Render impartial justice with the chief justice of the Supreme Court presided as the chief judge. I will administer the oath in the chamber in conform airs with the constitution and the Senate Impeachment rules. To be sure no vote would be parted, you take a vote three times to render impartial justice. Ne as group, then as individual, and the third, you go into the well and you sign the book for all of history where i hereby, barbara mikulski, u. S. Senator from maryland do pledge to render impartial justice in the matter of impeachment. Your hand shakes with that kind of historical amendment. Historical and media commitment. Host don ritchie, u. S. Senate historian emeritus, we have asked you to spend an hour with us to give us some perspective, to guide us what might happen. Senator mikulski talks about how important this felt, as the United States senator, the job that they were doing. As a whole, as the process gets underway, how should the public think about impeachment . Is it a judicial process, a legal process, a political process . Put it in the largest context. Mr. Ritchie it is all three. It is really a judicial process spelled out very specifically in the constitution as to what the role of the senate and house are in the process. A little more vague is what the charges could be. He penalty of being removed by office by a two thirds vote in he senate. On the other hand the senate is a political body, absolutely everything in the senate and the congress has some political dimensions to it. Taking the oath and the signing of the book is to remind the senators that it is not everyday politics. It is something different, something a little higher. And certainly having the chief justice presiding on the senate adds a certain degree of gravity to the proceedings. Host what level of federal officials can be subject to impeachment. There is question about if a legislator could be impeached but the house impeached a u. S. Senator in the 1790s but the senate had already expelled them and some thought it was good to hold the trial. His lawyers argued because he was a southerner, he was xempt. There is no necessary precedents on that. Both houses of congress can expel a member by a two thirds vote. Host if you look back at the countrys history, impeachment has been explored in the public sphere for 15 out of the 45 president s. Only three of them have been impeached. Richard nixon resigned. What should the lessons be from those numbers . Mr. Ritchie during the clinton impeachment, senator byrd described impeachment as a sword of dam cless that hung over the head of damocles that hung over the head of every president. Each president needs to know they are not above the law. There is a constitutional amendment for removing them from office. Even a federal judge with a lifetime appointment can be removed, and certainly the president of the United States, if they have committed a crime that convinces the majority of the house and two thirds of the enate they are guilty. Senate they are guilty. Host we will look back in history because precedent guides us so much. To get that started ill have you do a quick primer on the three president ial impeachments the country has lived through. We will use a video from the first one from a cspan special on the congress. It is the 1868 impeachment of Andrew Johnson. [video clip] the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson was an absolute sensation. It was for that trial that they first issued gallery tickets for the Senate Chamber. This was the first really public trial that took place. If you look at publications of the day, they are full of wonderful illustrations. The sergeant and arms delivering the articles of impeachment to the white house into johnsons hand. All of the lawyers lining up into the chamber to make their cases pro and con in the impeachment. It is really just this Society Event of 1868. He has gone against congress in reconstruction policy. They have considered impeachment over and over again and finally in 1868, he did something that gave them an excuse for impeachment. He fired someone without gaining permission to do so from congress. Host that was the voice of betty cohen, the Current Senate historian. What should we know about the johnson impeachment . The Republican House and senate, democratic president. 11 articles of impeachment. What else should we know . Mr. Ritchie johnson was elected in 1864 on a ticket with abraham lincoln. He was a democrat, senator from tennessee. He was one of the only southern senators that did not secede with his state. Lincoln had a unity party in 1864 and brought him on the ticket. When lincoln was assassinated and johnson became president , the republicans in congress thought they would be their lly. Because they thought he would support them in terms of reconstruction. But he disillusioned them. He vetoed lots of legislation like the friedmans act. He didnt seem to be concerned about the former slaves of the south. He put himself up as an obstacle to the reconstruction of the south. That went on from 1865 until early 1868. Even though his term was coming to an end that year, the House Republicans rose up and impeached him. They impeached him first and then they went back and drew up the articles of impeachment as to why they were impeaching him. They were just so mad at him at the time. They thought they had a good chance to have him removed in the senate, because more than two thirds of the senators were republicans. The Republican Party was divided between this radical and moderate wings but essentially johnson had united them because they were all so offended by his policies. It went into the senate. Seven republican senators could not bring themselves to vote to remove him. I think the general sense was that his term was coming to an end and if you give him enough rope, he will hang himself and if you remove him, you will have weakened the presidency and the president will also be dependent on a majority in the senate. A bit the way prime ministers in parliament are dependent on having a majority in congress. The independence of the presidency was threatened. So johnson was saved from removal by one single vote in the senate. Host it took until 1974 for the next serious impeachment ffort against richard nixon. They got so far as the House Judiciary Committee voted out three articles of impeachment. Mr. Ritchie i was a graduate student in washington at the time and watergate was fascinating. I remember going to hear john dean testify on the Watergate Committee and i sat on the House Judiciary Committee. There was a great sense of solemnity to this. This was a serious issue. Serious investigation was underway. Two Political Parties were different at that stage. The republicans and democrats had liberal and conservative wings. Nixon had a lot of opposition rom liberal from liberal republicans. He got a support from curve scarf democrats. So it was unclear what his status would be. As the house was voting, the Judiciary Committee is considering voting, the Supreme Court ruling said the nixon tapes had to be opened. One of the tapes made it pretty clear to anyone who listened that nixon was part of the coverup to hide the crime committed. So it was not so much the crime committed, the breaking into the democratic conference headquarters, but the fact that the president had authorized payment of hush money to the burglars and had done Everything Possible to obstruct justice after that. So even some of his strongest supporters in the house backed away and said they would support impeachment. Ventually, a group of senators went up to the white house led by Barry Goldwater who was a can kate in 1964 and advised nixon he did not have the votes in the u. S. Senate to sustain himself in an impeachment trial. So the president chose to resign rather than face trial. Senate did not know he would resign. They had spent quite a bit of time writing rules and getting ready to hold a serious hold a serious impeachment trial. Host so it was 25 years later, 1999, bill clinton faced impeachment. Republican house and senate, democratic president. The house voted out two articles of impeachment. Perjury and obstruction of justice. The trial began early january, just like we are right now. What else should we know . Mr. Ritchie it happened at the end of congress and the house of representatives, House Republicans had lost votes in that election. It was not clear what they were about to do. They did not have a big investigation. They depended on the report that was done by Kenneth Starr into the clinton issue. It was thrust on the senate. I remember there was a feeling in the senate, People Holding their breath, hoping it would not come. We in the Historical Office had been doing a lot of research and got the word from on high that it would be better not to make any public statements about this. I think pretty much everybody in the leadership positions of the offices of the senate got the same message. We were waiting to see, hope against hope that the house would not do this. And they did. When they got ready to send the articles of impeachment to the senate shall the senate was adjourned already. There was nobody there except the secretary of the senate to receive the proceedings. They begin the trial in january but it took them a long time to decide had to go about doing it. They went back and looked at the rules of 1868 and they dug out the rules that had been devised in 1974 when they thought they would hold a trial for president nixon. I had done an oral history with floyd riddick, a proletarian of the senate, who spent a lot of time talking about how they would have held nixons trial. They even put cameras in the fwalries long before cspan because they felt they could not hold an impeachment trial if the public did not have an opportunity to watch. Then there were three judges of the 1980s who were impeached. So rules had been revised and brought up to date. Still still this was a unique situation with the president ial impeach, and they would have to meet first before they went into public session, they would senators would have to meet privately to work out those rules. Host this is the first of the president ial impeachment before a divided congress. What is the import . Mr. Ritchie politics is always a part in this. Even though senators take a oath to be impartial, they cant forget what their party is. They cant forget who the president is, which party he belongs to. There is definitely going to be a lot of support among senators for the president of their own arty and opposition from the other party. The house managers have to convince people that this is a gnat act not a political gnat act, and it rises to the level of what the constitution defines as an Impeachable Offense. That has been true regardless of which party controlled which house. In 1999, the republican and Democratic Leaders worked together remarkably well. Senator lott and senator daschle wanted the senate to look good. They wanted it to look more substantial than the house had in its actions, and they worked together and there was a lot more bipartisanship than i think anyone thought was ossible. That unique bipartisan conference in the Old Senate Chamber produced agreement and they voted 1000 on the senate rules. As senator kennedy and senator phil graham of texas came to the conclusion that they didnt have enough agreement to get to home plate, but they did have enough agreement to get to second base. So they would write the rules to get to second base and once they got there, we would write the rules to go home. Host this is probably a related question. In 2020, unlike 1974 and 1999, this is a president ial election year. What does that do to the process . Mr. Ritchie in each of the previous cases, they were in their second terms. Nixon and clinton were constitutionally unable to run for a third term. So it was not going to affect their elections. It might affect the Vice President s and what would happen to them, but this is the first time we have had an impeachment of a president serving in his first term, and who is a possible candidate for reelection. We do not know how the public will react. President clinton in 1999 saw his popularity go up. The public thought he was being unfairly treated and he actually came out of impeachment with a better standing in the polls than before. It is not clear if that would work again, but you cannot count in advance what the public reaction will be. Host we will let the constitution guide the rest of our conversation, starting with the most broad designation of powers to the two bodies by the constitution. The constitution writes the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. Article 1, section 3, the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. What was the thinking of the founders that the impeachment stays in the peoples body . Mr. Ritchie the house initially was the only part of the government directly elected by the people. The president was elected by the electoral college. Still is. Senators were elected by state legislator in those days. So there is the sense the peoples body should decide whether or not someone should be impeached. Impeachment is a form of indictment. Like a grand jury. Then they would go to the senate to hold the trial. But the constitution specifies senators must vote two thirds to remove someone from office. The constitution uses two thirds on a number of occasions to ratify treaties and overturning vetoes. They wanted super majorities in certain cases so it was not strictly a oneparty action. You had to prove your case. You had to convince enough senators to get on board. So that meant you had different requirements, different standards in the house and senate. In the last 200 years, the partyline vote in the house has never produced a bipartisan vote. Vote in the senate. If there is a partyline vote in the us, there likely will be a partyline vote in the senate. The exception is when we have had judges that were overwhelmingly condemned in the house by more than two thirds of the house members. When it came to the senate, they heard evidence and a large enough to thirds majority of senators voted to remove the judges from office. So the numbers are different in the house and senate, but there is an impact. Host we saw how broad the language is in the constitution. Since the house voted in late december to impeach the president , there has been a standoff between the two bodies. Speaker pelosi and mitch mcconnell. What leverage does each body have over the other . Mr. Ritchie senator mcconnell basically said they have no leverage and the senate never felt the house had leverage. The house never felt the senate had leverage over it. They are in position to frustrate each other. The house regularly passes bills that never go anywhere in the senate. There are instances where the house members are very perturbed about the senate but there is not much they can do about it in that case. Right now, we are in a Twilight Zone in between and that is partly because the constitution is more specific about impeachment than it is about most things but it does not say everything. It leaves questions as to when will the articles of impeachment be presented, to whom, how. In the past, it has gone pretty quickly. With clinton, it went so quickly the senate was not even in session when articles were said. Were sent over. This is something for the leaders of the houses to wrangle with each other about. Im not sure i would use the word leverage, but i think it is a tactic that the speaker is using in this case. In one way, it stopped a very quick trial from being held in december, which was what was intimated by the senate at one point. So perhaps the largest impact is to stretch the proceedings out. There are certainly things the house managers want to be able to do and they want the rules of the Senate Proceedings to satisfy them. Interestingly back in 1999 the house managers assumed that because the republicans were the majority in the senate that they would naturally write the rules to favor them, and they didnt. They were very fair and impartial rules. House managers were furious and talked about having to climb up Mount Olympus to get to the senate because the senate was treating itself more loosely. Host since the current wrangling is over rules and you told us in 1999 it was the same process, we have another video clip. This is two former senators in office during the clinton impeachment. Senator dodd of connecticut and senator santorum. They talk about the wrangling. [video clip] these important meetings that rick and i had, in the Old Senate Chamber, no staff or family. Just 100 of us in the room. Several days before the trial began in the senate. We decided we were on trial. We needed to conduct ourselves well. The world was watching how we do this. Not to meppings the american public. I feel very proud of the fact that we found a middle ground. Not everything the house wanted in a trial or everything the Democratic Base wanted, to just not give any recognition of the house, vote it down. People say it is so contentious now. It was contentious then. It was a very, very difficult time. But leaders were able to lead and get their caucus to go along. Host we are hearing this time it might be a partyline vote. On the rules. What is the difference . Mr. Ritchie there was a great sense of relief when the senate voted and the senators came up unanimously with a set of rules. They returned the dignity of the senate. The appearance of what they ere doing. If you voted the party voted to remind people it is a partisan institution. Senator byrd was the most concerned of any senator about the image of the u. S. Senate. He spoke at the beginning of the closed door session in the Old Senate Chamber about why impeachment was so important and serious and why senators had to read the oath they had taken about being impartial and take it seriously. He gave an impassioned speech at the beginning of the session. It helped. Senators cited that is helping hem reach agreement. Senator byrd issued a motion to dismiss the case halfway through. Everyone thought, maybe hes doing this to protect clinton. Senator byrd said he was doing it to protect the senate. He said what we are getting is dueling press conferences by the parties and we are looking partisan. And as rough as the house of representatives. He deplored polarized politics. The senate voted down the motion to dismiss. But it got people back into the seriousness of the trial as well. Host we are already seeing reports of the press someone could move to dismiss. Right at the beginning. Mr. Ritchie senate would have to consider what the public reaction would be. Host a couple of other questions specifically. Once Speaker Pelosi transmits the articles of impeachment, what is the houses process going forward, their role . Mr. Ritchie the house becomes the managers of the bill. It will send over several house members to argue the case. In 1999, henry hyde, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, thought the house Legal Counsel could make the case. The Historical Office, the parliamentarians, the library, the Congressional Research service, we all researched on behalf of the leadership and none of us could find any instance where anybody other than the member of the house of representatives had made a case on the floor. So the house had to change tactics and strategies. Seven house members made presentations. They had 24 hours to make the case and then the president s lawyers would have 24 hours to make its case. It is down to the managers of the case representing the house of representatives. Host one of the managers in 1999 was lindsey graham. Now senator graham. He has been outspoken on the process. Altogether there are 27 members of the United States senate who were in office. Is that number surprising . Mr. Ritchie it is surprising that it was just 21 years ago and so many senators are new to the senate. This shows how quickly the senate seats are turning over these days. I would suspect a much larger percentage of senators in 1999 had been there in 1974. People tended to stay longer. This is a very new process for the majority of senators. For others, it is, here we go again. Theyve been through the process. They know how hard it is. Senators have to spend a lot of time in their seats being quiet. Not what they like to do. Host who defends the president . Mr. Richie the president chooses his defense. He could defend himself but president s lawyers have strongly advised him not to come because you dont want to inflame the situation. So the president stays away and send Legal Counsel. They can be a mix of people. Think the greatest speech given in the 1999 trial was given by a former senator, dale bumpers, who had just left the senate a few weeks before. He was brought back because he had been a senator from arkansas, he worked closely with president clinton, and he gave just a magnificent speech that helped president clinton and helped the democrats stay united on the case. It was also a funny speech. You do not think there would be humor in the midst of a serious trial but senator bumpers had a good southern sense of humor and issued a famous line where he said, when people say it is not about money, its about money. When they say it is not about ex, it is about sex. Host people can watch that speech on the cspan library. Mitch mcconnell has declared his position on the trial and intent to dispose of it quickly. And we have learned he has been meeting with the white house to walk them through the stages of the trial. Does that have Historical Impact . Mr. Richie in the case of Andrew Johnson, he didnt have any support mock the majority party. Host there was no majority leaders back then. Mr. Richie no. There were no majority leaders but there were some senators more equal than others who took the lead. But johnson had supporters among the senators he conferred with. He had lobbyists coming up regularly trying to coordinate his side of the story. Senator daschle worked closely with senator lott to keep proceedings fair. But Democratic Leadership was in contact with the democratic president about what was happening and keeping them informed. You cannot remove the politics from the process. Even though it is also a judicial process and they take an oath to be impartial. Host once the trial gets underway, do the Party Leaders have any specific role . Mr. Ritchie majority leader continue to make motions and suggest a recess or when they ill come back. He will be rising occasionally. Other senators are not to speak. They send written questions to be answered. The majority leader has an occasional reference. In 1999, senator lott at one point tried to adjourn for the day and chief Justice Rehnquist was getting impatient and said he wanted to continue longer and senator lott realized as i majority leader, he was now second to the presiding officer. Host one detail on that motion to dismiss. Would it be a simple majority vote or supermajority . Mr. Ritchie there is no filibustering inside the impeachment. So any vote would be a simple majority vote. The final vote has to be two thirds vote. Host we have known about the impeachment process since the fall. When did senate start getting ready . Mr. Ritchie i cannot say for sure, but i would say the last time around, people were getting ready long before he before before it came to the senate. As soon as it became clear the house was about to act, everyone in the senate began preparing. I would suspect the historians, librarians, library of congress are fully prepared to answer any questions senators would have. Especially the majority and minority leader would have. That was our role last time. Answering thousands of questions inside the senate and from the media and public. So i am sure they are fully prepared for whatever will happen. Host the main role would be communicating with the majority and minority Leaders Office because they will be negotiating rules . Mr. Ritchie exactly. Senators contact us, as well. Senators understood this was a historic moment and they had questions. One senator on his way to a press conference called us from his car because he was concerned about a question he thought would come up and he wanted to make sure he got the answer correctly when he got there. In the senate in general, we all tend to respond to the leadership because they are in charge and the ones calling the shots. Host back to the constitution, we have talked about this a bit. When sitting for that purpose, impeachment, the constitution says they shall be on oath or affirmation and no person set shall be convicted without the conference of two thirds of the membersp present. Lets go back to the oath they ake in 1999. At this time i will administer the oath to all senators in the chamber in conformance with article 1, section 3, clause 6 of the constitution. And the Senate Impeachment rules. Will all senators now stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that in ll things in the impeachment of william clinton, now pend, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help you god. The clerk will call the names and regard the responses. Host every Single Member of the United States senate takes an oath when they take office. Why is there a special oath for this . Mr. Richie the constitution requires a special oath. It requires that it be different from the oath that they take. The constitution spells out the oath the president takes but the oath the Congress Takes is not written. There is a sense this is something different. It is not a legislative day. You are presiding over. You see senator thurmond, stepping aside. And the chief justice of the United States presiding. This is no remind everyone this is not a daily political business of the senate. It is a trial and they are in a sense senator jurors, they are not completely jurors, but they are not completely senators. They are both and they have to keep that in mind. This is one way of trying to impress it on them. Host we already talked about the 2 3 majority needed for the conviction vote. So people following the process. Any other vote that happens along wait in the trial is a simple majority . Mr. Ritchie right. And theres a possibility they might bar the person if they have been removed, they could vote separately to bar them from ever Holding Office again. They have not done that consistently. One member of the house of representatives now was impeached and removed as a federal judge and then went back home and ran for congress and is still serving in congress. Host back to the constitution. We have already seen this in the [video clip]s, it says that when a president of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside. Different than when other officers are impeached. Is this the only time we have a president on trial tried by the members of the house with the majority being in the senate and presented by the chief justice, is this the only time the process all three coequal branches function together . Mr. Ritchie they come together for a state of the union and inaugurations and funerals. And there are occasions when the president will nominate a Supreme Court justice and the Vice President might be setting up to break a tie on the vote. Those are more routine situations. This is the one time where the they cross the line. The constitution forbids anyone from serving in more than one branch of government at the same time with the sole exception of the Vice President , who is the president of the senate. It was a long question as to whether he was part of the legislative or executive branch and the Vice President has migrated away from legislator down to executive. Other than that, we have separation of powers. To have the cheech justice come across the street with his ceremonial robe, which chief Justice Rehnquist doctored up with gold strips, he was impressed apparently by a gilbert and sullivan performance, decided he needed more pizzazz, but he came over to preside. He had written a book about the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial. He was wellversed in what they had done in 1868 and thought they would play the same ole. The parliamentarians of the senate had to explain to him that things had changed in the senate in the century between then and now. They said, the presiding officer of the senate is not a powerful position. The senate is ruled from the floor rather than from the chair. And in fact, the parliamentarians advised the presiding officer on what to say and what to do. They even can turn off his microphone when they try to tell him what they can do. If he was to deviate from that, he could be voted down by a simple majority by the senate. Chase was voted down on a couple of instances. Rehnquist pondered this and realize they were right and performed very well as presiding officer. He got into the spirit of what he could and could not do. He got high marks from senators. Afterwards he apparently said, i did nothing, but i did it very well. Host going back to the point of the Vice President being a member of the senate. Did al gore sit in . Mr. Ritchie no. The Vice President could preside on the senate on any other occasion except that if you remove the president , the person who is going to benefit is the Vice President. So thats the reason why the chief justice rather than the Vice President presides. Vice president gore did not ttend the proceedings. In 1868, the president pro tempore was a snort from ohio, and would he become president if they removed Andrew Johnson. Because there was no Vice President. The president pro temperate in they didnt have a proto elect a Vice President then. The Senate Pro Tem was in the senate then. He was there and active and voted. A lot of people thought he should have recused himself but he really wanted Andrew Johnson out of office. He would have benefited the most. Host with regard to the chief justice, if any of the senators object to the ruling he makes, whats the process . Mr. Ritchie they can object and there can be a vote just as with any other occasion. The clerk will call the roll. If a majority vote against him the ruling of the chair would be overturned. Host Justice Roberts in 1999 was a clerk to chief Justice Rehnquist. And now hes responsible for presiding over the trial. Has the Supreme Court told us anything about the preparation they are making . Mr. Ritchie not really that i know of. Mr. Ritchie not really that i know of. He is very aware of what happened the last time. The senate went on their way to accommodate chief Justice Rehnquist. They provided a room, the room, just off the t off the Senate Chamber, for him to go to and take breaks. But he had a bad back. He told them at the beginning. He had to stand up occasionally. It is not out of disrespect to the senators, but from time to time they realized he was getting tired and they took a break so he could step aside into the room. He brought over the chief Administrative Officer for the Supreme Court as his assistant. Otherwise, it is just a matter of coming across the street to preside. Host will the court be in session while this is happening . I think it was the last time. Mr. Ritchie i believe they were. Host will the senate be doing other business while this is happening . Mr. Ritchie most likely not. The senate can write their own rules and do their own thing but they like to operate on president. If there is a precedent, they can say, we have done it this way before. But they can rewrite rules if they want to. So it is hard to predict what the senate will do. The likelihood is they will follow what they did last time and suspend legislative business during the trial, but if they decide to do differently, they will. Host based on past precedent, howl did the last one take and what might we expect . Mr. Ritchie the Andrew Johnson trial lasted months. March until may. Newspaper reporters who covered the trial said it was so hectic and demanding that the tensions were so high, if given a choice, we would rather cover the gettysburg battle again rather than impeachment. It wore people out and disill loosed meme about the process and both sides of the case and undermined the faith in government on that occasion. The clinton trial was more abridged. It went on from mid january to early february. It was a long time, but not near Andrew Johnsons. I do not think it surprised anyone at the end as it came out. I do not think it disillusioned people the same way that the early one had. It focused a lot of attention. The public can be both interested and Pay Attention, and get bored quickly and lose interest and say, why are they oing this . You never know what the Public Opinion will be. There are more ways for the public to Pay Attention this time. Coverage is complete. You will not be shut out. In the case of the Andrew Johnson trial, so many people wanted to get into the capitol that for the first time they had to print tickets to let you into the galleries. We still print tickets. A special tickets for the clinton impeachment trial. The nixon trial would have had a tv camera if it had taken place. Cspan was in business during the clinton trial. Host cspan2 viewers are very accustomed to the look of the Senate Chamber. Will it look any different during the trial . Mr. Ritchie much more crowded. Instead of the open well in front of the presiding officer, there will be two big tables. One for house managers and one for president s lawyers. Galleries will be packed. Including the press gallery. Whenever i go into the Senate Chamber i look at the press gallery. There might be two or three people sitting there because people can watch proceedings on television. When you go into an impeachment trial, every seat is taken and the press gallery is standing room only. People are packed in. In the clinton trial, we had a whole new group of reporters show up. Internet reporters. Many had never been in the u. S. Capitol building before even though they covered congress. So the press gallery asked me to take them on a tour through the building. I had 20 internet reporters that i took around and showed various places. They went to work on the trial. The reporters who were there all the time complained the internet reporters were taking their seats and talking on their phones and getting in the way. But they were not regulars in the gallery. So there will be a lot of people coming up to see the historical event who will not be regulars. Host and attention will be international. Mr. Ritchie exactly. Streaming and everyone watching. As they were in 1999. The ability to do this is so much greater now. Host organizations like ours or any other News Organization must have credentials from the house and senate to cover events. With widespread interest, how do you manage all the people who would like to cover . Mr. Ritchie it is very difficult. The galleries are run by committees of correspondents, so the press themselves elect people to decide what the rules will be. And issue press passes. It is not the government deciding, it is the press. They will do Everything Possible to accommodate as many as possible. There will be overflow rooms. Im sure they will be making space in the basement for people. They will have to decide where cameras can be placed outside the chamber. And these days, everyone can film with an electronic device. The senate has a rule against using Electronic Devices in the chamber. One hopes everyone will live up to that. There will be lots of problems trying to figure out how to fit everybody who wants to be there into the building with limited space. Host no senators will be tweeting from the floor of the trial. Mr. Ritchie there is a sign before you go in reminding people Electronic Devices are not permitted. From time to time, the parliamentarian has told me they have gotten complaints from viewers of cspan that the presiding officer of the senate is asleep. And they have to send a message that the presiding officer is tweeting under the desk. They are not supposed to but senators trying to maximize their time. Host with regard to tickets for the public, people are thinking they want to be part of history. They will be in high demand. How are they allocated and how long can you stay with the ticket . Mr. Ritchie once you get into the chamber, you can stay as long as you can tolerate it. I am not sure if they will have a section that rotates on a 20 minute basis were not. Usually, once you have a ticket, you are in. But everything is done by members offices and probably senators will be distributing tickets and the house will get some, there will be varieties of ways of doing this. In most cases dealing with congress the best thing to do is to contact your Congress Member if youre interested in getting a ticket. Host what portion will be open and what portion behind closed doors . Mr. Ritchie probably almost everything will be in open session. They have written the rules for the impeachment. There is a push to make everything as public as possible. The one exception in 1999 was the last part of the proceedings in which the senators meeting on the Current Chamber close the doors and turn off cameras and each stood up and gave their summation of how they would vote. What they thought. Pooling the jury, essentially. Those were off the record in closeddoor session. Senators at the time complained and tried to open the doors. They couldnt convince the rest of the senators to go along with it. When the proceedings were over, they published all the speeches. I am not sure any senator declined to have their speech public. Published. Its a very thick book on the proceedings. Host the off the record of speeches were published. It surprised me there was a special book for the impeachment. Mr. Ritchie there are four volumes on the impeachment. Just the speeches the senators gave in that final closeddoor session. Ost who publishes it . Mr. Ritchie published like any other record of the senate and looks like the other records. All the volumes were dedicated to scott bates, the clerk of the senate at the time. The man who called roll who was unfortunately killed in a hitandrun accident in the middle of the trial. They stopped and draped his chair with black and had flowers and everyone went to his funeral. He was a beloved person in the enate. It added to the gravity of the occasion and it was a very nice gesture that they dedicated the publication to him. Host lets move on to the utcomes of this. The senate votes and the vote will be in open session. Lets turn to the constitution for what it says. It says the president , Vice President and civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. You said at the outset it was not a great deal of definition around the terms. What is the role of the prosecutors in this case . Mr. Ritchie they have to convince senators that the offense, the level of offense rises to impeachment. That is what they spent most of their time talking about in the linton case. He lied under oath, he had had an affair, and it was a personal disgrace, but doesnt does it rise to a level of an Impeachable Offense . When the authors of the constitution were working on impeachment, they started with bribery and treason. Everybody agreed on that. Then the question is, can you lift the other possible crimes that might be Impeachable Offenses . I was once at the library in new york and they had a copy of the working draft of the constitution delegates were working from and there was an empty space after high crimes and misdemeanors. Trying to think about what to use. So they tapped into british common law and came up with the british term of high crimes and misdemeanors. T suggests something serious but amorphous so something you have not anticipated might fit into it. It is up to the prosecutors to convince the senators that a high crime or misdemeanor has been committed and this is a serious offense. Host when senators cast their vote, they are doing what . Mr. Ritchie deciding whether or not they have been convinced that the crime fits the constitutional requirement. Senator specter from pennsylvania voted not proven rather than not guilty or guilty. It confused the clerk taking the roll at that stage. It was an old scottish version of saying, i am not convinced, but you have not proven your case. Essentially, you are voting guilty or innocence of the charges. And if it has to be two thirds of the senators to remove a person from office, there is no other penalty that comes with it. No jail term. You might be tried separately for the crime. President ford pardoned president nixon just in case any legal actions were against him. They did not want the president to go to trial or possibly go to prison. But impeachment does not do that. Just immediately removes the person from office and then Vice President is sworn in. Host lets put the language from the constitution here to close this out. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal of office, disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. But the party convicted shall be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to the law. If the president is acquitted, it becomes a political impact. You referred to that earlier. Lets talk about the impact. Mr. Ritchie there is a political way of being impeached. Andrew johnson would have liked to have been nominated. By that point the democrats were his party and he would have been interested in taking the nomination that he did not get. He was elected to the senate again and came back to the senate in the 1870s and was unabashedly in support of his own policies. Served a very short term in the United States senate. Nixon was forced to resign from office and spent the rest of his life trying to justify himself and wrote a lot of books, gave Long Television interviews. Leaving office was a terrible burden for him. Clinton finished his term, continued to serve and in the middle of the trial came up and gave the state of the Union Message as if nothing was going on. Surprised everyone on capitol ill. His standing in the polls went up. Likelihood is his impeachment did not help his Vice President ore. This probably complicated his attempts to run for president himself and probably complicated his wifes attempts to run for president herself. It is a stain that persists. Senator byrd made a statement. When i was reading through the volume i was struck by snard birth was a great institutionalist. He believed in the senate and defended the senate and was really torn. They did it with great dignity and restraint and they made the institution stand a little afterwards. I think something perhaps taking that oath of office and seeing the juror and seeing the chief justice there helps to of sew lemity that can get senators beyond the polarized politics that theyre used to dealing with . The title bear historian emeritus. How much time did you spend in office . Ed States Senate guest from very close to the came in in 1976. Miss being there . Guest kind of. I remember during the impeachment trial. Our betty ed cohen joined our office. We will have a chance to learn on the job. A week later the house impeached phone sident and our began to ring. Our phones rang steadily. It was before the internet made it easy to do research so people could call us with messages. Call us with messages and a week later betty was questions about censure. It was a great way to learn by fire. Kind of like being thrown into the deep water and being forced swim. I am glad i dont have to go through that again. I think once is an enough. Host well, donald ritchie, emeritus, thank you for this hour and giving us an understanding what the senate is about to undertake in the weeks. W appreciate your time. Guest thank you. All q a programs are available on our website or as a podcast. At cspan. Org. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] next sunday on q a well focus on the upcoming new president ial primary and a discussion with joseph mcquaid. Publisher of the New Hampshire union leader tells us about the first in the nation primary and its impact over the years. Thats next sunday night at 8 00 eastern and pacific on cspan. The impeachment of president trump. This week the house will vote on mpeachment managers, sending the articles of impeachment to the senate. Follow the process live on demand at cspan. Org impeachment, and isten on the free cspan radio app. York is democratic representative cheri bustos, the chair of the democratic congreson