these ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/senaterules.htm#TOP

or are they different ?

✌🏼

26 rules ... your link says revised in 1986, so not changed currently, same as Clinton impeachment... Sen res 479, 99-2

✌🏼

the ones i linked were linked to the Time Article above, just checking Moscow Mcturtle hadn't rewritten them ...
thanks

✌🏼

Shall appear before the Senate-on the next day, excluding Sundays.

The rules make it clear that the person named in the summons doesn't actually have to appear and, in any event, can "appear" through a representative.

"If the person impeached, after service, shall fail to appear, either in person or by attorney, on the day so fixed therefor as aforesaid, or, appearing, shall fail to file his answer to such articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed, nevertheless, as upon a plea of not guilty."

and

'The person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him. If he appears, or any person for him, the appearance shall be recorded, stating particularly if by himself, or by agent or attorney, naming the person appearing and the capacity in which he appears.'


And the rules say nothing about the person appearing on "the next day,excluding Sundays". They say the date for appearance is the date specified in the writ of summons: "a writ of summons shall issue to the person impeached, reciting said articles, and notifying him to appear before the Senate upon a day and at a place to be fixed by the Senate and named in such writ"

The author is trying to pretend that he can make the word "preside" mean anything he wants to.

Unfortunately, he can't. All the constitution is saying is that in the case of impeaching a president... the person who presides can't be the VP (who would normally preside but who, at the time, would have been the president's chief political opponent)... so they picked the CJ.

Not only is there existing precedent for how the CJ presides (including a prior occasion where there was conflict over witnesses) ... but there isn't anything in the constitution granting the presiding officer powers other than what the presiding officer normally holds... and these too are well established. Those powers do not include anything that would outweigh a majority of senators. The majority leader position is not defined in the constitution... but to the extent ANY senator actually speaks for a majority he/she has more power than Roberts does.

... this isn't about sex

We have no democratically elected republic without a free and fair election with red Don cheating we have no free and fair election

Roberts only real role in this is to enforce the Senate impeachment rules.

Oh... there are times when the VP or Senate's president pro tempore actually takes the gavel and presides. But the role is usually filled by the most junior senators on the majority's side. It's not exactly hazing... but it also isn't a position with any actual power. Like the Senate majority leader... the only power comes in speaking for the majority. Any "ruling" they make is subject to the will of that majority.

Thank you.

... different view of Roberts' "power" to preside. McConnell and his majority can overrule Roberts, but Roberts can challenge McConnell in session and in public interviews. Thus, Roberts can show the public how the Republicans are working to cover up. He can pressure McConnell. However, I don't expect Roberts to do this... it would be nice, but I expect him to bow down like most of the others.

hard to see how Roberts can ignore that in its entirety

should see to it that the original phone call that started all of this, be entered into the record. It was not a "perfect phone call" as tRump keeps saying. It was shocking enough to warrant people to complain, and the tRump people to scramble to get the recording filed away. If he is fair, he will get this into the record for EVERYONE to hear, and decide how "perfect" it really was. The gop is hiding a lot, covering for this inept, unqualified, mentally unbalanced person.

There will be witnesses. They will not all besmirch their legacy for an ignorant bully like Trump.

At this point they will be the honest man.

Calls with foreign leaders aren't recorded. They are, however, transcribed and the transcription released by the WH has been incorporated by reference into the Democrats Trial Brief.

that was released was NOT a full and complete rendering of what was said - it was only a portion of it. There were somewhere around 19 minutes missing, and that was not any sort of lag time to allow translaters to translate.

It was initially based on someone on the internet reading the transcript out loud and saying "it says the call was X length, but it only took me Y time to read it" and assuming that there must be lots of missing material. This was exacerbated by the use of ellipses in the transcript and people claiming that they must represent deletions.

There wasn't any evidence to support that initially... but now we know for certain that it was an incorrect claim, because we've heard testimony from people who were actually on the call who confirmed that the transcript was essentially what they heard.

For instance do you really think that Col. Vindman would have failed to tell us that over half of the conversation has been hidden?

Will never sway!

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the concept of "presiding" over the Senate during an impeachment trial has a very narrow meaning.

The "Presiding" officer of the Senate generally is the VP or in the VP's absence, President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The same is true during all impeachment trials, except those involving the President or VP. The Presiding Officer in a non-Presidential impeachment trial doesn't magically get all sorts of powers to overrule the Senate that he/she wouldn't otherwise have. And the same goes when the CJ is the "presiding" officer.

This isn't a "trial" in the sense folks seem to think it is. For example, the Supreme Court has held that the Senate can designate a committee of Senators to take testimony and then report to the full Senate. Imagine a trial in which the judge and jurors don't hear the testimony themselves, but instead delegate that to a small group who then reports on the testimony. It would never happen. But in impeachment "trials" it is allowed.

If the Senate has adopted a rule specifying whether and/or when motions to subpoena witnesses can be presented to the Senate fora vote, Roberts has no power beyond deciding whether a motion to subpoena a witness is timely. If it isn't, he denies the motion.If it is, the motion goes forward and is decided by the Senate, not Roberts. He is a traffic cop ruling on whether the trial is being conducted pursuant to whatever rules the Senate has established. Nothing more.

Judge: Have you completed your negotiations regarding the scope of discovery?
Party: Nope.
Judge: But you want me to jump in and decide before you finish, but you can still reach a conclusion different from what I decide?
Party: Yep.
Judge: Go away.

Roberts will not jump in while the procedural rules that the Senate has sole authority to adopt are still being debated and its sort of silly to think he (or any CJ in the same position) would do so.

... over a sham trial.

Then, have Moscow Mitch and his Russian paid minions overrule him ... just like the judge during the Johnson trial was done multiple times.

MAKE THEM so their votes his held into account, this is .. NOT ... about sex

He has no authority to demand witnesses any more than the Vice President or some junior senator sitting as the "presiding officer" in the impeachment trial of a judge has such authority.

His role is very limited.

So many DUers are demanding that Roberts do this or do that. You know who isn't making those demands on Roberts? The House managers and Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate. They're not stupid. They understand what the role of the CJ is.

That's what passed overnight.

That's what yesterday was all about. S.Res 483 set the rules for the trial and almost all of the debate was over a series of amendments attempting to change the parts about witnesses and/or additional materials. Those amendments all failed and the resolution passed.

The "rule specifying whether and/or when motions to subpoena witnesses can be presented to the Senate for a vote" is on page 3 of the resolution starting on line 7. After the 24 hours (each) for the House Managers and the defense... and after 16 hours for Senators questions... then there will be four hours of debate on whether or not it shall be in order to to even consider a motion to subpoena witnesses or documents.

Unless/until there's a majority vote to allow consideration of new witnesses/documents, such a motion is literally "out of order". And that's exactly how Roberts would be obligated to rule.

In terms of presiding at the trial, the analogy to a presiding judge in a criminal or civil trial is not applicable. The overlap of terminology makes this very confusing indeed. It is unfortunate for us they did not establish a unique vocabulary with respect to impeachment.

The Founding Fathers more likely imagined the Chief Justice having the presiding role to avoid a glaring conflict of interest. According to the Constitution, the vice president of the United States is designated as the president of the Senate. Who stands to gain if the president is impeached and removed from office?

The piece below by Michael J. Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina and author of “Impeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know,” is more on the mark I think.

"The Framers chose the chief justice to preside in presidential impeachment trials for two reasons that had nothing to do with his powers or expertise. The first was purely ceremonial and symbolic: His presence brings solemnity to the occasion. The other reason was to avoid the conflict of interest inherent in having the usual presiding officer of the Senate in charge, the vice president. This conflict was even more acute under the original Constitution, in which the vice president was not the president’s political ally but rather the opponent who finished second. Thus, as originally conceived, impeachment trials really did upend elections since the ousted president would be replaced by the person he defeated....

...In contrast to Chase, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was a model of restraint in presiding over President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. Rehnquist was never overruled — because he rarely ruled. When the trial ended, he proudly said, “I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well.” Temperamentally, Roberts is likely to follow the example of Rehnquist, for whom he clerked. At his confirmation hearings, Roberts famously said, “My job is to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.” He pointedly noted that no one came to a baseball game to watch the umpire. That does not sound like someone planning to become the center of attention in Trump’s trial."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-impeachment-watchers-are-getting-wrong-about-john-roberts-role/2020/01/17/25a7f332-395b-11ea-bf30-ad313e4ec754_story.html

We shall see how much courage Roberts has, I expect him to be a Trump/McConnell fluffer.

Last night Neal Katyal stated that Dems should appeal to Roberts to rule on procedures, that looks like the only good option left.

The trial is a sham because sessions will be held until midnight and beyond with the intention of hiding from the American people what is happening. I don't expect the MSM to come to our nation's aid, it will do a coverup job for Trump. Mark these words, the MSM narrative coming out of this trial will not bash Republicans, it will condemn Democrats for not doing their job during impeachment.

There’s no “vote” for him... but if he rules on something, it would take a majority to overrule his decision. If that vote ends in a 50/50 tie, then he would not be overruled (effectively the same as if he has a tie-breaking vote).

In the event it appears that enough Repubs will defect to create a 50-50 split, the pressure placed on the defectors for at least one of them to switch back to the repub side will be enormous and they will capitulate. You can bet on it.

In any event, if the vote is on a motion and the split is 50-50, the motion is defeated and no tie breaking vote is necessary. To pass the motion requires a majority and 50 isn't a majority.

If it was Schumer, we might be hearing from this partisan hack. I don't care what he has written, like all russian repugs, he lies to cover up his shredding his constitutional oath.

be asked for a ruling. Roberts could be asked and could rule, but a majority could then uphold or overturn his decision.

I've heard from many experts who've spoken up about this.

in plain sight and in closed hearing which he controls. He is not the judge, he is a juror. History will not be kind even if the criminal code is never a good for the crimes.

appointed by a Republican President. I would like to be surprised but have extremely low expectations that he will be some sort of "cavalry riding over the hill."

who will be presiding. Though it would be unusual, I wish he would argue that the 1 pm to 1 am schedule is ridiculous and counter to the having a trial that will be consider fair and open. It reeks of coverup all by itself. (On a personal level consider Roberts will be in the Supreme Court in the morning and then in the Senate.)

Even a statement that he thinks the McConnell rules have problems - no matter how politely said - will be heard by people and could shift opinion that McConnell's rules make sense.

... Don claiming over and over again he'd do it again.

Roberts is a hack

You have to wonder what this guy’s angle is...

He's one of those octogenarian attorneys who doesn't get as much attention as he used to... so he comes up with some whacky theories.

His last one was that Pence was likely to be impeached too... and before that (almost a couple years ago as I remember it) he was predicting that Trump was about to resign.

a trial without witnesses and evidence is a ridiculous concept. The Founders were mostly lawyers, they would not have thought they had to say what a "trial" was and would not have anticipated someone arguing that a trial could be anything else.

The Senate rules governing impeachment trials, adopted pursuant to the Constitutional grant of power to the Senate to be the "sole" entity to "try" impeachments allow the Senate to do something that would never be allowed in a judicial trial: appoint a committee of Senators to review evidence and hear testimony and then report back in writing to the rest of the Senate in lieu of having the entire Senate see the evidence or hear the testimony directly. The SCOTUS upheld that practice on the grounds that the Constitution grants the Senate "final authority to determine the meaning of the word "try" in the Impeachment Trial Clause."

During the Clinton trial or the Johnson trial?

Robert's legacy on the other hand seems quite vulnerable to this very high profile ''trial'.

'try' is a huge word in the SCOTUS opinions. The following quote, and its source base, is also huge.

'These are the times that try men's souls' - Thomas Paine