you’re right of course. I mean, impeachment resolutions haven’t even passed in the House yet – so its a tad presumptuous for Schumer to be asking for specific witnesses, and doing so in a publicly released letter.
I’ve read the rules, and didn’t find that provision, so if you have a link, I’d appreciate it. The closest I’ve found was an implied assumption in a mention on the form a subpoena has to take…
Form of a subpena to be issued on the application of the managers of
the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel
Technically, the power to subpoena lies with the Senate itself – so any subpoena requested by the House managers will have to be consistent with the rules and procedures established by the Senate for this trial.
first, I notice that neither Pompeo nor Giuliani is on the list. That seems odd to me.
Second, I don’t see this as very effective bit of political theater. McConnell can swipe it aside by noting that the House is sending articles of impeachment without ever attempting to enforce its own subpoenas (and withdrawing one to avoid having the courts rule on it).
And he can pass rules that limit House evidence to that which was presented during the impeachment process itself – thereby forcing Roberts to rule against the Dems on any request to subpoena new witnesses. Even if the Dems force a vote on Roberts rulings, they will almost certainly lose, and it will be a bad look for Dems to be asking that the “impartial” Supreme Court Judge’s rulings be overturned.
This is going to place McConnell in an interesting position. He could probably force the Repubs who would not go along to vote his way but then he will damage their chances for re-election. I think he would rather retain control of the Senate than protect Trump if it becomes an either/or situation.
I listened to this on NPR and have some questions. What if Joe Biden testified? What if Adam Schiff testified? I think trump is stupid enough to actually engage in a quid pro quo in exchange for Bolton, et al.
Downsides? Other than Biden admitting that his son had no special skills to get a cushy job? Not exactly on par with the crime spree that is the trump family.
I thought I read somewhere that Pence would have to recuse himself from the tie-breaker role because of his obvious conflict of interest: if he votes guilty, he sits at the desk in the Oval Office.
That’s why I limited it to republicans and their base. There’s no point in acting like the senate trial could still be legitimate. The people who might recognize the hypocrisy probably already recognize the sham being perpetrated by repubs.
I was thinking of normal Senate business after the election should 3 GOP senators lose their seats and I was not thinking of this present shit show. After the election there could be 50 senators in each camp with Q-tip as the tie breaker.
There are by my estimation 8 seats in play. Here in AZ McSally looks to lose. The same seems likely in Colorado… so… 2 more would be delightful and MoscowMitch would have a very bad day. I wish more people understood basic civics.
I think it is wrong for senators to announce, before the trial, how they’re gonna vote. It’s an insult to their oath, their office, to us and to the Constitution they swore before God to defend. I do not care which party the senator is part of.
