Thread by @jaketapper

Jan. 15 1999: Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, interrupted GOP House impeachment manager Bob Barr to object to his use of the word "juror" to describe the role of Senators in the impeachment of President Clinton. This was the first objection in the trial.

(thread)

2/ Harkin: "Regular jurors are not supposed to know each other. Not so here.

"Regular jurors do not decide what evidence should be heard or the standards of evidence, nor do they decide on witnesses or what witnesses shall be called. Not so here...

3/ "...Regular jurors do not decide when a trial is to be ended. Not so here.''

All eyes turned to the man presiding over the trial, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

4/ Partly Harkin was trying to undermine the effort by the House GOP impeachment managers to call witnesses (it didn't work.)

But partly Harkin was also trying to channel Hamilton in Federalist 65.

5/ To wit: "There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law and the party who is to receive or suffer it. "

books.google.com/books?id=SLuXD…

6/ Harkin: "it may seem a small point, but I think a very important point. I think the framers of the Constitution meant us, the Senate, to be something other than a jury and not jurors. What we do here today does not just decide the fate of one man."

7/ "...what we do here sets precedence. Future generations will look back on this trial not just to find out what happened, but to try to decide what principles governed our actions."

8/ Rehnquist ruled: ''The chair is of the view that the Senator from Iowa's objection is well taken, that the Senate is not simply a jury. It is a court in this case. And therefore counsel should refrain from referring to senators as jurors.''

- fin -