I don't understand why Nancy hasn't gone to court to compel Trump to allow specific witnesses

[politicaljunkie41910]

to testify, and guarantee that they will be required to show up to testify. Nancy knows she can't trust Trump or Mitch McConnell, and Trump has gone to court a gazillion times for anything and everything, including the same bullshit things over and over again; like forcing him to release his tax records. He's repeatedly gone to state courts, appellate courts, 1st Circuit, 2nd Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit, Supreme Court, you name it. Then he starts all over again.

I think Nancy should drag this out as long as possible, to get the witnesses she want subpoenaed and play the same game Trump is playing; Hardball. The longer this plays out, the more she fucks over Trump and McConnell, the better. I want to see the Lady play Hardball. If this is not the time, than I don't know when the hell is. Trump is spending millions of taxpayer dollars running around the country, visiting his properties at taxpayer expense. Make him spend some of his own damn money, and make him have to hire a real lawyer, and make his ass squirm.

[dem4decades]

1. I agree.

[PJMcK]

2. Courts don't have jurisdiction over a Senate impeachment trial

I agree with your sentiment, however.

Speaker Pelosi should refuse to deliver the Articles of Impeachment until McConnell is forced to compel witness testimony and physical evidence. Otherwise, it's not a trial.

[MichMan]

6. I dont believe that the House can dictate to the Senate either. Looks like a stalemate

[bitterross]

3. Not even SCOTUS has jurisdiction

No court, none, would or should take up such a case if someone were to file it. It would be throwing out the whole idea of Separation of Powers. The courts are not going to tell either the House or the Senate how to set their rules or perform their duties while in session.

[politicaljunkie41910]

4. I've heard over and over that Chief Justice John Roberts would preside over the trial. What will

be his role than? Will he just be window dressing?

[bitterross]

5. Try reading the Constitution and the Senate Rules

It says:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present

Going a little further, google impeachment trial rules. You will find that a set of rules was written for Andrew Johnson and updated for Nixon and Clinton.

The real answer is the Chief Justice will have whatever role the Senate Rules allow. Moscow Mitch is free to rig those as he sees fit. Just like he has done for everything else. Here is a link to the current rules:

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

You may read them for yourself and see what duties and authority the presiding officer has.

[StarfishSaver]

7. There's a difference between the CJ presiding and the SCt ruling on a case

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over impeachment trials.

[Hekate]

8. In part because such a move will stall things well into Trump's second term

Others have covered other reasons.

[uponit7771]

10. +1, this seems to be a major flaw in the Constitution

[pnwmom]

9. There are multiple House subpoenas that are being fought in the courts. It was Nancy's decision

not to delay House impeachment proceedings while we waited for the SCOTUS to make a final decision --which could be after the election.

[Recursion]

11. The only judicial jurisdiction over impeachment is that the Chief Justice presides

It's still an open question what Roberts will do if he finds the rules unacceptable.