Repercussions of the Trump Acquittal

What's your take on the whole impeachment process. I think people looking back at this impeachment will ask themselves whether impeachment can work in an era of great partisanship. And we've seen in this impeachment proceeding much more than in Clinton and much more than in the Nixon debacle, that impeachment is pretty weak vehicle give us. There's deep divisions between the two leading political parties. It's just not a

successful constitutional weapon to overcome partnership. I think that's one lesson to be learned here, and another lesson is that Congress continues to give way more and more power to the executive. One of the two articles of impeachment was contempt of Congress, meaning contempt not only of Democrats, but contempt of Republicans. But the Republicans didn't care. And we will see this continuing shift of power over time to the chief executive and President Trump has made much of

that and will so in the future. What should Americans take away from the process. What I'm afraid is that there will be a faction of people in the United States who will become demoralized from politics even more will shut down the process, believe that there's nothing to be gained from being active, from being engaged, and they will just be alienated. And whether they're alienated in a way

that is destructive of the common good, who knows. I mean, some may be energized, some may become more engaged, but I'm afraid that other people will look at this and say, how can we trust the government processes? No one can get very report thing, no one can get a fair deal, no one can get a fair trial, and they will become sort of marginalized in society more. And I don't

think that will benefit the American public very much. Where the Framers wrong, just wrong to require a two thirds vote I mean, even in the case of Andrew Johnson, the Senate couldn't get a two thirds vote to convict him. One slightly positive thing, I think the narrative of the Republicans have changed over time. I think think that's to the good. The narrative at first was that Trump didn't do anything. The narrative was this isn't a high crim

or misdemeanor. And I think the narrative now has turned to one where impeachment is very serious and this was wrong, but we don't think this is serious enough to be impeachable, and that's their right to do so under history, and I think that line does less damage to impeachment as a tool. And I do think that the two thirds majority was put in because this is a very rare and momentous constitutional action, and so the fact that it's

taken seriously think is good. Obviously there was partisanship involved in this case, but I do think the fact that there is a two thirds majority supermajority will mean, though the impeachment won't be used, probably less and less over time because the hurdle is so high. There was some talk on the Senate floor from Senator Joe Mansion of having a cent your vote against the president, and the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said no, you know, if we've

impeached him, would center have been a good idea? Center may have been a good idea and indeed may have generated a majority of both the House and the Senate. Center was discussed the great length during President Clinton's impeachment as well. The Center, of course, has no impact. It's merely a sense of the Congress that the president has

overceptence spalance. But it does have some public residence, and the public will know that at least the Congress has taken a stand and taking a stand that interference to what the upcoming election should not be countenanced. So in retrospect that might have been more effective result. But I think that the Congress was hoping that there will be witnesses who would change the tide of public feeling and

sentiment and pushed towards removal from office. And of course, the Center would have left the president securely within the confines of the oval office. What does this say? The Senate has been called the world's greatest deliberative body. Is that title up for grabs now? I don't think so. I think that there was a great debate. I don't think the witnesses would have changed that much in terms

of leafs. Obviously, the House didn't have many witnesses. The House committees did, but the House itself did not um and so there weren't I don't think that the reputation of the Senate will be tarnished in new way, except for the fact that the Senate hasn't stood up for its own powers and is letting the President ride rough shot over its goals, whether in foreign affairs or um in particular, but also in trade wars and other issues

during that we've seen during the Trump administration. So you've written about this, What does the Senate do or what does Congress do to get powers back that it's been giving away to the president or letting the president take for decades. There are some lovers in Congress's hands. The

most important is Congress can say no to money. So if President wants money for the wall but Mexico, the Congress can say no. If President wants money for a particular policy in Iraq, the Congress can just say no. So that's the very critical lever. And another one, of course is on appointments. The Senate can say no to individuals for judges whom the president selects, or the Senate say no to treaties that the president wants to make.

So these are some constitutionally based ways that the Senate and of course the House as well can stand on its rights against a president. Of course, they can always pass legislation and force the president to veto it. So, Harold, you said that one of the constitutional levels that Congress has against a president is to say no to money

he wants. When the Congress refused to give President Trump the money to build the wall, he went around and said, I'm taking money from the military and the Department of Defense, and the Supreme Court just said go ahead with that

while the case percolates through the lower courts. And I think it's a great example because the lower courts so far have said that the President has exceeded his constitutional powers in taking those moneys and the sort of define Congress as well with respect to funding the border wall. The Supreme Court allowed the action to continue, um, pending

the case winding its way to the Supreme Court. Um. I think that the President is gonna lose ultimately, and I think that the Supreme Court is just try to step in to make sure that a lot of lower court judges weren't running to halt presidential administration policies before they were ventilated in the courts and found their way

up to the Supreme Court. Um. But I do think that's a great example of where Congress said no, the president bypassed Congress, and the Congress could fight and say no more, We're not going to agree to any more appointments until you we send your policies. Um. Other Congresses have done that, And I think again, and if we see a shift to a Democratic Senate, you'll see those

leverages being used much more effectively than they have. And I think enough for the for the country, it's a good thing to have more of a more of a check and balance between Congress and the president. Speaking about the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts, who of course presided over the impeachment trial, did he manage to

keep himself above the partisan fray? Well, I think the real issue with Chief Justice Chief Justice Roberts is whether his experience with this partisanship will that affect his judging.

He has been a critical fifth vote, swing vote in a number of important Supreme Court cases despite his conservative leanings, because he does care about the integrity of the Supreme Court, and this may sort of further his beliefs that you need to have a separate Supreme Court, untarnished by political leanings in order for the country to run, the government

to run smoothly. So perhaps, if you want to look at a silver lining, maybe this experience will push Chief Justice to ensure that the Court is seen as independent in the upcoming UM months when they start delivering their decisions. So after four months, it seems as if impeachment has helped Trump. His poll numbers have never been higher. What does that say about the process itself and whether the Democrats should have just let it go and not impeach him.

Nancy Pelosi consciously delayed impeachment and rejected others calls for impeachment after the Russian investigation UM for just that reason. She was concerned that a sort of what you might consider a premature UM impeachment would boomerang against democratic interests. Um. She waited, and when the Ukraine scandal emerged, she said, the time is right. We have to move now or or never. Um. Was she wrong? I don't know. I think that at that point she really had no choice

but to continue on with impeachment. She knew was a risk, but I think she Alt and others around her, did such a serious sort of compromise of national security, serious compromise of any kind of ethics um that you had to go forward and take the chance, knowing that the world would be tough, and it turned out to be

perhaps even tougher than you feared. Now after the impeachment may be over, but there are still House investigations of President Trump and how Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler says they'll likely subpoena John Bolton. Are there are there legal problems there can the president of sort executive privilege. Bolton had said that he'll comply with the subpoena from the Senate,

But this is a subpoena from the House. So I think that what John Boldness said is that he would comply with the subpoena if a court would instruct him to. So what he believes is that should be a orderly process to his testimony. So my guess is that if the House subpoena him, subpoenas him, he will invite the President to respond and wait for the court to make

a decision whether he should honor the subpoena. My guess is that the subpoena will be honored, and that Bolden can testify, though a couple of things he might say would be subject to executive privilege, and at that time the president's lawyer can claim privilege um with respect at least parts of his testimony. So that would be my guest.

I think, if you want to speculate in the future, something that may arise but not likely to rise, is what if the next Congress becomes more firmly democratic, would it try to impeach President Trump again based upon the same largely the same evidence that led to the impeachment

this time. We don't know. Impeachment doesn't seem to have a start dat or end date, and it is possible that a strongly democratic Congress in the future could go back with Bolton's testimony new information and decide to reimpeach him. It's never happened in our history, but academics don't know

whether or not the idea of impeachment as time part. Well, suppose let's just say that President Trump becomes even more emboldened by the fact that he was acquitted and does something that the Democrats feel is again an abuse of power. Is there anything stopping them from impeaching him on a whole new set of facts. Oh, there's no question that the Democrats can impeach President Trump again on based on

new facts. But we don't know is whether the impeachment can cover ground for which the Senate has already acquitted. Because the rules i impeachment are not like that those in criminal trials, we don't have any kind of double jeopardy sense or notions. Um So, Congress, the House would be free to impeach President Trump for new reasons, but might also be able to include reasons that that to be equittal in this case. Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law, Harold.

That's Harold Granted, profess with the Chicago Kent College of Law and author of the book Presidential Powers.