A Nightmarish Precedent?
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, wants his Republican colleagues to agree to how President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will unfold before it’s even begun. On Monday, Schumer released publicly a letter he sent to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., outlining his demands. In short, Schumer wants procedural guarantees for specific witnesses and on the trial’s duration.
The reaction by Republicans to Schumer’s gambit suggests that they are unlikely to agree to his proposal, at least in its present form. Susan Collins, R-Maine, remarked that she was surprised by Schumer’s decision to release the letter before the minority leader had a chance to meet with McConnell to discuss the trial, an approach that she said would be “more constructive.” (Note: Collins is one of only a handful of Republicans generally thought to be undecided on whether Trump should be convicted or acquitted.) For his part, McConnell denounced the letter on the Senate floor and argued that giving in to its demands “could set a nightmarish precedent” for the institution. Yet the majority leader also agreed with Collins, observing that “the preferable path would have been an in-person conversation, which nonetheless, I still hope to pursue.”
In his letter, Schumer references the supplementary rules that the Senate adopted during the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial. At the time, senators approved two resolutions (S. Res. 16 and S. Res. 30) that, in various ways, structured how it unfolded. Specifically, S. Res. 16 set the dates by which the president was required to respond to the articles of impeachment and by which the House managers were required to respond to the president's response. It also set aside a 16-hour block of time for senators to question the parties. S. Res. 30 authorized the deposition of particular witnesses and delegated to the majority and minority leaders the power to determine the deposition time for all witnesses. The resolution also empowered House managers and the president's counsel to make a motion to resolve any objections made during the depositions after a short review period. And S. Res. 30 set aside a 24-hour block of time for the president's counsel to make motions concerning testimony or evidence.
While Republicans (including McConnell) supported both S. Res. 16 and S. Res. 30, they did so at two different points in the trial. Senators approved S. Res. 16 on January 8, 1999, at the beginning of the trial by a vote of 100 to 0. But senators did not approve S. Res. 30 until January 28, 1999 (by a vote of 54-44).
Republicans point to the 1999 process as a constructive alternative to Schumer’s proposal. For example, Roy Blunt, R-Mo., has remarked,
“My belief is that what happened last time probably produces the logical way to decide whether you need witnesses or not, which is present your case … and then the Senate can decide or not, just like they did last time, whether we need witnesses or not.”
McConnell also juxtaposed the two-step process that the Senate followed in 1999 and the one-step process that Schumer proposes it follow today. "The same process that Senator Schumer thought was good enough for President Clinton he doesn't want to afford President Trump, go figure."
Notwithstanding his public opposition to Schumer’s proposal, McConnell appears to agree with the minority leader that the Senate’s current Impeachment Rules are insufficient and that a supplementary package is needed to structure the trial. McConnell also appears to agree with Schumer when it comes to the benefits of the structured approach adopted by the Senate in 1999, stating that “the basic procedural framework of the Clinton impeachment trial served the Senate and the nation well, in my view…I still believe the Senate should try to follow the 1999 model."