The rules further empower the chief justice to enforce the subpoena rule. Rule V says: “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.” The presiding officer, under our Constitution, is the chief justice. As such, the chief justice, as presiding officer, has the “power to make and issue, by himself,” subpoenas.
*
“If there were any doubt, recall the language of the Constitution, which orders that, in an impeachment trial of the president, “the Chief Justice shall preside.” To “preside” is not a merely symbolic role; it can mean, just as it meant during President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial, to be asked to make a range of actual rulings, including ones on which the chief justice is not merely the first word but also the last.”*
And maybe the funniest part of this, buried toward the end:
“There’s icing on this cake. The special rules for Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial drafted by the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, establish certain obstacles for witness testimony, requiring a deposition first and only then a Senate vote on whether to allow the witness to testify. But those rules apply only to a particular category of witnesses — those called “if the Senate agrees” to them. They manifestly don’t apply when it’s the chief justice who orders witnesses to appear.”
Ha! Romney doesn’t have the guts to be out there by himself.
If 4 other Senators vote to allow witnesses or new documents or whatever (like that’s gonna happen - consider this just a hypothetical!), Romney might be the unnecessary fifth vote.
The White House knew what was in the book, they got a copy. Did they advise the GOP Senators they were counting on to fall upon their swords, if required? And if this is a surprise, how pissed off are they?
Yes, which is why he is going to do his best to stay out of it. He is constitutionally obligated to attend, but beyond that he will try not to interfere any any way. Basically, he will match Renquist’smodel in the Clinton impeachment who said “I did nothing in particular and did it very well.”
Quite the pickle, isn’t it? Can a Republican Senator win with only Trump’s base, alone? Difficult, in the saner parts of the country. Can he/she/it win without that base? Difficult to impossible. Slim chance with Trump, none without him. Gee, what a shame.
But if you’re gonna bail out, it has to be soon, because these votes are going to establish who…or what…you are. And nationwide, polls say a bare majority want him gone. Any chance that number will get better for him, after his nationwide Gloat-a-palooza?
Many want to hear from Bolton because they think he will corroborate the fact that Trump withheld funds on purpose, to prod Ukraine to investigate Biden. But everyone knows that Trump did that. The Republicans know that but simply don’t think that that is an impeachable offense. End of story.
My SO was on the phone with her half-sister last night; she and her hubby are Trumpeteers but have shown signs of shifting left. They still have quite a way to go: hubby is somehow under the impression that Joe Biden was not only in a position to control foreign aid but he threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine until Shokin got fired.
Sorta kinda, if you squint. The EU was big on anti-corruption in Ukraine. They wanted to do business in a sensible fashion, for starters, and access to Ukraine energy resources without Putin’s thumb in their eye. Biden was a public figurehead on board to enhance their standing, but he had no foreign policy authority.
The EU was unanimous in its dismal opinion of Shokin, and Biden reflected that position. But he was pretty much a dignified spokesman.
You would probably be shocked at how many Americans love an authoritative bully and gloater. To a great many Americans, that’s what leadership looks like.
And Shokin was NOT investigating Burisma, due to Shokin’s own corruption.
To repeat this which has been stated a dozen times already in this thread: Joe Biden threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine and in doing so made an investigation into Burisma MORE likely.
What is Starr trying to make a point about? I’m paying close attention to what he says, but his rambling stories don’t seem to have any common thread, and he’s not referring back to any premise, nor did he seem to establish one when he stared speaking.
He’s against special council? There was never one appointed in this matter. Help.
I’m watching Starr right now and I don’t understand what point he is trying to make, either. He’s rambling on with a sort of history lesson (that leaves out important facts), but where is he going with this? What does Andrew Johnson have to do with this? Starr mentions that Johnson was acquitted, but he fails to point out that he was acquitted by one vote that was almost certainly bought by Democrats. Johnson cheated to win.
Still no mention of what Trump is actually accused of doing. Odd that.
It’s easy to miss the context here: Lindsey Graham was on Maria Bartiromo last night and assured the world that the entire case was demolished in the two hours on Saturday. And he said it in seven seconds. Let’s see any democrat beat that.