WE’LL PUT THAT QUESTION TO THE EXPERTS.
EXPERTS. >> THE YEAS ARE 229.
THE NAYS ARE 198.
ARTICLE TWO IS ADOPTED.
>> IN DECEMBER 2019, PRESIDENT
TRUMP WAS IMPEACHED.
>> THEY’RE PURSUING AN ILLEGAL
INVALID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
[ BLEEP ] IMPEACHMENT.
>> THEY HAVE RENDERED THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES AND ITS WORDS
MEANINGLESS.
MEANINGLESS. >> ON THE ONE HAND SOME
REPUBLICANS SAY THIS WHOLE
PROCESS HAS BEEN UNCONS TUGGAL.
>> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER WANTS
TO WRITE A COMPLETE NEW SET OF
RULES FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> BUT ON THE OTHER THINK SAY
THE ACTIONS MEET THE THRESHOLD
FOR IMPEACHMENT.
FOR IMPEACHMENT. >> WE HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT IT’S
IMPEACHABLE AND THIS PRESIDENT
BE IMPEACHED FOR LIFE.
>> WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION
SAY ABOUT ALL OF THIS?
>> I WENT TO PHILADELPHIA, THE
BIRTHPLACE OF THE CONSTITUTION,
FOR SOME ANSWERS FROM THE
FOUNDING FATHERS THEMSELVES.
WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION
ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT IMPEACHMENT?
>> THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T SAY
TOO MUCH ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BUT
IT’S IMPORTANT.
IT’S IMPORTANT. FIRST IT SAYS THAT THE HOUSE HAS
SOLE POWER OVER IMPEACHMENT AND
THE SENATE SOLE POWER OVER
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS. AND THAT MEANS THAT WHATEVER THE
HOUSE AND THE SENATE SAY GOES,
AND THE COURTS ARE NOT GOING TO
SECOND-GUESS IT.
SECOND-GUESS IT. THE CONSTITUTION ALSO SAYS THAT
PEOPLE CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR
TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
AND OF COURSE THE QUESTION OF
THAT WHAT MEANS IS HOTLY
CONTESTED.
CONTESTED. >> SO THE CONSTITUTION DOES.
SAY MUCH ABOUT IMPEACHMENT AT
ALL.
ALL. AND THE LITTLE INFORMATION WE DO
HAVE IS CAUSING A LOT OF
CONFUSION TODAY.
CONFUSION TODAY. SO WHY INCLUDE IT IN THE FIRST
PLACE?
PLACE? >> THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE
CONCERNED NOT TO HAVE TYRANTS
RULING AMERICA, AND THEY HAD
BEFORE THEM THE MODEL OF KING
GEORGE WHO HAD THREATENED THEIR
LIBERTIES.
LIBERTIES. WE KNOW ABOUT ALEXANDER HAMILTON
AND HIS FAMOUS DEFENSE IN
FEDERALIST 65 ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF IMPEACHMENT FOR
POLITICAL CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST
THE STATE.
THE STATE. WE KNOW JAMES MADISON THE MAIN
FRAMER THOUGHT THAT
MALADMINISTRATION WAS ENOUGH TO
IMPEACH SOMEONE, DOING A BAD
JOB.
JOB. THERE WAS PUSHBACK, THAT THEN
THE PRESIDENT WOULD SERVE AS THE
PLEASURE OF THE CONGRESS.
AS A RESULT THE LANGUAGE WAS
REFINED.
REFINED. GEORGE MASON STANDING BEHIND US
CAME FROM VIRGINIA AND WAS VERY
KEEN ON THE IDEA WE MUST PROTECT
OURSELVES FROM FOREIGN KUPGS, A
CONNIVING PRESIDENT WHO WOULD
CONSPIRE WITH A FOREIGN POWER.
>> WHAT WAS THE REASONING BEHIND
GIVING THE AUTHORITY TO THE
HOUSE TO IMPEACH AND GIVING THE
AUTHORITY TO THE SENATE TO TRY?
WHAT WERE THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION THINKING IN DOING
THAT?
THAT? >> THE HOUSE IS THE PEOPLE’S
HOUSE.
HOUSE. THEY’RE LIKE A GRAND JURY.
THEY CAN DECIDE THAT THE
PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BY A SIMPLE
MAJORITY.
MAJORITY. BUT THE SENATE IS THE WISE
THOUGHTFUL ONES DELIBERATING ON
THE PUBLIC GOOD.
THAT’S WHY A CONVICTION HAS TO
BE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
>> NOW WE HAVE THE BASICS OF HOW
THE FOUNDING FATHERS THOUGHT
ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT, TREASON,
BRIBERY, AND HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS, ALL IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES.
OFFENSES. BUT WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE?
>> THEY SEEMED TO BELIEVE THAT
NOT EVERY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
WAS A LEGAL CRIME AND NOT EVERY
LEGAL CRIME WAS AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
OFFENSE. THE BEST DEFINITION COMES FROM
FEDERALIST 65 WHERE HAMILTON
SAYS BY ITS NATURE IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES ARE POLITICAL, CRIMES
COMMITTED AGAINST THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.
INTEREST. >> THERE IS ONE THING THE
FOUNDING FATHERS DIDN’T TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT THAT’S HAVING A
HUGE IMPACT ON IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS TODAY.
PROCEEDINGS TODAY. >> THEY HAD ONE BIG BLIND SPOT
AND THAT WAS THE RISE OF
POLITICAL PARTIES.
POLITICAL PARTIES. >> WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE
RELATIONSHIP CURRENTLY BETWEEN
HOUSE SPEAKER PELOSI AND MITCH
McCONNELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE
FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE SAID?
>> JAMES MADISON CONSIDERED
PARTIES FACTION, IMPEACHMENT
ALONG PARTY LINES WASN’T
SOMETHING THEY WERE
CONTEMPLATING.
CONTEMPLATING. >> THERE IS SOME PRECEDENT FOR
IT, PRESIDENT TRUMP JOINS TWO
OTHER PRESIDENTS IN BEING
IM35E67D, 57D RU JOHNSON AND
BILL CLINTON.
BILL CLINTON. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
>> THE CENTRAL THING WE LEARNED
IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION SETS A
HIGH BAR FOR IMPEACHMENT.
BOTH THE JOHNSON AND CLINTON
IMPEECHLTS FAILED.
IMPEECHLTS FAILED. SO THAT TELLS US IT’S TOUGH TO
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND THAT
ORDINARY POLITICAL DISAGREEMENTS
SHOULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR
IMPEACHMENT EVEN WHEN THEY’RE
PRESENTED AS TECHNICAL
VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW.
THAT’S NOT ENOUGH.
YOU NEED SOMETHING HIGHER TO BE
A HIGH CRIME.
>> BACK TO THE ULTIMATE
QUESTION, WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP’S
IMPEACHMENT CONSTITUTIONAL?
IMPEACHMENT CONSTITUTIONAL? >> IT’S HARD TO IMAGINE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT, BECAUSE AN IMPEACHMENT ITSELF IS
SET OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION AND
THE HOUSE AND SENATE THEMSELVES
HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES.
FOR BETTER OR WORSE OUR FATE IS
ENTIRELY IN THE HANDS OF THE
HOUSE AND SENATE.