    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Congress]
    [117th Congress]
    [House Document 116-177]
    [Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
    [Pages 322-343]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    * * * * *
                             sec. liii--impeachment

    Sec. 601. Jurisdiction of Lords and Commons as
    to impeachments.

      These are the  provisions of the Constitution of the United States
    on the subject of impeachments. The following is a sketch of some of the
    principles and practices of England on the same subject:

    [[Page 323]]

    cause they are the judges. Seld. Judic. in Parl., 12, 63. Nor can they
    proceed against a commoner but on complaint of the Commons. Ib., 84. The
    Lords may not, by the law, try a commoner for a capital offense, on the
    information of the King or a private person, because the accused is
    entitled to a trial by his peers generally; but on accusation by the
    House of Commons, they may proceed against the delinquent, of whatsoever
    degree, and whatsoever be the nature of the offense; for there they do
    not assume to themselves trial at common law. The Commons are then
    instead of a jury, and the judgment is given on their demand, which is
    instead of a verdict. So the Lords do only judge, but not try the
    delinquent. Ib., 6, 7. But Wooddeson denies that a commoner can now be
    charged capitally before the Lords, even by the Commons; and cites
    Fitzharris's case, 1681, impeached of high treason, where the Lords
    remitted the prosecution to the inferior court. 8 Grey's Deb., 325-7; 2
    Wooddeson, 576, 601; 3 Seld., 1604, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1641; 4 Blackst.,
    25; 9 Seld., 1656; 73 Seld., 1604-18.
      Jurisdiction. The Lords can not impeach any to themselves, nor join in
    the accusation, be

    [[Page 324]]

    the articles will be exhibited, and desires that the delinquent may be
    sequestered from his seat, or be committed, or that the peers will take
    order for his appearance. Sachev. Trial, 325; 2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords'
    Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616; 6 Grey, 324.

    Sec. 602. Parliamentary law as to accusation
    in impeachment.

      Accusation. The  Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, becomes
    suitors for penal justice. 2 Wood., 597; 6 Grey, 356. The general course
    is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the
    supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to impeach him by
    oral accusation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the
    Commons. The person signifies that

    [[Page 325]]

    ant to a special order of business only several days after the
    underlying conduct occurred (Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).

    Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the
    House.

      In the  House various events have been credited with setting an
    impeachment in motion: charges made on the floor on the responsibility
    of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526,
    528, 535, 536); charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually
    referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496,
    2499, 2515; VI, 543); a resolution introduced by a Member and referred
    to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); a
    message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); charges
    transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory
    (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or facts developed and
    reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444).
    In the 93d Congress, the Vice President sought to initiate an
    investigation by the House of charges against him of possibly
    impeachable offenses. The Speaker and the House took no action on the
    request because the matter was pending in the courts and the offenses
    did not relate to activities during the Vice President's term of office
    (Sept. 25, 1973, p. 31368; III, 2510 (wherein the Committee on the
    Judiciary, to which the matter had been referred by privileged
    resolution, reported that the Vice President could not be impeached for
    acts or omissions committed before his term of office)). On the other
    hand, in 1826 the Vice President's request that the House investigate
    charges against his prior official conduct as Secretary of War was
    referred, on motion, to a select committee (III, 1736). On September 9,
    1998, an independent counsel transmitted to the House under 28 U.S.C.
    595(c) a communication containing evidence of alleged impeachable
    offenses by the President. The House adopted a privileged resolution
    reported by the Committee on Rules referring the communication to the
    Committee on the Judiciary, restricting Members' access to the
    communication, and restricting access to committee meetings and hearings
    on the communication (H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the
    House adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on the
    Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee (H. Res.
    581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). In the first impeachment of President
    Trump, the House adopted a privileged resolution reported from the
    Committee on Rules directing sundry committees to continue their ongoing
    investigations as part of an existing inquiry into potential grounds for
    impeachment (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _). In the second
    impeachment of President Trump, the House considered an unreported
    resolution containing a single article of impeachment pursu

      A resolution disapproving of the conduct of the Speaker with respect
    to the initiation of an impeachment inquiry constitues a question of the
    privileges of the House (Sept. 25, 2019, p. _; Sept. 27, 2019, p. _).

    Sec. 604. A proposition to impeach a question of
    privilege.

      A direct  proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in
    the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the
    rules governing the order of business (III, 2045-2048, 2051, 2398; VI,
    468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989,
    p. 8814; Sept. 23, 1998, pp. 21560-62; Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29817; June 10,
    2008, p. 12053; July 15, 2008, pp. 15084, 15086; Dec. 6, 2016, p. _;
    Dec. 6, 2017, p. _; Jan. 19, 2018, p. _; July 17, 2019, p. _); see
    Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 8). It may not even be superseded by an election
    case, which is also a matter of high privilege (III, 2581). It does not
    lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been
    made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 2408;
    July 15, 2008, pp. 15084, 15086 (see June 10, 2008, p. 12053)), previous
    action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053). As such, a report of
    the Committee on the Judiciary accompanying an impeachment resolution is
    filed as privileged (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819; Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). A
    proposition to impeach may be called up as privileged (Dec. 18, 1998, p.
    27828) or considered pursuant to a special order of business reported by
    the Committee on Rules (Dec. 18, 2019, p. _; Jan. 13, 2021, p. _). The
    addition of new articles of impeachment offered by the managers but not
    reported by committee is also privileged (III, 2418), as is a
    proposition to refer to committee the papers and testimony in an
    impeachment of the preceding Congress (V, 7261). After having recognized
    an impeachment resolution as a question of the privileges of the House,
    the Chair refused to respond to an inquiry regarding the substance of
    the resolution, that being a matter for the House by its disposition of
    the matter (Dec. 6, 2016, p. _). To a privileged resolution of
    impeachment, an amendment proposing instead censure, which is not
    privileged, was held not germane (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28107). On several
    occasions the Committee on the Judiciary, having been referred a
    question of impeachment, reported a recommendation that impeachment was
    not warranted and, thereafter, called up the report as a question of
    privilege (Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 1.3). Under an expired provision of
    law an independent counsel appointed to investigate the President was
    subject to impeachment (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21560). A resolution
    impeaching the United States Ambassador to the United Nations (July 13,
    1978, p. 20606) or the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service
    (Dec. 6, 2016, p. _) constitutes a question of the privileges of the
    House under rule IX.

    [[Page 326]]

    abatement of impeachment proceedings (VI, 514), reappointing managers
    for impeachment proceedings continued in the Senate from the previous
    Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2),
    empowering managers to hire special legal and clerical personnel and
    providing for their pay, and to carry out other responsibilities (Jan.
    3, 1989, p. 84; Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240), and
    replacing an excused manager (Feb. 7, 1989, p. 1726); but a resolution
    simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment may be a
    possible consequence, is not privileged (III, 2050, 2546; VI, 468). The
    House has adopted special orders of business: (1) providing for the
    consideration of a specified proposition relating to an impeachment once
    made and denying privilege to any other such proposition (sec. 3, H.
    Res. 767, Dec. 18, 2019, p. _); and (2) providing for the adoption of a
    specified proposition relating to an impeachment upon adoption of an
    article of impeachment and denying privilege to any other such
    proposition (sec. 3, H. Res. 41, Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).
      Propositions relating to an impeachment already made also are
    privileged (III, 2400, 2402, 2410; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Dec. 2,
    1987, p. 33720; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206), such as resolutions providing
    for selection of managers of an impeachment (VI, 517; Dec. 19, 1998, p.
    28112), proposing

      Where a resolution of investigation positively proposes impeachment or
    suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege (III, 2051,
    2052, 2401, 2402), such as a resolution reported by the Committee on the
    Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee and
    investing the committee with special investigative authorities to
    facilitate the inquiry (III, 2029; VI, 498, 528, 549; Deschler, ch. 14,
    Sec. Sec. 5.8, 6.2; H. Res. 581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). A committee to
    which has been referred privileged resolutions for the impeachment of an
    officer may call up as privileged resolutions incidental to
    consideration of the impeachment question, including conferral of
    subpoena authority and funding of the investigation from the contingent
    fund (now referred to as ``applicable accounts of the House described in
    clause 1(k)(1) of rule X'') (VI, 549; Feb. 6, 1974, p. 2349). Similarly,
    a resolution authorizing depositions by committee counsel in an
    impeachment inquiry is privileged under rule IX as incidental to
    impeachment (Speaker Wright, Oct. 3, 1988, p. 27781).

    [[Page 327]]

    under 28 U.S.C. 595(c) a communication containing evidence of alleged
    impeachable offenses by the President, the House adopted a resolution
    reported by the Committee on Rules referring the communication to the
    Committee on the Judiciary to conduct a review (H. Res. 525, 106th
    Cong., Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the House adopted a privileged
    resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary authorizing an
    impeachment inquiry by that committee (H. Res. 581, Oct. 8, 1998, pp.
    24679, 24735) The House has adopted a privileged resolution reported by
    the Committee on Rules directing sundry committees to continue ``ongoing
    investigations'' as part of an ``existing'' impeachment inquiry (H. Res.
    660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _). In the second impeachment of President Trump,
    the House did not pursue any formal committee investigation or
    impeachment inquiry.

    Sec. 605. Investigation of impeachment
    charges.

      The impeachment  having been made on the floor by a Member (III, 2342, 2400;
    VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536), or charges suggesting impeachment having
    been made by memorial (III, 2495, 2516, 2520; VI, 552), or even
    appearing through common fame (III, 2385, 2506), the House has at times
    ordered an investigation at once. At other times it has refrained from
    ordering investigation until the charges had been examined by a
    committee (III, 2364, 2488, 2491, 2492, 2494, 2504, 2513) or has
    referred to committee an impeachment resolution raised as a question of
    privilege (Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29820; June 10, 2008, p. 12072 and June 11,
    2008, p. 12218). Under the later practice, resolutions introduced
    through the hopper that directly call for the impeachment of an officer
    have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but resolutions
    calling for an investigation by that committee or by a select committee
    with a view toward impeachment have been referred to the Committee on
    Rules (Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873). Upon receipt of a communication from an
    independent counsel transmitting to the House

    Sec. 606. Procedure of committee in
    investigating.

      The House has  almost always examined the charges by its own committee
    before it has voted to impeach (III, 2294, 2487, 2501). This committee
    has sometimes been a select committee (III, 2342, 2487, 2494), sometimes
    a standing committee (III, 2400, 2409). In some instances the committee
    has made its inquiry ex parte (III, 2319, 2343, 2366, 2385, 2403, 2496,
    2511); but in the later practice the sentiment of committees has been in
    favor of permitting the accused to explain, present witnesses, cross-
    examine (III, 2445, 2471, 2518), and be represented by counsel (III,
    2470, 2501, 2511, 2516; 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219; H. Rept.
    105-830, Dec. 16, 1998; H. Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). The
    Committee on the Judiciary having been directed by the House to
    investigate whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of
    President Nixon, and the President having resigned following the
    decision of that committee to recommend his impeachment to the House,
    the chair of the committee submitted from the floor as privileged the
    committee's report containing the articles of impeachment approved by
    the committee but without an accompanying resolution of impeachment. The
    House thereupon adopted a resolution (1) taking notice of the
    committee's action on a resolution and Articles of Impeachment and of
    the President's resignation; (2) accepting the report and authorizing
    its printing, with additional views; and (3) commending the chair and
    members of the committee for their efforts (Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29361). In
    the first impeachment of President Trump, the House adopted a privileged
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules directing sundry
    committees to continue ongoing investigations, and directed the
    Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to conduct specified
    investigatory proceedings and to transmit a report of its findings to
    the Committee on the Judiciary for use in the second phase of the
    impeachment inquiry (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _).

    [[Page 328]]

    or Senate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829). A resolution setting forth separate
    articles of impeachment may be divided among the articles (e.g., Dec.
    19, 1998, p. 28110; Mar. 11, 2010, p. 3153; Dec. 18, 2019, p. _).

    Sec. 606a. Procedure of House in
    considering.

      During the  pendency of an impeachment resolution, remarks in debate
    may include references to personal misconduct on the part of the
    President but may not include language generally abusive toward the
    President and may not include comparisons to the personal conduct of
    sitting Members of the House

    Sec. 607. Impeachment carried to the
    Senate.

      Its committee  on investigation having reported, the House may vote the
    impeachment (III, 2367, 2412; VI, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3067-91),
    and, after having notified the Senate by message (III, 2413, 2446), may
    direct the impeachment to be presented at the bar of the Senate by a
    single Member (III, 2294), or by two (III, 2319, 2343, 2367), five (III,
    2445), seven (III, 2448, 2475; Jan. 15, 2020, p. _), nine (July 22,
    1986, p. 17306; Jan. 13, 2021, p. _), 11 (III, 2300, 2323), or 13 (Dec.
    19, 1998, p. 28112). These Members in several notable cases represented
    the majority party alone (e.g., Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112), but ordinarily
    include representation of the minority party (III, 2445, 2472, 2505).
    Under early practice the House elected managers by ballot (III, 2300,
    2323, 2345, 2368, 2417). In two instances the Speaker appointed the
    managers on behalf of the House pursuant to an order of the House (III,
    2388, 2475). Since 1912 the House has adopted a resolution appointing
    managers. In the later practice the House considers together the
    resolution and articles of impeachment (VI, 499, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936,
    pp. 3067-91) and following their adoption adopts resolutions electing
    managers to present the articles before the Senate, notifying the Senate
    of the adoption of articles and election of managers, and authorizing
    the managers to prepare for and to conduct the trial in the Senate (VI,
    500, 514, 517; Mar. 6, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394; July 22, 1986, p. 17306;
    Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206). These privileged incidental resolutions may be
    merged into a single, indivisible privileged resolution (H. Res. 614,
    Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2; H. Res.
    798, Jan. 15, 2020, p. _; H. Res. 40, Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).

    Sec. 608. Impeachment process in the
    Senate.

      Process. If the  party do not appear, proclamations are to be issued, giving
    him a day to appear. On their return they are strictly examined. If any
    error be found in them, a new proclamation issues, giving a short day.
    If he appear not, his goods may be arrested, and they may proceed. Seld.
    Jud. 98, 99.

    [[Page 329]]

    Sec. 608a. First Senate impeachment proceedings against
    President Trump.

      Under  an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate
    informed the House and the Chief Justice that it was ready to receive
    the House managers for the purpose of exhibiting articles of impeachment
    against President Trump (Jan. 15, 2020, p. _). The House managers
    presented the articles of impeachment by reading two resolutions as
    follows: (1) the appointment of managers (H. Res. 798, Jan. 16, 2020, p.
    _); and (2) the two articles of impeachment (H. Res. 755, Jan. 16, 2020,
    p. _).

      The Senate adopted a resolution governing the initial impeachment
    trial proceedings of President Trump following the tabling of multiple
    amendments to that resolution (S. Res. 483, Jan. 21, 2020, p. _). The
    resolution addressed: (1) the composition of the evidentiary record; (2)
    a timetable for motions, arguments, and presentations by House managers
    and President's counsel; (3) a time period for Senators to question the
    parties; (4) a separate time period on the question of whether the
    Senate would subpoena witnesses or documents; and (5) a process for
    deposing subpoenaed witnesses and determining whether they should
    testify at the trial. During debate on that resolution, the Chief
    Justice admonished the House managers and the President's counsel for
    breaches of decorum, citing in part a similar admonishment in the 1905
    impeachment trial of Judge Swayne for use of the term ``pettifogging''
    (Jan. 21, 2020, p. _; III, 2169). Upon an announcement by the Chief
    Justice pursuant to the terms of the governing resolution, a classified
    document identified by House managers was made available at the trial
    but was not made public or printed (Jan. 22, 2020, p. _). The Senate
    trial of President Trump featured a historical and legal argument from
    the independent counsel who had led the investigation of President
    Clinton which formed the basis for his impeachment in 1998 (Jan. 27,
    2020, p. _). The trial also featured questions from Senators and
    argument on the validity of House subpoenas issued before the House had
    adopted a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry (Jan. 29, 2020,
    p. _; Jan. 30, 2020, p. _). The Chief Justice refused to read a question
    from a Senator that revealed the name of a whistleblower involved in the
    impeachment charges (Jan. 30, 2020, p. _). The Senate rejected a motion
    to allow for subpoenas of witnesses and documents (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _).

    [[Page 330]]

      The Senate adopted a second resolution governing the remaining
    impeachment trial proceedings (S. Res. 488, Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Such
    resolution: (1) closed the evidentiary record; (2) provided for final
    arguments; (3) provided for the adjournment of the Court of Impeachment;
    and (4) provided for a vote on the articles of impeachment. The Chief
    Justice responded to a parliamentary inquiry by advising that after
    reviewing the precedents he did not view it as appropriate for a Chief
    Justice, an unelected official from another branch of government, to
    break a tie and change the result of a vote of the elected Members of
    the Senate (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Counsel for the President in closing
    arguments alleged that the House Committee on the Judiciary had violated
    the rules of the House in not providing for a minority day of hearing
    (Feb. 3, 2020, p. _). Following closing arguments, the Senate Clerk read
    each article and each Senator voted ``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' on each
    article (Feb. 5, 2020, p. _). The Senate adjudged President Trump not
    guilty by a vote of 48-52 on the first article and 47-53 on the second
    article (Feb. 5, 2020, p. _). By order of the Senate, the Secretary of
    the Senate communicated the judgment of the Senate to the House (Feb. 5,
    2020, p. _).

    Sec. 608b. Second Senate impeachment proceedings against
    President Trump.

      Under  an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate
    informed the House that it was ready to receive the House managers for
    the purpose of exhibiting the article of impeachment against former
    President Trump (Jan. 21, 2021, p. p. _). The House managers presented
    the article of impeachment by reading two resolutions as follows: (1)
    the appointment of managers (H. Res. 40, Jan. 25, 2021, p. _); and (2)
    the article of impeachment (H. Res. 24, Jan. 25, 2021, p. _).

      The President pro tempore of the Senate presided over the impeachment
    trial (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The Senate tabled a threshold point of
    order that the impeachment trial of a former President was
    unconstitutional after the President pro tempore presented the question
    directly to the body (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The Senate then adopted a
    resolution governing the initial impeachment trial proceedings (S. Res.
    16, Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The resolution: (1) set the timing of the
    impeachment trial for two weeks hence; (2) set a timetable for various
    trial briefs by House managers and President's counsel; (3) directed
    that any trial briefs include argument on the jurisdiction of the
    Senate's ability to sit as a Court of Impeachment with respect to the
    trial of a former President for acts committed as President; and (4)
    directed parties to prepare to address the question of jurisdiction at
    the outset of the trial proceedings. Prior to the start of the trial,
    the Senate adopted a second resolution governing the trial proceedings
    (S. Res. 47, Feb. 9, 2021, p. _). That resolution addressed: (1) the
    composition of the evidentiary record; (2) initial argument on the
    question of whether the former President was subject to the jurisdiction
    of the Senate as a Court of Impeachment for conduct while President,
    with an automatic vote at the end of such argument and immediate
    dismissal of the article of impeachment upon a determination, by
    majority vote with a quorum present, that the Senate had no
    jurisdiction; (3) a timetable for motions, arguments, and presentations
    by House managers and President's counsel in the case of a vote in favor
    of jurisdiction; (4) a time period for Senators to question the parties;
    (5) a separate time period on the question of whether the Senate would
    subpoena witnesses or documents; (6) a process for deposing subpoenaed
    witnesses and determining whether they should testify at the trial; (7)
    a motion by the House managers to admit additional materials into the
    evidentiary record; (8) a time period for final arguments; (9) convening
    on a specified Sunday if the trial was not yet resolved; and (10) the
    provision of a vote on the article of impeachment.

    [[Page 331]]

    invoked a newspaper article referencing a call placed to a sitting
    Senator, causing that Senator to attempt to move that the remarks of the
    managers be stricken from the Record (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _). The
    President pro tempore responded by ruling that the managers'
    presentation was not limited to the evidentiary record already provided,
    which was appealed by the moving Senator (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _).
    Following a quorum call, the Senator withdrew his appeal and the House
    managers agreed to withdraw the relevant portion of the presentation
    without prejudice to raise the issue at a later time (Feb. 10, 2021, p.
    _).
      By a vote of 56-44 the Senate determined that it had jurisdiction to
    sit as a Court of Impeachment with respect to former President Trump
    following arguments from the House managers relying in large part on the
    precedent of William Belknap (see Sec. 174, supra), and the President
    pro tempore announced that the trial would proceed (Feb. 9, 2021, p. _).
    The House managers relied on numerous video presentations of the attack
    on the Capitol building on January 6, 2021, in their initial
    presentation (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _). As part of their presentation, the
    House managers

      Following the initial presentations, the Senate agreed by unanimous
    consent to structure the question response periods (Feb. 12, 2021, p.
    _). During the questioning period, the President pro tempore took the
    initiative to remind Senators of the admonition of Chief Justice Roberts
    from the first impeachment trial of President Trump regarding civility
    in debate (Feb. 12, 2021, p. _; see Sec. 608a, supra). Following the
    question period, the House managers offered a motion to subpoena a
    current Member of the House as a witness following reports of a phone
    call on the day of the violent attack on the Capitol that was
    purportedly relevant to the House managers' case (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _).
    Following debate regarding the viability of virtual depositions and a
    call for order from the President pro tempore, the Senate voted 55-45 to
    allow a motion to subpoena witnesses or documents under the rules of
    impeachment (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). After a short recess, the Senate
    returned and, in exchange for the entry into evidence of a statement
    from the current Member of the House regarding the phone call in
    question, the House managers agreed to forego any motions to subpoena
    witnesses, and the parties proceeded to closing arguments (Feb. 13,
    2021, p. _). During the House managers' closing argument, the phone call
    involving the sitting Senator was again raised. The Senator attempted to
    engage in debate, and then appealed the ruling of the President pro
    tempore that debate was not in order (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). He
    eventually withdrew his appeal and the President pro tempore directed
    that the remarks be stricken from the record on the grounds that the
    evidentiary record was closed and that new evidence could not be raised
    during the closing argument (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). Following closing
    arguments, the Senate Clerk read the article and each Senator voted
    ``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' thereon (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). The Senate
    adjudged President Trump not guilty on the charge of incitement of
    insurrection by a vote of 57-43 in favor of conviction (less than two-
    thirds) (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). By order of the Senate, the Secretary of
    the Senate communicated the judgment of the Senate to the House (Feb.
    13, 2021, p. _).

    [[Page 332]]

    Sec. 608c. Senate impeachment proceedings against
    President Clinton.

      In the  impeachment trial of President Clinton, the Senate
    adjudged President Clinton not guilty by a vote of 45-55 on the first
    article and a vote of 50-50 on the second article (Feb. 12, 1999, p.
    2375). For a procedural history of that trial, see Sec. 608a of the
    House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

      See S. Doc. 93-102, ``Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials
    in the United States Senate,'' for precedents relating to the conduct of
    Senate impeachments.

    Sec. 609. Exhibition and form of
    articles.

      Articles. The accusation  (articles) of the Commons is substituted in place of an
    indictment. Thus, by the usage of Parliament, in impeachment for writing
    or speaking, the particular words need not be specified. Sach. Tr., 325;
    2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616.

      Having delivered the impeachment, the committee returns to the House
    and reports verbally (III, 2413, 2446; VI, 501). Formerly, the House
    exhibited its articles after the impeachment had been carried to the bar
    of the Senate; in the later practice, the resolution and articles of
    impeachment have been considered together and exhibited simultaneously
    in the Senate by the managers (VI, 501, 515; Mar. 10, 1936, pp. 3485-88;
    Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29126; Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). The managers, who are
    elected by the House (III, 2300, 2345, 2417, 2448; VI, 500, 514, 517;
    Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394) or appointed by the Speaker (III, 2388,
    2475), carry the articles in obedience to a resolution of the House
    (III, 2417, 2419, 2448) to the bar of the Senate (III, 2420, 2449,
    2476), the House having previously informed the Senate (III, 2419, 2448)
    and received a message informing them of the readiness of the latter
    body to receive the articles (III, 2078, 2325, 2345; Aug. 6, 1986, p.
    19335; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240). Having exhibited the articles the managers
    return and report verbally to the House (III, 2449, 2476).

      The articles in the Belknap impeachment were held sufficient, although
    attacked for not describing the respondent as one subject to impeachment
    (III, 2123). In the proceedings against Judge Ritter, objections to the
    articles of impeachment, on the ground that they duplicated and
    accumulated separate offenses, were overruled (Apr. 3, 1936, p. 4898;
    Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606). These articles are signed by the Speaker and
    attested by the Clerk (III, 2302, 2449), and in form approved by the
    practice of the House (III, 2420, 2449, 2476).

      Articles of impeachment that have been exhibited to the Senate may be
    subsequently modified or amended by the House (VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936,
    pp. 4597-99), and a resolution proposing to amend articles of
    impeachment previously adopted by the House is privileged for
    consideration when reported by the managers on the part of the House
    (VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936, p. 4597).

    [[Page 333]]

    of the House managers in support of the impeachments of President Trump,
    and related matters, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a discussion of
    the same with respect to the impeachment of President Clinton, see
    Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc.
    115-177).

      For discussion of substantive charges contained in articles of
    impeachment and the constitutional grounds for impeachment, see
    Sec. 175, supra (accompanying Const., art. II, sec. 4). For a discussion
    of the presentation

    Sec. 610. Parliamentary law as to appearance
    of respondent.

      Appearance. If he  appear, and the case be capital, he answers in custody;
    though not if the accusation be general. He is not to be committed but
    on special accusations. If it be for a misdemeanor only, he answers, a
    lord in his place, a commoner at the bar, and not in custody, unless, on
    the answer, the Lords find cause to commit him, till he finds sureties
    to attend, and lest he should fly. Seld. Jud., 98, 99. A copy of the
    articles is given him, and a day fixed for his answer. T. Ray.; 1
    Rushw., 268; Fost., 232; 1 Clar. Hist. of the Reb., 379. On a
    misdemeanor, his appearance may be in person, or he may answer in
    writing, or by attorney. Seld. Jud., 100. The general rule on accusation
    for a misdemeanor is, that in such a state of liberty or restraint as
    the party is when the Commons complain of him, in such he is to answer.
    Ib., 101. If previously committed by the commons, he answers as a
    prisoner. But this may be called in some sort judicium parium suorum.
    Ib. In misdemeanors the party has a right to counsel by the common law,
    but not in capital cases. Seld. Jud., 102, 105.

    [[Page 334]]

    compelled to appear (III, 2308), but the trial proceeds as on a plea of
    ``not guilty.'' The writ of summons to the accused recites the articles
    and notifies the accused to appear at a fixed time and place and file an
    answer (III, 2127). In all cases respondent may appear by counsel (III,
    2129), and in one trial, when a petition set forth that respondent was
    insane, the counsel of his son was admitted to be heard and present
    evidence in support of the petition, but not to make argument (III,
    2333). For a discussion of answers, arguments, and presentations of the
    respondent in the Trump impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 608a-
    608b, supra. For a discussion of the same with respect to the Clinton
    impeachment proceedings, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for
    the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

    Sec. 611. Requirements of the Senate as to
    appearance of respondent.

      This paragraph  of the parliamentary law is largely obsolete
    so far as the practice of the House and the Senate are concerned. The
    accused may appear in person or by attorney (III, 2127, 2349, 2424), and
    take the stand (VI, 511, 524; Apr. 11, 1936, pp. 5370-86; Oct. 7, 1986,
    p. 29149), or may not appear at all (III, 2307, 2333, 2393). In case the
    accused does not appear the House does not ask that the accused be

      The chair of the committee impeaches at the bar of the Senate by oral
    accusation (III, 2413, 2446, 2473), and the managers for the House
    attend in the Senate after the articles have been exhibited and demand
    that process issue for the attendance of respondent (III, 2451, 2478),
    after which they return and report verbally to the House (III, 2423,
    2451; VI, 501). The Senate thereupon issue a writ of summons, fixing the
    day of return (III, 2423, 2451; S. Res. 16, Jan. 8, 1999, p. 349); and
    in a case wherein the respondent did not appear by person or attorney
    the Senate published a proclamation for him to appear (III, 2393). But
    the respondent's goods were not attached. In only one case has the
    parliamentary law as to sequestration and committal been followed (III,
    2118, 2296), later inquiry resulting in the conclusion that the Senate
    had no power to take into custody the body of the accused (III, 2324,
    2367).

    Sec. 612. Answer of respondent.

      Answer. The  answer need not
    observe great strictness of the form. He may plead guilty as to part,
    and defend as to the residue; or, saving all exceptions, deny the whole
    or give a particular answer to each article separately. 1 Rush., 274; 2
    Rush., 1374; 12 Parl. Hist., 442; 3 Lords' Journ., 13 Nov., 1643; 2
    Wood., 607. But he cannot plead a pardon in bar to the impeachment. 2
    Wood., 615; 2 St. Tr., 735.

    [[Page 335]]

    but denying that they set forth impeachable offenses (Jan. 14, 1999, pp.
    359-361). Blount and Belknap demurred to the charges on the ground that
    they were not civil officers within the meaning of the Constitution
    (III, 2310, 2453), and Swayne also raised questions as to the
    jurisdiction of the Senate (III, 2481). The answer is part of the
    pleadings, and exhibits in the nature of evidence may not properly be
    attached thereto (III, 2124). The answer of the respondent in
    impeachment proceedings is messaged to the House and subsequently
    referred to the managers on the part of the House (VI, 506; Apr. 6,
    1936, p. 5020; Sept. 9, 1986, p. 22317).
      In the Senate proceedings of the impeachment of President Andrew
    Johnson, the answer of the President took up the articles one by one,
    denying some of the charges, admitting others but denying that they set
    forth impeachable offenses, and excepting to the sufficiency of others
    (III, 2428). The form of this answer was commented on during preparation
    of the replication in the House (III, 2431). In the Senate proceedings
    on the impeachment of President Clinton, the answer of the President
    also took up the articles one by one, denying some of the charges and
    admitting others

      For a chronology of arguments and presentations of the respondent in
    the Trump impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a
    chronology of the same with respect to the Clinton impeachment
    proceedings, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for the 116th
    Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

    Sec. 613. Other pleadings.

      Replication, rejoinder,  &c. There
    may be a replication, rejoinder, &c. Sel. Jud., 114; 8 Grey's Deb., 233;
    Sach. Tr., 15; Journ. H. of Commons, 6 March, 1640-1.

      A replication is always filed (for the form of replication in modern
    practice, see Sept. 26, 1988, p. 25357), and in one instance the
    pleadings proceeded to a rejoinder, surrejoinder, and similiter (III,
    2455). A respondent also has filed a protest instead of pleading on the
    merits (III, 2461), but there was objection to this and the Senate
    barely permitted it. In another case respondent interposed a plea as to
    jurisdiction of offenses charged in certain articles, but declined to
    admit that it was a demurrer with the admissions pertinent thereto (III,
    2125, 2431). In the Belknap trial the House was sustained in averring in
    pleadings as to jurisdiction matters not averred in the articles (III,
    2123). The right of the House to allege in the replication matters not
    touched in the articles has been discussed (III, 2457). In the
    Louderback (VI, 522) and Ritter (Apr. 6, 1936, p. 4971) impeachment
    proceedings, the managers on the part of the House prepared and
    submitted the replication to the Senate without its consideration by the
    House, contrary to former practice (VI, 506). The Senate may consider in
    closed session various preliminary motions made by respondent (e.g., to
    declare the Senate rule on appointment of a committee to receive
    evidence to be unconstitutional, to declare beyond a reasonable doubt as
    the standard of proof in an impeachment trial, and to postpone the
    impeachment trial) before voting in open session to dispose of those
    motions (Oct. 7, 8, 1986, pp. 29151, 29412).

    [[Page 336]]

      For a chronology of disposition of motions in the Senate under its
    impeachment rules during the impeachment of President Trump, see
    Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a chronology of the same with respect to
    the impeachment of President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules
    and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

    Sec. 614. Examination of witnesses.

      Witnesses. The  practice
    is to swear the witnesses in open House, and then examine them there; or
    a committee may be named, who shall examine them in committee, either on
    interrogatories agreed on in the House, or such as the committee in
    their discretion shall demand. Seld. Jud., 120, 123.

      In trials before the Senate witnesses have always been examined in
    open Senate, although examination by a committee has been suggested
    (III, 2217) and utilized (S. Res. 38, 101st Cong., Mar. 16, 1989, p.
    4533). In the 74th Congress, the Senate amended its rules for
    impeachment trials to allow the presiding officer, upon the order of the
    Senate, to appoint a committee to receive evidence and take testimony in
    the trial of any impeachment (May 28, 1935, p. 8309). In the trial of
    Judge Claiborne the Senate directed the appointment of a committee of
    twelve Senators to take evidence and testimony pursuant to rule XI of
    the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on
    Impeachment Trials (S. Res. 481, Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22035); and in Nixon
    v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the Supreme Court refused to
    declare unconstitutional the appointment of such a committee to take
    evidence and testimony.

      For a chronology of motions to subpoena witnesses during the Senate
    impeachment proceedings against President Trump, see Sec. Sec. 608a-
    608b, supra. For a chronology of the same with respect to Senate
    impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the
    House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

    [[Page 337]]

    linquent doth put himself on the trial of his country, a jury ought to
    be impaneled, and he adds that it is not so on impeachment by the
    Commons, for they are in loco proprio, and there no jury ought to be
    impaneled. Id., 124. The Ld. Berkeley, 6 E., 3, was arraigned for the
    murder of L. 2, on an information on the part of the King, and not on
    impeachment of the Commons; for then they had been patria sua. He waived
    his peerage, and was tried by a jury of Gloucestershire and
    Warwickshire. Id., 126. In 1 H., 7, the Commons protest that they are
    not to be considered as parties to any judgment given, or hereafter to
    be given in Parliament. Id., 133. They have been generally and more
    justly considered, as is before stated, as the grand jury; for the
    conceit of Selden is certainly not accurate, that they are the patria
    sua of the accused, and that the Lords do only judge, but not try. It is
    undeniable that they do try; for they examine witnesses as to the facts,
    and acquit or condemn, according to their own belief of them. And Lord
    Hale says, ``the peers are judges of law as well as of fact;'' 2 Hale,
    P. C., 275; Consequently of fact as well as of law.

    Sec. 615. Relation of jury trial to
    impeachment.

      Jury. In the  case of Alice Pierce, 1 R., 2, a jury was impaneled for
    her trial before a committee. Seld. Jud., 123. But this was on a
    complaint, not on impeachment by the Commons. Seld. Jud., 163. It must
    also have been for a misdemeanor only, as the Lords spiritual sat in the
    case, which they do on misdemeanors, but not in capital cases. Id., 148.
    The judgment was a forfeiture of all her lands and goods. Id., 188.
    This, Selden says, is the only jury he finds recorded in Parliament for
    misdemeanors; but he makes no doubt, if the de

    [[Page 338]]

    were directed to refrain from referring to the Senators as ``jurors''
    (Jan. 15, 1999, p. 580).
      No jury is possible as part of an impeachment trial under the
    Constitution (III, 2313). In 1868, after mature consideration, the
    Senate overruled the old view of its functions (III, 2057), and decided
    that it sat for impeachment trials as the Senate and not as a court
    (III, 2057), and eliminated from its rules all mention of itself as a
    ``high court of impeachment'' (III, 2079, 2082). However, the modern
    view of the Senate as a court was evident during the impeachment trial
    of President Clinton. There the Senate convened as a ``Court of
    Impeachment'' (see, e.g., Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). In response to an
    objection raised by a Senator, the Chief Justice held that the Senate
    was not sitting as a ``jury'' but was sitting as a ``court'' during the
    impeachment trial of President Clinton. As such, the House managers

    Sec. 615a. The presiding officer.

      An anxiety lest  the Chief
    Justice might have a vote in the approaching trial of the President
    seems to have prompted this earlier action (III, 2057). There was
    examination of the question of the Chief Justice's power to vote (III,
    2098); but the Senate declined to declare his incapacity to vote, and he
    did in fact give a casting vote on incidental questions (III, 2067)
    though in a later trial, the Chief Justice advised that he did not
    believe it appropriate for the Chief Justice to cast a vote that would
    change the result of the vote of the Senate (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Under
    the earlier practice, the Senate declined to require that the Chief
    Justice be sworn when about to preside (III, 2080); but the Chief
    Justice had the oath administered by an associate justice (III, 2422).
    The President pro tempore of the Senate, pursuant to an earlier order of
    the Senate, appointed a committee to escort the Chief Justice into the
    Senate chamber to preside over the impeachment trial of President
    Clinton (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272).

      In impeachments for officers other than the President of the United
    States the presiding officer of the Senate presides, whether being Vice
    President, the regular President pro tempore (III, 2309, footnote, 2337,
    2394) or a special President pro tempore chosen to preside at the trial
    only (III, 2089, 2477). The President pro tempore presided over the
    impeachment trial of a former President who was still President at the
    time of his impeachment (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _).

    Sec. 615b. Oath and quorum.

      Senators elected after  the
    beginning of an impeachment trial are sworn as in the case of other
    Senators (III, 2375). The quorum of the Senate sitting for an
    impeachment trial is a quorum of the Senate itself, and not merely a
    quorum of the Senators sworn for the trial (III, 2063). The vote
    required for conviction is two-thirds of those Senators present and
    voting (Oct. 20, 1989, p. 25335). In 1868, when certain States were
    without representation, the Senate declined to question its competency
    to try an impeachment case (III, 2060). The President pro tempore of the
    Senate administered the oath to the Chief Justice presiding over the
    impeachment trial of President Clinton, and the Chief Justice in turn
    administered the oath to the Senators (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272).

    [[Page 339]]

    1709-10; 2 Wood., 614. And judgment is not to be given till they demand
    it. Seld. Jud., 124. But they are not to be present on impeachment when
    the Lords consider of the answer or proofs and determine of their
    judgment. Their presence, however, is necessary at the answer and
    judgment in case capital Id., 58, 158, as well as not capital; 162. * *
    *.

    Sec. 616. Attendance of the Commons.

      Presence of  Commons.
    The Commons are to be present at the examination of witnesses. Seld.
    Jud., 124. Indeed, they are to attend throughout, either as a committee
    of the whole House, or otherwise, at discretion, appoint managers to
    conduct the proofs. Rushw. Tr. of Straff., 37; Com. Journ., 4 Feb.,

    Sec. 617. Attendance of the House of
    Representatives.

      The  House has consulted its own inclination and
    convenience about attending its managers at an impeachment. It did not
    attend at all in the trials of Blount, Swayne, Archbald, Louderback, and
    Ritter (III, 2318, 2483; VI, 504, 516); and after attending at the
    answer of Belknap, decided that it would be represented for the
    remainder of the trial by its managers alone (III, 2453). At the trial
    of President Johnson the House, in Committee of the Whole, attended
    throughout the trial (III, 2427), but this is exceptional. In the Peck
    trial the House discussed the subject (III, 2377) and reconsidered its
    decision to attend the trial daily (III, 2028). While the Senate is
    deliberating the House does not attend (III, 2435); but when the Senate
    votes on the charges, as at the other open proceedings of the trial, it
    may attend (III, 2383, 2388, 2440). Although it has frequently attended
    in Committee of the Whole, it may attend as a House (III, 2338).

    Sec. 618. Voting on the articles in an impeachment
    trial.

      * * * The  Lords debate the judgment among themselves. Then the vote is
    first taken on the question of guilty or not guilty; and if they
    convict, the question, or particular sentence, is out of that which
    seemeth to be most generally agreed on. Seld. Jud., 167; 2 Wood., 612.

    [[Page 340]]

    and adjourned without day after voting on three of the eleven articles
    (III, 2443). In other impeachments, the Senate has adopted an order to
    provide the method of voting and putting the question separately and
    successively on each article (VI, 524; Apr. 16, 1936, p. 5558). For a
    discussion of the vote of the Senate on each article of impeachment with
    respect to the impeachments of President Trump, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b,
    supra. For a discussion of the same with respect to articles of
    impeachment against President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules
    and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).

      The question in judgment in an impeachment trial has occasioned
    contention in the Senate (III, 2339, 2340), and in the trial of
    President Johnson the form was left to the Chief Justice (III, 2438,
    2439). In the Belknap trial there was much deliberation over this
    subject (III, 2466). In the Chase trial the Senate modified its former
    rule as to form of final question (III, 2363). The yeas and nays are
    taken on each article separately (III, 2098, 2339) in the form
    ``Senators, how say you? is the respondent guilty or not guilty?'' (Oct.
    9, 1986, p. 29871). But in the trial of President Johnson the Senate, by
    order, voted on the articles in an order differing from the numerical
    order (III, 2440), adjourned after voting on one article (III, 2441),

    [[Page 341]]

    Sec. 619. Judgment in
    impeachments.

      Judgment. Judgments in  Parliament, for death have been strictly guided per
    legem terrae, which they can not alter; and not at all according to
    their discretion. They can neither omit any part of the legal judgment
    nor add to it. Their sentence must be secundum non ultra legem. Seld.
    Jud., 168, 171. This trial, though it varies in external ceremony, yet
    differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before inferior
    courts. The same rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and
    punishments, prevailed; for impeachments are not framed to alter the
    law, but to carry it into more effectual execution against too powerful
    delinquents. The judgment, therefore, is to be such as is warranted by
    legal principles or precedents. 6 Sta. Tr., 14; 2 Wood., 611. The
    Chancellor gives judgment in misdemeanors; the Lord High Steward
    formerly in cases of life and death. Seld. Jud., 180. But now the
    Steward is deemed not necessary. Fost., 144; 2 Wood., 613. In
    misdemeanors the greatest corporal punishment hath been imprisonment.
    Seld. Jud., 184. The King's assent is necessary to capital judgments
    (but 2 Wood., 614, contra), but not in misdemeanors, Seld. Jud., 136.

      The Constitution of the United States (art. I, sec. 3, cl. 7) limits
    the judgment to removal and disqualification. The order of judgment
    following conviction in an impeachment trial is divisible for a separate
    vote if it contains both removal and disqualification (III, 2397; VI,
    512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606), and an order of judgment (such as
    disqualification) requires a majority vote (VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p.
    5607). Under earlier practice, after a conviction the Senate voted
    separately on the question of disqualification (III, 2339, 2397), but no
    vote is required by the Senate on judgment of removal from office
    following conviction, because removal follows automatically from
    conviction under article II, section 4 of the Constitution (Apr. 17,
    1936, p. 5607). Thus, the presiding officer directs judgment of removal
    from office to be entered and the respondent removed from office without
    separate action by the Senate where disqualification is not contemplated
    (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29873). A resolution impeaching the President may
    provide for only removal from office (H. Res. 1333, 93d Cong., Aug. 20,
    1974, p. 29361) or for both removal and disqualification from holding
    any future office (H. Res. 611, 105th Cong., Dec. 19, 1998, p. 27828; H.
    Res. 755, 116th Cong., Dec. 18, 2019, p. _; H. Res. 24, 117th Cong.,
    Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).

    Sec. 620. Impeachment not interrupted by
    adjournments.

      Continuance. An  impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of
    Parliament, but may be resumed by the new Parliament. T. Ray 383; 4 Com.
    Journ., 23 Dec., 1790; Lord's Jour., May 15, 1791; 2 Wood., 618.

    [[Page 342]]

    1, Sec. 8.1). Although impeachment proceedings may continue from one
    Congress to the next, the authority of the managers appointed by the
    House expires at the end of a Congress; and the managers must be
    reappointed when a new Congress convenes (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1,
    Sec. 8.2). end segment .004  deg. segment .005 -- rule
    I through rule III  deg.

    [[Page 343]]

      In Congress impeachment proceedings are not discontinued by a recess
    (III, 2299, 2304, 2344, 2375, 2407, 2505, see also Sec. 592, supra). The
    following impeachment proceedings extended from one Congress to the
    next: (1) the impeachment of Judge Pickering was presented in the Senate
    on the last day of the Seventh Congress (III, 2320), and the Senate
    conducted the trial in the Eighth Congress (III, 2321); (2) the
    impeachment of Judge Louderback was presented in the Senate on the last
    day of the 72d Congress (VI, 515), and the Senate conducted the trial in
    the 73d Congress (VI, 516); (3) the impeachment of Judge Hastings was
    presented in the Senate during the second session of the 100th Congress
    (Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20223) and the trial in the Senate continued into the
    101st Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84); (4) the impeachment of President
    Clinton was presented to the Senate after the Senate had adjourned sine
    die for the 105th Congress (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2), and
    the Senate conducted the trial in the 106th Congress (Jan. 7, 1999, p.
    272); (5) the impeachment inquiry of Judge Porteous was authorized in
    the 110th Congress (Sept. 17, 2008) and continued in the next Congress
    (Precedents (Wickham), ch.