Depends on how much support Mitch has. Roberts presides over the proceedings based on the rules of the Senate but 51 senators can change them at any time if they feel like it. I do doubt McConnell would have sufficient support to alter the rules in any meaningful way after the trial begins though so maybe it doesn't matter.
Depends on how much support Mitch has. Roberts presides over the proceedings based on the rules of the Senate but 51 senators can change them at any time if they feel like it. I do doubt McConnell would have sufficient support to alter the rules in any meaningful way after the trial begins though so maybe it doesn't matter.
A small correction (edit: not actually a correction, I misread your post): Roberts presiding over the trial is baked into the Constitution. That much the Senate has no choice about. But pretty much everything else about the trial and just what exactly powers are implied by the chief justice presiding over the trial are subject to the Senate's rules. Which are pretty strict right now but could be changed via vote. That's why the support of Senators like Romney for a fair and honest trial is actually quite important.Depends on how much support Mitch has. Roberts presides over the proceedings based on the rules of the Senate but 51 senators can change them at any time if they feel like it. I do doubt McConnell would have sufficient support to alter the rules in any meaningful way after the trial begins though so maybe it doesn't matter.
...
i'd like to see ol' donny try to wriggle his way out of this one
After it begins I don't know if he can change it. It would an interesting question, can the Senate override the Judge presiding over the trial by changing the rules mid-trail? It would be the Chief Justice they would be overriding, a member of the very court that would decide the case (even if he would almost certainly recuse himself from the decision). I'm just not sure SCOTUS would say yes to that.
A small correction (edit: not actually a correction, I misread your post): Roberts presiding over the trial is baked into the Constitution. That much the Senate has no choice about. But pretty much everything else about the trial and just what exactly powers are implied by the chief justice presiding over the trial are subject to the Senate's rules. Which are pretty strict right now but could be changed via vote. That's why the support of Senators like Romney for a fair and honest trial is actually quite important.
I think that matters a lot on just what they do. If the Judge made a decision, (Just as an example that the 'jury' of senators are not able to cross examine) and the Senate voted to overrule that, it could be said that he is no longer over the trail, and that the rules are being made up as they go. If they tried there is no doubt the Democrats would challenge it. They would argue what is even the point of having the Chief Justice over the trial if he has no ability to make rulings?Well the Constitution is pretty clear that each chamber sets the rules for its proceedings. It would seem that Roberts’ role would be to ensure that the trial is conducted by those rules. As K1052 said I think the obstacle would be political, not legal.
This is worse than requiring an actual investigation because if he requested an actual investigation at least that can be framed as "trying to stop corruption." Simply requesting an announcement can only be framed as desiring negative publicity for his political opponent.Most interesting is that Taylor's testimony linked the aid to an ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation into Biden, not any actual investigation. Seems like Trump was looking for the headline, not the investigation.
This is of course not at all surprising.
Why do you defend a criminal president by slandering those with an actual moral sense of duty? Is this how you want your children to grow up? Also, Trump has already openly admitted to the claims, without hesitation and without confusion, so what is it about the original whistleblower's call that you find worthy of derision?Looks as if the whistleleaker is a guy named Eric Ciaramella. It's been out for over 6 hours.
Depends on how much support Mitch has. Roberts presides over the proceedings based on the rules of the Senate but 51 senators can change them at any time if they feel like it. I do doubt McConnell would have sufficient support to alter the rules in any meaningful way after the trial begins though so maybe it doesn't matter.
Democrats still being noobs, by now it should be understood there are some in Congress who want to disrupt.House Republicans are getting desperate.
House Republicans stormed the hearing room where Pentagon official was testifying
As Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper was sitting down to testify, the roughly couple dozen Republicans stormed through the three different doors, a source in the room said.
Rep. Bradley Byrne yelled in committee Chair Adam Schiff's face, but Schiff didn't engage. Other Democrats, including Val Demings, screamed back at both Byrne and Rep. Louie Gohmert, who were yelling about the process.
"It was closest thing I've seen around here to mass civil unrest as a member of Congress," according to a source in the room.
Cooper left the room while the Republicans refused to leave.
The source says the Capitol Police and sergeant at arms have been consulted as members refuse to leave the room.
Live updates: The latest on the Trump impeachment inquiry
The impeachment inquiry into President Trump continues in the House. Follow here for the latest news.www.cnn.com
Well the Constitution is pretty clear that each chamber sets the rules for its proceedings. It would seem that Roberts’ role would be to ensure that the trial is conducted by those rules. As K1052 said I think the obstacle would be political, not legal.
House Republicans are getting desperate.
House Republicans stormed the hearing room where Pentagon official was testifying
As Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper was sitting down to testify, the roughly couple dozen Republicans stormed through the three different doors, a source in the room said.
Rep. Bradley Byrne yelled in committee Chair Adam Schiff's face, but Schiff didn't engage. Other Democrats, including Val Demings, screamed back at both Byrne and Rep. Louie Gohmert, who were yelling about the process.
"It was closest thing I've seen around here to mass civil unrest as a member of Congress," according to a source in the room.
Cooper left the room while the Republicans refused to leave.
The source says the Capitol Police and sergeant at arms have been consulted as members refuse to leave the room.
Live updates: The latest on the Trump impeachment inquiry
The impeachment inquiry into President Trump continues in the House. Follow here for the latest news.www.cnn.com
Matt Gaetz and 20ish GOP house members stormed the House SCIF with their phones and Gaetz is apparently tweeting form inside the SCIF which is not only extremely against house rules but likely a felony. Nation of laws something something.
Its a shame house members don't have better access to mental health care.
Its a shame house members don't have better access to mental health care.
Matt Gaetz and 20ish GOP house members stormed the House SCIF with their phones and Gaetz is apparently tweeting form inside the SCIF which is not only extremely against house rules but likely a felony. Nation of laws something something.
Not just a felony, but under the same attack they wanted to "Lock Her Up" over...Matt Gaetz and 20ish GOP house members stormed the House SCIF with their phones and Gaetz is apparently tweeting form inside the SCIF which is not only extremely against house rules but likely a felony. Nation of laws something something.
Democrats still being noobs, by now it should be understood there are some in Congress who want to disrupt.
There should be the Sargent at Arms and his assistants guarding the doors. I know it hasn’t been done recently but it’s literally in the guys job description.
Shit tile the doors if necessary.
"Process" is what they're trying to obstruct. What they're actually objecting to is rule changes they made when last in power. Funny that.