At the beginning of a U.S. Senate trial on whether to remove an impeached U.S. president from office, the senators take an oath to be impartial jurists. The impartiality is important because the senators are theoretically to listen to the partial U.S. House prosecuting managers and the president’s defense lawyers. Were the senators themselves partial, they would simply reflect the two sides that make their respective cases. In the trial of Donald Trump, I submit that few if any senators had any intention of being impartial and thus as serving as a jurist rather than as an extension of the prosecutors or defense. In effect, the verdict is left to whichever political party controls the Senate. I contend that having the Senate try presidents is problematic due to a conflict of interest.
To be sure, removal from office requires a two-thirds majority so the verdict cannot be made only by one party—especially if it is other than that which the president heads. Yet to reply in such a scenario on the party that the president heads brings in a conflict of interest. Such a conflict is particularly pronounced when the president’s party controls the Senate. In such a case, even the rules of the trial, which are decided by majority vote, can be expected to be skewed in favor of the defendant (i.e., the president). It is simply too much to ask human nature to be impartial whether in setting up the trial or in acting as an impartial jurist in such a conflict of interest. This is why I contend in Institutional Conflicts of Interest that conflicts of interest are inherently unethical (i.e., even they are not exploited for personal or institutional gain).
The gravity of the conflict of interest can be easily detected when it is being exploited in rather obvious ways. Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican), “a close ally of the [Republican] president, criticized Democratic House managers’ arguments at the trial in recent days, calling Thursday’s presentations ‘like way too much. [1] Graham made the comment when the prosecutors were making their opening statement, so the implication is that he was already not impartial for he did not wait until even the conclusion of both opening statements to make his statement. The sheer brazenness suggests that senators of both parties may have regarded the oath of impartiality as a sham. Indeed, even the labeling of the prosecutors as Democrats and the defense attorneys as Republicans can tell us that political partisanship dwarfed the oath.
In the trial of President Trump, the party he headed at the time controlled the Senate. Given this conflict of interest, it is not surprising (sadly) to find the trail schedule modified to suite the president. After he complained about low television viewership-levels on Saturdays being “Death Valley in T.V.,” the Senate’s majority leader announced that the first day of the president’s defense attorneys’ opening statement, which was on a Saturday, would only be for a few hours. The defense was “planning a more robust presentation for Monday and Tuesday.[2] To be sure, two Democratic Senators running for president had campaign events scheduled for that Saturday night, but I submit that the majority leader was more attentive to the defendant’s wishes than to campaigning senators of the other party—the one that the president does not head. The defendant was able to schedule his own trial.
The president’s reach extended even to whether the trial would have witnesses! Former National Security Director John Bolton could have provided a first-hand account of the president having admitted to holding appropriated military aid to Ukraine until the Ukraine president publicly announced that his government was launching an investigation into Trump’s likely presidential rival in 2020, Joe Biden (and his son). But the president’s majority party in the Senate refused to allow the witness nonetheless, even as the president’s defense argued that the prosecutors had not provided first-hand account testimony from an impeachment witness in the House (which in turn is debatable).
Impartial jurists of the president’s party argued as if they were part of the defense that calling witnesses could run into the obstacle of the president claiming executive privilege. One of the prosecutors, a member of the opposition party, replied that the U.S. Chief Justice, who was presiding over the trial, could make such a determination, but such a rule could be overridden by a majority vote (the president’s party being in the majority) by the Senate.[3] Here again the institutional conflict of interest is evident. Senators of the president’s own party could vote to override the Chief Justice to block witnesses in the trial.
Was the trial of President Trump even a trial without witnesses, potentially critical documents, and even an impartial jury? To the extent that the defendant could get his way even in the voting on the trial’s rules, could the trial be viewed as valid? Apparently it was. Not even the Chief Justice could enforce the oath of impartiality. Senators having made statements showing prejudice for or against the defendants could perhaps have been disqualified. The two-third majority could then perhaps have been applied to senators with an open mind, although silence does not necessary mean that a person is impartial. Also, presumable the Senate could override the ruling on particular senators or forbid such rulings, as no one likes to be excluded. Again we would find a conflict of interest in the disciplined being able to overrule the impartial judge.
Hamilton suggested at the constitutional convention that the U.S. Supreme Court decide whether an impeached president should be removed from office. It was felt, however, that such a role would put the impartial court into the political realm, especially to the extent that the justices are biased toward the defendant one way or the other. Justices are nominated by presidents, after all. I contend that such bias would be less intense than in the U.S. Senate because judicial reasoning and judgment can temper the influence of politics in the Supreme Court even though ideological bias is likely present generally (though it may be indirect, rather than direct as in the Senate). Put another way, the defendant’s party controlled the Senate, but the justices would be less likely to take orders from the defendant, especially given the Court’s reverence for the institution of a trial (e.g., witnesses, impartial judges and thus scheduling). In contrast, senators may tend to view a trial of a president as fitting within the framework of a political debate, wherein no one is impartial and “horse-trading” to get votes to exploit a conflict of interest are acceptable. Imagine a jury of a criminal trial making deals in deliberation such as, “You vote guilty and I’ll see that you get a car loan.” In the Senate, the majority (and minority) leader could privately promise something of political or economic value to a senator of the same party who would otherwise vote to allow witnesses. Indeed, if enough majority-party senators are not impartial, setting the rules of the trial is also a conflict of interest. In the Trump trial, the majority leader was opposed to witnesses even before he took the oath of impartiality. Rather than having the Senate establish the rules, the U.S. Supreme Court could do so in order to obviate the conflict of interest, which is especially pronounced when the Senate votes on rules (such as whether to allow witnesses) during the trial!
What about having the American electorate act as the jury? Is there any basis to assume that We the People would be less partisan? The biases in the Senate may be a muffled representation of a polarized electorate. Additionally, the electorate was largely not following the trial, let alone listening to the opening and closing statements. In the case of the Trump trial, the next presidential election would be in less than a year. In a presidential election, a myriad of factors come into play--the articles of impleachment being just two. Less knowledge of the case is needed; the matter is more one of an overall judgment of the incumbent (as well as the challenger). Lest it be argued that the regular elections be sufficient to hold a president accountable, such reliance would do nothing to purge the U.S. of a criminal such as Nixon mid-term in order to stop the bleeding. It may be that a majority of the senators assessed the two articles of impeachment against Trump as not sufficient to justify removing the president from office, but given the institutional (and possibly personal) conflicts of interest, the electorate cannot be confident. Judging from the smile on the majority leader's face just after he met with a republican senator previously in favor of allowing John Boltan to testify, I believe that horse-trading went on regarding the setting of at least one of the trail's rules. If it sounds strange that jurists in a trial would do such a thing even on whether to alter the trial rules, remember that institutional conflicts of interest can operate like black holes in that the gravitational force is powerful and light cannot escape.
