The Trial of Donald Trump
“ Stated simply, impeachments are no place for small minds or low politics. …..Although the House and Senate are irreducibly political, the Constitution makes clear that impeachment calls for a profoundly different mentality. ….An impeachment along political party lines would only be acceptable where the president as captured or corrupted his own political party. ....Refusing to impeach a known tyrant out of partisan self-interest would constitute a failure of governance at least as profound as urging impeachment solely for partisan reasons.”
Laurence Tribe; To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment
My daughters asked me to compile a list of the books on impeachment that I do not have, as the holiday season is upon us. Hence, my dining room table has a variety of books, including those specifically on impeachment, and those about the Nixon and Clinton eras, piling up. By way of internet, I have found that there are four on the topic that I do not have in my library.
My son thinks it's a giggle to watch me pouring through those that now force us to consume our evening meal in another room. All of my children are used to hearing me talk to myself when reading or watching television, so I suppose it comes as no surprise when I'm in the middle of a heated debate with some paragraph and the boys say, “Will you please keep it down, Boomer?” My current response is, “Get out here! You won't believe this!” The older son finds it particularly annoying between the hours of 2 and 4 am/est. Last night, he told me if I didn't stop yelling at books, he would have to make an appointment at the local animal shelter to be put to sleep.
Hopefully, this helps to explain my long and tedious essays on DU:GD.
Today, I thought I'd talk about what we might expect in terms of format if and when the Senate hears the trial of Donald Trump in early 2020. While the Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, the ritual has only two examples in our nation's history. Thus, the path the trial will take is not as well defined as, say, a criminal or civil trial.
That is important to keep in mind for several reasons. Among them is the level of “proof” put into evidence needed for a conviction. In a criminal trial, of course, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's an ill-defined level. In a civil trial, it comes down to the preponderance of evidence, which means if it's 51-49, the jury may go with that 51.
But as Laurence Tribe points out, the verdict for impeachment is somewhere in between. He notes that an impeachment of a president is evidence of a national crisis. In theory, every Senator should put country first, though obviously party and personal issues may influence their decisions. Unfortunately, we see republicans putting self first, party second, and country last when it comes to all things Trump. But calling the president rude-but-accurate names in off-the-record conversations clearly isn't enough in times of national crisis.
This was anticipated. Thus, the Senators are required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution as the first step of an impeachment trial. This oath is distinct, as it is the only time a federal official is required to take an oath separate from their initial oath of office, for an official duty. This second oath is, in theory, to remind each Senator that their focus should be on country, rather than party of personal employment considerations.
The House will appoint those who will “manage” the case, acting as prosecutors. After the Senators are sworn in, the manager (or managers) will present an outline of the case. After this, the Senate calls upon the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court to oversee the case. In doing so, they remove the vice president from any role in the trial. Initially, this was done in part because the VP was whoever took second place in the election, not necessarily from the same party as the president, and who would have obvious potential conflicts of interest in the trial. More, it signals the importance of the national crisis that the Senate is tasked with resolving.
After that, the process is not defined, as noted before, to the degree that criminal and civil trials are. Thus, the Senate majority leader is in a position to exert great influence. The 2020 impeachment trial of Donald Trump will be under the influence of Mitch McConnell, a uniquely petty man who has been exclusively focused on personal power throughout his political career. His quest for power has overshadowed any beliefs of values that he may have once had.
Thus, in 2020, Mitch will be focused upon personal power, party, and country in that order. He wants to be re-elected and maintain his current position in the Senate. Knowing this, we can conclude that a fair trial in the Senate is not his priority. He wants to maintain the powers of the Elder Tortoise. Because advancing age has diminished his thought capacity, he is currently relying on his aides to help him assess the national mood.
The first thing he has them report upon is, of course, national polls. He is old enough to know that national polls on impeachment are relatively new – the first merely dates back to 1973 – and that they are rarely an accurate measure. If memory serves me correctly, a national poll in 2014 showed that the majority of Americans believed impeachment was mistakenly believed to be about the public's reactions to such things as economic policy. That is an example of the dangers of ignorance.
More important to Mitch are state-wide polls. Yet these, too, often reflect the level of ignorance that the citizens in a state – say, Kentucky – dwell within. Hence, Mitch's aides are also focusing on the levels of contacts that his flock of tortoises receive from the public. This includes phone calls, letters, and e-mails, weighted in that order. On-line petitions are given zero value.
Thus, in the upcoming impeachment trial, it is important to recognize that Mitch will no longer be representing one state. He will be working for all of us, Democrats, independents, and republicans alike, nation-wide. He will be, in other words, our employee. And it is essential that we let him know what job we want him to do – indeed, we forfeit the right to complain afterwards if we do not provide him with specific instructions.
Thus, the best thing that you and I can do this weekend is to write to Senator McConnell at the Russell Senate Office Building, 2 Constitutional Ave NE, Washington, DC, 20002, and tell him what to do. Keep in mind that even snail-mail letters are weighed differently: a hand-written letter is actually given more weight than a typed one.
Will you join me in this effort? Encourage family and friends to do the same?
Thank you for your consideration.
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
and you're welcome 
(I'm sure everyone here is aware of this).
Link regarding info. to include when writing to a congressperson:
https://www.aallnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/writingMOC.pdf
K&R 
Thank you H2O Man. I always love reading your thoughtful posts!
I will suggest what I think is a more interesting reference resource, "Exiled in the Land of the Free: Democracy, Indian Nations, and the U.S. Constitution" (Clear Light Publishers; 1992). It contains works by eight of the top Indian leaders. My favorites are Oren Lyons, John Mohawk, and Vine Deloria, Jr. Oren is still living, though the other two have died.
Oren was, at the time, the Faith Keeper of the Turtle Clan of the Onondaga Nation. As such, he sat with Chief Paul Waterman on bothe the Onondaga Council of Chiefs, and the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) Grand Council. Thus, I've known Oren formany decades. And I had many conversations with Paul, about how one of his grandfathers (I'm unsure how many "greats"
was among those who knew Ben Franklin.
"Impeaching" a chief (aka removing their antlers) could be accomplished by the Clan Mother in the case of their clan's representative on the council. Likewise, she had been the one who had selected him for that position. Such actions generally involve group discussions before selecting a chief, and can include warnings before removal.
There are numerous other good resources on this general subject, including a series of interviews with Paul that I published years ago. I see Oren every so often, including at boxing cards near Onondaga. He's a great man. Tapes of his speeches, as well as his interview by Bill Moyers, can be found on youtube.
(I know the postal service is still screening snail mail to Congress, so one has to hope any letter actually arrives in time.)
I will be surprised if Chief Justice sits idly by and does not get involved in some way. When the Republicans attempt to bring in irrelevant witnesses, as if they made him withhold the funds from Ukraine? As if they were the ones that committed the crime of bribery? As if everyone at the trial is more guilty than Donald Trump?
Someone real will have to call it to order.
The politicians in Washington are going to have to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
