there is a difference between gaming something out, and getting into the weeds.
explaining Biden’s current, ambiguous position on whether he would testify if subpoenaed – and why people already think he has said he would testify even though he hasn’t – THAT would be “in the weeds”. 
“I am not” optimistic, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said. “I think the enterprise has been tribal and political so far, but perhaps the actual taking of an oath will have an effect.”
Agree. Whitehouse is one of my favorite senators because of his forthrightness and his doubtfulness here is supported by the fact that most of the Rs have already violated their oath of office by placing the actions of Trump above those spelled out in the Constitution.
You’re clearly not a creative thinker. That’s probably why you don’t understand Nancy Pelosi either.
Have a nice day. 
That would just be…
a) Ungentlemanly
b) Unconducive to comity
c) Bucking the IOKIYAAR, which the Democrats fully bought into some time ago.
unlike most people here, I don’t just assume that whatever Pelosi does is the right move – that tendency to simply assume she’s right is the opposite of creative thinking ability.
Right now, Pelosi is trying to figure out what to do. She never wanted to be in this position – she never wanted impeachment to begin with, and when she was forced into supporting it, she wanted it to be over and done as quickly as possible. It wasn’t until the last minute that she realized that the GOP had effectively outflanked her, and then she blurted out that she might not send the articles of impeachment to the Senate right away.
And now she’s stuck – the quick resolution of impeachment that she wanted looks to be off the table, but she really doesn’t have any endgame – she’s just winging it, hoping to be saved by circumstances.
They outflanked her by just flushing another Old Normal. How that caught her off guard, I’ll never understand.
Oh good. Now you and Paul can play.
Wouldn’t Roberts be able to make that call, then and there, rather than meandering through the courts?
Oh no, now I’ll be declared apostate by the cult!
Let’s be perfectly clear, here. The Republicans are fully engaged in a cover up. The only purpose of not having witness and documents is to cover up. They know Trump is guilty. They just don’t want others to come to that realization. The problem for them is that the more they cover up during the trial, the more it is going to come back and bite them in the ass, as the witnesses will ultimately tell their stories, and the documents will come out, it not all of a sudden during the trial, then slowly and painfully over the ensuing months.
The shadow always knows. 
Actually, IMPOTUS is dying to appear (are you kiddin’? Miss a starring role on the Reality Show of the Century?!). However, his lawyers aren’t nearly as stupid as he is and will never allow it to happen.
They can’t subpoena Trump to testify: 5th Amendment protections and all that jazz.
If Trump or one of his witnesses filed a motion in court, Roberts would have zero say in it. Certainly, he would have no standing as presiding officer of an impeachment trial to intervene in a case filed in Federal District Court. Nor would he have standing to intervene in his roles as Chief Justice – at least until someone requested that the Supreme Court intervene on an emergency basis.
But Trump, because he will be represented by counsel during the impeachment trial, could request a ruling on the subpoena within the trial proceedings itself. At that point Roberts could rule.
But I don’t think he would do so – mostly because we’re talking about a really complicated issue concerning impeachment powers, and executive privilege, and the overall framework of the constititution itself, and he wouldn’t want to do that on the fly, by himself. And this is especially true since he could be overruled by a simple majority vote of the Senate (and possibly, be subject to a motion that would prevent him from ruling in the first place).
In other words, were that to happen, my guess is that Roberts would simply throw the question to the Senate, and the Senate would find a way to decide not to decide, leaving the subpoena theoretically enforceable, but effectively unenforced.
The ultimate Puppeteer.
I’m sorry if I was unclear. I wrote…
If the Senate subpoenas Bolton, Mulvaney, etc, and Trump (or Mulvaney, etc) ask the court to determine whether…
that is a comma after the bolded “etc”, not a period.
“…and Trump (or Mulvaney, etc) asks the court…”. is a separate conditional clause.
‘Trials have witnesses, cover-ups don’t,’” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told TPM Wednesday.
Repeat this often, everywhere.
Moscow McConnell decided to bend his Caucus to his will by making this “trial” becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Team Trump. Okay.
How will that look to the American People, the majority of whom want a trial with witnesses?
From another thread:
["The very act of Kangarooing the Impeachment Trial will look like a Symphony Orchestra Concert. With the following sections:
Brass: Kazoos
Woodwinds: Kazoos
Strings: Kazoos
Percussion: Tin Cans
Moscow McConnell’s job is to soften-up the American people with Poppycock to get them to listen and get suckered-in."]
It isn’t a trial. It can’t be a trial if there is no evidence presented. It’s not a fucking trial, period. Keep repeating that too.
And now she’s stuck – the quick resolution of impeachment that she wanted looks to be off the table, but she really doesn’t have any endgame – she’s just winging it, hoping to be saved by circumstances.
I don’t think “winging it” is what she’s doing. More like something fell in her lap and she responded. You might be right but her present position was determined by McConnell running his fat mouth. He’s the one who’s stuck IMO. Maybe there both stuck but I’m thinking ‘Advantage Pelosi’. Doing ‘nothing’, as you know, is at times the best decision. McConnell appears to be terribly anxious to get the trial started and done ASAP before returning into the shadows.