Perspectives: Federal and Minnesota style impeachment.

Byline: Marshall H. Tanick

"Well, when the president does it,that means that is it not illegal."

Richard Nixon (1977)

"Article II (of the Constitution) gives methe right to do whatever I want."

President Donald Trump (July 23, 2017)

As the impeachment process plays out in the nation's capitol, all of the Democrats from Minnesota in the House of Representatives, except Colin Peterson from Trump-country in the Seventh District in the northern part of the state, have signed on to it. In doing so, they seem to have overcome one of the impediments in proceeding to seeking removal of President Trump: the concern that impeaching him will lead to his acquittal in the Republican-dominated Senate, an outcome that could be parlayed to his benefit in the 2020 campaign by energizing his base and allowing him to cast himself in his favored self-pitying role of victimization.

The likelihood is that, once initiated, the process in the House will yield an impeachment, probably on largely, but not exclusively, partisan grounds. It is equally likely, but far from certain, that the anti-Trump solons will be unable to come close to mustering the Constitutionally-required two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict the president and remove him from the White House.

The process that is likely to be followed in the Senate, assuming Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell follows up with his promise to actually hold a trial "immediately," apparently will differ from past impeachment proceedings there. The first one for Andrew Johnson in 1868 consumed some 2 1/2months, sandwiched around a lengthy mid-trial adjournment, and consisted of numerous witnesses, including legendary Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman, he of the famed"March to the Sea" through Georgia that supplied the finishing blow to the Confederacy.

The second one for Bill Clinton, which took a lesser 2 1/2 weeks from beginning to end, did not have any live witnesses, although portions of three video deposition excerpts were shown to the Senate jurors, including that of lynch-pin witness Monica Lewinsky.

But this time, the Senate reportedly will not allow any witnesses and will confine itself to

a presentation by the House advocates for impeachment, known as Managers, anddefenders of the President. But the rules, devised on an ad hoc basis by the Republican majority, may be modified before the start of the actual proceedings that McConnell has deemed to be "inevitable."

The uncertainty of what rules will apply is attributable to the paucity of guidance in the Constitution, which merely describes that the House has "sole Power" to impeach and the Senate theexclusive authority to try and convict or acquit. Other than setting the well-known "high Crimes andMisdemeanors" standard, along with bribery and treason, the Constitution is silent in how to proceed, aside from directing that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is to preside and a conviction requires a two-third vote.

The vacuum of verbiage in the Constitution raises some other uncertainties as well, including the possibility that the Senate could decide, if McConnell changes his mind, there would be no trial at all or a dismissal on the face of the impeachment charges, akin to a dismissal on the pleadings under Rule 12 of the federal (and parallel...