Impeachment - Senator Leahy Presiding May Undercut Legitimacy

WASHINGTON - Jan. 25, 2021 - PRLog -- Impeachment - Senator Leahy Presiding May Undercut Legitimacy
Democrat Presiding Suspect, Raises Clear Issues of Conflict of Interest

WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 25, 2021) -  The decision to have Senator Pat Leahy, the senior Democrat in the Senate, preside at the impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump may undercut the legitimacy of the proceeding, as well as raise serious conflict of interest issues, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

Some legal scholars, have argued that only a president who is still in office can be convicted and barred from holding office in the future.

This argument could be strengthened by not having the Chief Justice preside in the Senate trial, since the Constitution clearly states that "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside."

Since it is the former president who "shall be removed from office" for acts and articles of impeachment adopted while he was still president, a strong argument can be made that it is the Chief Justice who should preside, and that not choosing him further undercuts the legitimacy of the impeachment trial.

It appears the the Founders provided for the Senate trial to be presided over by the Chief Justice in order to insure fairness, and the equally important appearance of fairness, by employing the person in government most likely to be - and to be seen - as impartial.

Substituting someone other than the Chief Justice to preside at the Senate impeachment trial seems to go directly contrary to this clear purpose.

Senator Leahy is the member of the political party which would clearly benefit if Trump were unable to run for president in 2024 as he has suggested he will.

Also, Leahy voted to convict Trump of both of the charges in the earlier impeachment; something which might ordinarily constitute bias, and disqualify a juror in an ordinary trial.

Since Leahy presumably would be entitled to vote, he would be serving as both judge and jury - or at least juror - something anathema to most legal traditions.

Regardless of the legal issues, which a court may never decide, having a partisan serve as presiding officer at a trial of a political opponent is likely to give rise to even more objections and concerns by many Republicans, and particularly by those millions of Americans who still support Trump, says Banzhaf.