Articles of Impeachment with David Sklansky
In December, the U.S. House of Representatives passed articles of impeachment against the president focusing on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Only three U.S. presidents have been formally impeached by the House, including Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and now Donald Trump. So far, not one has been removed from office. In this episode, we are joined by former prosecutor and Stanford Law Professor David Sklansky to look at impeachment through the lens of the prosecutor. Did the House make a good case? What are the legal procedural questions?
Originally aired January 18, 2020
Read the article :
Articles of Impeachment
The news surrounding the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump has been a mainstay on nearly every major media outlet in recent weeks. In early December of last year, the House of Representatives passed two articles of impeachment, one relating to abuse of power regarding the President’s interactions with Ukraine and the other for obstruction of Congress, making Donald Trump the third sitting President to be formally impeached. With the upcoming trial in the Senate embroiled in controversy, questions still remain on how the process will unfold.
In this episode of Stanford Legal, Pam Karlan and Joe Bankman are joined by David Sklansky, a former federal prosecutor and Stanford Law professor with experience in cases that involve a public official. The three legal scholars explore the controversy, language, and legal bases surrounding the impeachment trial. Sklansky says, “Because the Constitution says that the House has the sole power to impeach and the Senate has the sole power to try, and the trial will be presided over by a judicial officer, the Chief Justice of the United States, it’s pretty clear that the Constitution envisioned something that is at least loosely modeled on a criminal proceeding, which is to say that there are two stages.”
The trial in the Senate will not be exactly like any other criminal trial. For example, the Senators have abilities that typical jurors would not, such as having the ultimate authority to decide which witnesses will be called, if any. Additionally, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that he would not try to be impartial in the trial—an announcement that would usually be cause for getting new jurors, explains Sklansky.
Sklansky further provides insight on the potential arguments for the prosecution and the defense, or in this case, the House and President Trump, respectively. The three discuss whether or not there was “corrupt intent” on behalf of President Trump, and the confines of having a non-impartial jury. Sklansky mentioned he’d be eager to take the case as a prosecutor “…because the evidence in this case is stronger than any other public corruption case I can remember ever knowing about or being involved in or a reading about…If we were arguing this in front of an impartial jury, I would be happy to have this case. I don’t think that it’s a case that any prosecutor’s office in the country would hesitate bringing.”
—Max Smith