Tom Harkin: Senators are not jurors
This is a short informative opinion piece that helps with understanding of the impeachment process.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/18/tom-harkin-senators-are-not-jurors/
...Early in that 1999 trial, I rose on the Senate floor to raise an objection to House members referring to me and my fellow senators as “jurors.” I felt it vital that the role of senators sitting in impeachment be fully understood and based on the Constitution, and not defined by labels being used by the press or by ill-informed House members. Rehnquist upheld my objection, saying, “The Senate is not simply a jury. It is a court in this case. Therefore, counsel should refrain from referring to the senators as jurors.”...
...So, what’s the difference? Consider Article III of the Constitution, which states, “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.” Clearly the Framers did not consider the Senate sitting in trial on impeachment as a “jury.”
Consider also that jurors in a criminal trial cannot ask questions, cannot raise objections and cannot discuss the case outside the jury box with the press or interested parties; jurors only try the facts as presented. And in most cases, they cannot impose a sentence — that is left to the judge....
I also recommend Michael J. Gerhardt's piece, "What impeachment watchers are getting wrong about John Roberts’s role"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-impeachment-watchers-are-getting-wrong-about-john-roberts-role/2020/01/17/25a7f332-395b-11ea-bf30-ad313e4ec754_story.html
I think it's important that we Democrats make sure we thoroughly understand a little used, but incredibly impactful, clause in our Constitution. Especially when we engage with our family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues who don't follow these events as closely as we do. We're going to be educators whether we like it or not in the coming days, possibly weeks.
