Does the 106th House have to reappoint the impeachment managers [prosecutors] selected by the 105th House? If they don't, could there still be a trial? Why are all the managers Republicans? Chatsworth, California - 5/11/00

There are differences of opinion among experts on this question; so, to be safe the 106th Congress did adopt a new resolution re-appointing the House impeachment managers: H.Res. 10 was adopted on January 6, 1999.

The House managers' role is to prosecute the case before the Senate. It would be impossible to have a trial without prosecutors. They make the opening statement presenting the case for conviction, present witnesses if desired, cross-examine any defense witnesses, and summarize the arguments for conviction in a closing statement before the Senate jurors.

Given the seriousness of the constitutional process we are in, not to have a trial for failure to appoint managers would be akin to escaping conviction based on a technicality. If for no reason other than history, a president would more likely wish to seek vindication on a higher plane.

The managers are all Republicans because no Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee voted for either Article of Impeachment later adopted by the full House. Managers must be willing and able to argue the House case against the President; therefore they are picked from among those who voted for impeachment. In past impeachments, managers were appointed from both sides of the aisle because members of each party had voted to impeach the official on trial.

The House has appointed 13 managers for the impeachment trial of President Clinton -- a slightly higher number than in recent past impeachments, in which managers numbered from 5 to 11. The House managers are all members of the House Judiciary Committee, are all Republican, and are all lawyers. In order of seniority, they are: