From 1868, Rules That the Senate Will Follow for Impeachment Proceedings nytimes.com
Rule XXII On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained the yeas and nays shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately, and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the members present a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if the person accused in such articles of impeachment shall be convicted upon any of said articles by the votes of two-thirds of the members present the Senate shall proceed to pronounce judgment, and a certified copy of such judgment shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.
I glanced at the WSJ yesterday, they had the usual rabid editorial, they said Clinton would get off on the equivalent of a hung jury. That's one way to look at it, but it's not particularly consistent with the rule stated above. On so-called "jury nullification", that is being a little disingenuous. Recycled from Message 7241319 :
Before the Trial, Ask the Pivotal Question nytimes.com
All of this seems consistent with the idea that "duty to the Constitution" and "the rule of law" require that the Senate proceed to trial, with or without witnesses. Yet a higher notion of constitutional duty should urge the Senate to consider the standard of impeachment separately, before it proceeds to the delicate matter of witnesses.
With all due respect to Representative Henry Hyde, the true issue has never been whether the President is above the rule of law, for Kenneth Starr can always indict Clinton when he leaves office. It is, rather, whether impeachment is appropriate for the offenses alleged. The Senate is perfectly entitled to consider this question from the outset, and not simply as a matter of conscience when each member votes to convict or acquit.
If the Senate as a whole chooses to ignore the question, as the House did, and give the Senators nothing but an up and down vote, that's their right. The Republicans control the rules.
As far as a nation of liars goes, that might be overgeneralizing. Within the Senate chambers, though, close enough. Sorry to be sarcastic, but to recycle again, from techstocks.com
It's all about integrity, you know. We have a trial coming up presided over by a Chief Justice who seems to have lied in his confirmation hearings, prosecuted by an adulterous papal knight whose "youthful indiscretion" lasted from age 41 to 48, apparently, assisted by another adulterer who's into giving keynote speeches to white supremacist groups, heard before a Senate lead by another fan of the white supremacists, according to his uncle if not his press releases. Clinton's a sleaze, but there are plenty enough logs in the eyes to go around in this bunch. |
