The EconomistOctober 26th 2019 211A
lexander hamilton warned in 1788
that impeachment risks “agitat[ing]
the passions of the whole community” and
spurring “pre-existing factions” to “ani-
mosities, partialities, influence and inter-
est”. The process, he wrote, carries the
“greatest danger” that “real demonstra-
tions of innocence or guilt” will amount to
little in the face of raw political calcula-
tions. But the constitution carves a path
around the maelstrom, Hamilton insisted:
the United States Senate will have the “sole
power to try all impeachments” sent its
way by the House of Representatives. Sena-
tors, “unawed and uninfluenced” by the
passions of the day, are “sufficiently digni-
fied” to weigh whether an impeached offi-
cial should be thrown from office.
On October 22nd America’s top dip-
lomat in Ukraine, William Taylor, testified
to House investigators that President Do-
nald Trump threatened to withhold $391m
in military aid unless Volodymr Zelensky,
Ukraine’s president, opened an investiga-
tion into the son of Joe Biden, one of Mr
Trump’s potential rivals in next year’s elec-
tion. It was the clearest and most detailed
account to date—from a public servant
whose career spans five decades and nine
administrations—of Mr Trump leaning on
a foreign leader to help his re-election ef-
fort. Mr Taylor’s testimony makes im-
peachment in the House likelier. It re-
mains to be seen whether members ofCongress’s upper chamber will put party
aside and live up to Hamilton’s billing.
Although it takes only a majority vote to
impeach in the House, conviction requires
the assent of two-thirds of the senators
present—67 if 100 attend. At least 20 Re-
publicans, along with all 47 Democrats,
would have to find Mr Trump guilty. That
seems unlikely. Only Mitt Romney of Utah
has even hinted he might defect. No Ameri-
can president has yet been removed—
though in 1868 Andrew Johnson escaped by
just one vote (his trial is pictured).
A Senate trial could nonetheless prove a
crucible at a fraught time. Mr Trump’s
questionable foreign-policy moves—par-
ticularly his abrupt decision to withdraw
American forces from northern Syria—
have provoked condemnation from even
stalwart supporters like Senator Lindsey
Graham and Mitch McConnell, the Senate
majority leader.
Keeping the Senate proceedings “civil
and orderly”—a task that the constitution
assigns to the chief justice—may be a strug-
gle, says Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law pro-
fessor and co-author of “To End a Presiden-
cy”. The previous chief justice, William
Rehnquist, said of his role in the impeach-
ment trial of Bill Clinton in 1999 that “I did
nothing in particular, and I did it very well.”
John Roberts, the chief today, faces a more
partisan environment but, Mr Tribe says,
will seek to emulate his predecessor.
The details of removal trials are “all en-
tirely fluid in theory,” says Frank Bowman,
author of the book “High Crimes and Mis-Impeachment
Trying times
NEW YORK
What a Senate trial of Donald Trump might look like
Hail to the chiefSource: YouGovUnited States, support for impeachment
% of registered votersPro-Trump Anti-Trump020406080100MJ J A S O
2019020406080100MJ J A S O
2019Should
impeachShould not
impeachUnited States
22 Convicts’ voting rights
24 Closing Rikers Island jail
24 California’s blackouts
26 The Open Skies treaty
28 Lexington: Amy Klobuchar for sanityAlso in this section