When the Senate was voting on whether or not to remove Bill Clinton from office where was Al Gore? Was he on standby in his ceremonial office at the Capitol in case the Chief Justice had to swear him into office, or was he just at the White House, Number One Circle Observatory, etc?
While I can’t say where he was physically, by the time of the Senate vote it was crystal clear that Clinton was not going to be removed from office.
I’m pretty sure I recall he was nearby.
I was covering impeachment for a little boutique political newsletter at the time. Well, I was covering politics - the White House and the Hill - and that was really the only story those few months.
Flurb’s right, though. But the time we got to the Senate trial is was clear he was going to not be removed. It would have taken a miracle for that to happen after the slapping around the Republicans got in the 1998 election.
He was staying the hell out of sight, which is the only practical thing you can do when the person who hired you is on trial and, if convicted, would be replaced by you.
Even if Republicans had won 1998 in a landslide, it is still probably equally certain that Senate Democrats were never going to vote in enough numbers to get to the 2/3 majority required.
Speaking of which, if I may add a tangential question to the OP’s: Is a president ***instantly ***removed from power the moment that 67th vote is cast? If Al Gore hadn’t been sworn into office immediately upon Clinton being hypothetically convicted by the Senate, would there have been something like a half-hour or hour-long gap in between presidencies?
I think it would happen the moment the vote becomes final. In a normal Senate vote (I don’t know about in an impeachment trial), there’s a brief window after every senator has voted where they get the opportunity to change their minds.
Gore would have become president immediately on Clinton’s removal. A president is obligated to take the oath, but the oath doesn’t make them president.
He was out of town, attending events in Baltimore and Albany:
Canadian, here, so apologies if this is a naive question. The Vice President presides over the Senate, eh? So why wasn’t Gore on the podium banging a gavel, or whatever it is that one does when one presides over a senate?
The Vice President’s presiding over the Senate is much like how the Queen is your head of state: it’s a titular role, but the day-to-day requirements of office are taken care of by another politico: the President Pro Tem for the Senate, or the Governor General for Canada.
Yeah, usually the VP is only present for special occasions OR when a vote is expected to be very close and his tie-breaking vote may be needed.
During an impeachment trial, the Constitution requires that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides, not the VP.
Correct. Gore neither presided nor had a vote. Being in the vicinity in olden days would have been useful so that the time between the end of the vote and the swearing in in case of removal didn’t take too long.
But with modern communications, Gore could have been in Hawaii and he would have heard it just as fast and been able to be sworn in as fast as he cared.
Even the President Pro-Tem is largely a figurehead. The real work is done by the Majority Leader.
Right, the Founding Fathers realized it would be a conflict of interest for the VP to preside over an impeachment trial when he was next in line for the Presidency. Oddly it did occur to them to also have the CJ preside over the trial if it’s the VP who was impeached.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Joke answer: Back of the Limo, with Don King
That requirement also predates the Senate’s decision to completely neuter its presiding officer. There’s not really much a VP could do to sway an impeachment trial, but they didn’t know that at the time.
It must be a very bizarre and boring situation for the two (probably soon to be three) Chief Justices who were at impeachment trials, to have to “preside” over a trial but have none of the authority or responsibilities usually granted to a trial judge. Hopefully they’re allowed to have a crossword puzzle book or something.
Even the President Pro Tem does nothing except cash a larger paycheck. 99% of the time, the job is further delegated to a junior senator.
That’s not accurate. Both Salmon Chase and William Rehnquist made procedural rulings in the impeachment trials they presided over, which is exactly what judges typically do in a trial. Some of Chase’s rulings were overruled by a vote of the Senate itself; none of Rehnquist’s were.
It’s considered an honor.
Often it’s done if something special for their state is happening in the Senate that day. Like awarding a medal to a soldier from that state, or a Senate proclamation recognizing the xth anniversary of that state joining the Union, etc.
And, of course, it’s used as a news-gaining opportunity for that junior Senator. I remember getting a message when my Senator first presided over the Senate. And guess what? That message had an invitation to give a campaign contribution at the bottom.
Well, he was also staying out of sight because he knew he was running in 2000 and didn’t want to be associated with anything to do with the trial.