WASHINGTON -- Nearly 150 years after an Arkansas federal judge faced impeachment, White House lawyers hope his case can help them win acquittal for President Donald Trump.
The 19th-century proceedings, Democrats maintain, have no bearing on Trump's 21st-century trial.
A reference to William Story, a former U.S. district judge for the Western District of Arkansas, first appeared in a Jan. 19 Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President. The jurist showed up again the next day in the 110-page brief outlining Trump's defense, submitted to the Senate by Trump's legal team.
Subpoenas that were served on the administration, the brief argues, are invalid because they were issued prior to the Oct. 31 House vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry.
For more than two centuries, "virtually without exception," House impeachment inquiries weren't begun until Congress had given "express authorization," the brief stated.
Lawmakers knew, the brief suggests, that such authorization was required in order for an impeachment inquiry to be valid.
"In one 1874 case, the Judiciary Committee realized only after witnesses had traveled from Arkansas that it could not find any resolution granting it compulsory power to investigate previously referred charges against Judge William Story," they added. "In order to 'cure' that 'defect,' the committee reported a privileged resolution to the floor of the House that would grant the committee 'power to send for persons and papers' as part of the impeachment investigation. The House promptly agreed to the resolution, enabling the committee to 'examine' the witnesses that day," the lawyers wrote.
Since this type of express authorization was missing, Trump's attorneys argue, last fall's subpoenas were unenforceable and the White House was entitled to ignore them.
"It was not simply absolute defiance and not simply a blanket assertion that we won't do anything," attorney Patrick Philbin told senators Thursday. "All of these were invalid."
House managers dismissed this argument Thursday, pointing to a provision in the official House rulebook.
"The House's standing rules give each committee subpoena power for the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties 'as it considers necessary,'" said U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.
The rules, she stated, are "not ambiguous."
While Trump's verdict has not been rendered, Story's fate is a matter of public record.
The author of a book, United States District Courts and Judges of Arkansas: 1836-1960, Frances Mitchell Ross, says Story resigned before he could be removed from office.
Ross, a retired professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, has tracked Arkansas' federal judges from statehood to the modern era.
Story's short tenure, she said, was unique.
A Northern lawyer and a Republican, Story fought in the Civil War. Not long after the conflict ended, he moved to Arkansas. Appointed by President Ulysses S. Grant, he served on the federal bench from 1871 to 1874.
"Judge Story was the only one who faced real prospects of impeachment," Ross stated in an email. "The term was thrown around for one or two others but didn't go anywhere."
"While opponents found fault with Story as a judge for a number of reasons, a charge of accepting a bribe is what brought on the impeachment investigations," she said. "While Story was a Republican, the bribery charge was pushed especially hard by a lawyer who belonged to a different Republican faction from Story's."
The judge's impeachment inquiry made front pages across the country. Rather than endure it, he quit and moved to Colorado. He would go on to serve as that state's lieutenant governor.
A Section on 01/31/2020