The Constitution tells us
that the Senate has the “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” [1]
That language indicates that impeachment trials are to take place before that
body.
But what did the Framers
of the Constitution mean by this? It is beyond question that the Senate was
intended to act in this instance as a court, albeit without the procedural
restrictions that are imposed on ordinary courts. [2] And
since it was directed that the Senate would try all impeachments, it is
etymologically clear that the Framers had in mind some kind of trial.
One well-known feature of
any trial is the taking of evidence. But for the Trump impeachment there has
been a curious reluctance to do that among members of a certain senatorial
faction. They don’t want to hear from any witnesses, and they don’t want to
subpoena any documents. That means nothing less than that they don’t want to
conduct a trial as the Constitution commands them to do.
What could be the motive
behind this? Some have said that any evidence should have been presented during
the impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives. But the House of
Representatives isn’t the body that tries impeachments; it serves as the
accuser. What is the necessity of a trial before the trial?
To be sure, the House was
required to do an investigation if it was going to prefer an impeachment before
the Senate. And they did so. It was on television. Are these senators saying
they don’t have to conduct a trial because the investigation wasn’t up to their
standards? Even if the investigation was deficient in some way, how does that
excuse the Senate from doing its job entirely?
It doesn’t make any sense
that the House managers should be limited to what they uncovered during the
House impeachment proceedings. What if new evidence turns up?
In point of fact, it has
recently turned up that former national security adviser John Bolton is now
saying that President Trump told him “in August that he wanted to continue
freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there
helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens….” [3]
That is relevant and pertinent information. What would be the reason, the
excuse, for not allowing Mr. Bolton to testify before the Senate? Don’t they
want to consider all the available information?
Frankly, that’s what it
looks like. And that might be why there is not yet enough Republican votes to
block Mr. Bolton’s testimony. [4]
The optics of such a maneuver would be very bad, and they know it.
