"[Democrats are] going to go in there, and we're going to impeach the [expletive deleted]."[1] Rep. Brad Sherman introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump on the very first day of the Democrat majority.[2] Rep. Al Green separately introduced articles of impeachment in July 2019, and even forced the House to consider the measure.[3] The House tabled Rep. Green's impeachment resolution by an overwhelming bipartisan majority—332 ayes to 95 nays.[4]
Such a fervor to impeach a political opponent for purely partisan reasons was what Alexander Hamilton warned of as the "greatest danger" in Federalist No. 65: that "the decision [to impeach] will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."[5] Indicative of this partisan fervor, Democrats have already forced the House to consider three resolutions of impeachment—offered by Democrats after no investigation, report, or process of any kind—since President Trump took office.[6]
During the consideration of articles of impeachment against President Clinton, Democrats argued that "[i]f we are to impeach the President, it should be at the end of a fair process. . . . [and not through decisions] made on a strictly partisan basis."[7] Rep. Zoe Lofgren, now a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, testified then before the Rules Committee on the resolution authorizing the Clinton impeachment inquiry. She said:
Under our Constitution, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. This is perhaps our single most serious responsibility short of a declaration of war. Given the gravity and magnitude of this undertaking, only a fair and bipartisan approach to this question will ensure that truth is discovered, honest judgments rendered, and the constitutional requirement observed. Our best yardstick is our historical experience. We must compare the procedures used today with what Congress did a generation ago when a Republican President was investigated by a Democratic House.[8]
However, Speaker Pelosi's impeachment inquiry has been divorced from historical experience and has borne no markings of a fair process. During the first several weeks, the Speaker asserted that a vote authorizing the inquiry was unnecessary.[9] This process allowed Chairman Schiff to conduct his partisan inquiry behind closed doors with only a limited group of Members present. It also allowed Chairman Schiff to selectively leak cherry-picked information
- ↑ Nicholas Fandos, Rashida Tlaib's Expletive-Laden Cry to Impeach Trump Upends Democrats' Talking Points, N.Y. Times, Jan. 4, 2019.
- ↑ H. Res. 13, 116th Cong. (2019).
- ↑ H. Res. 498, 116th Cong. (2019).
- ↑ Id. (Roll call vote 483).
- ↑ Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton).
- ↑ See H. Res. 646, 115th Cong. (2018); H. Res. 705, 115th Cong. (2018); H. Res. 498, 116th Cong. (2019).
- ↑ Impeachment Inquiry: William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, 105th Cong., Consideration of Articles of Impeachment 82 (Comm. Print 1998) (statement of Rep. Bobby Scott).
- ↑ Hearing before the Committee on Rules on H. Res. 525, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. 108 (1998).
- ↑ See, e.g., Haley Byrd, Kevin McCarthy Calls on Nancy Pelosi to Suspend Impeachment Inquiry, CNN, Oct. 3, 2019.
104
