summary vote without a trial. As the Senate gears up for only the third presidential impeachment in history, the fight has begun over the rules and scope of a Senate trial. The Framers were silent on the expected procedures and evidence for a Senate trial, beyond the requirement of a two-thirds supermajority to convict a president. The only direct precedent on these issues is derived from two very different trials, of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
By sending a thin, incomplete record to the Senate, the House of Representatives could not have made things easier for the White House. Since the House did not want to take time to subpoena critical witnesses (such as former national security adviser John Bolton) or to compel testimony of other witnesses, the Senate could declare that it will try the case on the record supplied by House Democrats, a record that Democrats insist is already conclusive and overwhelming. Moreover, in reviewing those earlier trials of Johnson and Clinton, Democrats may have to struggle with precedents of their own making. Indeed, Republicans could argue that a trial without witnesses is impeachment Democratic-style.
more
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/475568-why-senate-democrats-are-the-real-challenge-to-full-impeachment-trial
