John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump's Trial. Will He?

[elleng]

Democratic House managers should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas for John Bolton and others.

By Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards
Mr. Katyal and Mr. Geltzer are law professors at Georgetown. Mr. Edwards is a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma.

'An overwhelming number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe the Senate should hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump’s impeachment trial. Striking new revelations about the president’s role in the Ukraine affair, as reported from an unpublished manuscript by John Bolton, underscore the need for his testimony and that of others.

Yet Republican members of the Senate have signaled that they intend to uphold Mr. Trump’s unprecedented decision to block all of this material.

But it turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does. This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice.

Most critically, it would take a two-thirds vote — not a majority — of the Senate to overrule that. This week, Democrats can and should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas on his authority so that key witnesses of relevance like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney appear in the Senate, and the Senate should subpoena all relevant documents as well.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html

[beachbumbob]

1. nothing in the constitution grants a cheif justice the authority in an impeachment trial

to call witnesses, not sure where this is coming from. The judge is only there to uphold the rules the Senate gives him

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Headline is misleading

Roberts cannot “call” witnesses, but he has the power to issue subpoenas from the bench, at the initiative/request of either house managers or Trump’s Defense team.

Not sure why this article mentions rules from 1868; The current Senate rules/resolution requires the Senate to take a vote before hearing witnesses; I guess we’ll find out if Schiff will try to go around that and petition Roberts directly.

[elleng]

3. 'The Senate rules for impeachment date back to 1868 and have been in effect since that time.

They specifically provide for the subpoenas of witnesses, going so far in Rule XXIV as to outline the specific language a subpoena must use — the “form of subpoena to be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel.”

As you can see, there is no “Senate vote” requirement whatsoever in the subpoena rule. A manager can seek it on his own.

The rules further empower the chief justice to enforce the subpoena rule.'

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. The current Senate rules for impeachment were adopted in the 1990's nt

[elleng]

5. Take it up with Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards.

[Karadeniz]

7. I noted the authors. They're not usually full of hot air.

[elleng]

8. Right

[SCVDem]

6. Judge Citizens United?

You expect him to do the honorable thing?