What do you think about this? Is it plausible? Unlikely but possible? Impossible?
I wonder about whether the Speaker has considered sending the Articles over to the Senate while simultaneously having the House Managers address subpoenas to the Chief Justice for his signature and issuance, forcing the Chief Justice to rule on the issue immediately. It would take a Senate vote to prevent the Chief Justice from signing the subpoenas as presiding Judge at the Trial, and that would NOT be a good look for the Senate. At all. It would also pre-empt McConnell's strategy to hear a Motion to Dismiss the Articles before anything else is done, because the Chief Justice, in ruling FOR subpoenas and further evidence to be adduced, would perhaps also have to rule that there is a prima facie case, so a Motion to Dismiss would be improper.
I realize this is in the weeds a bit, but the Democrats have to anticipate a kangaroo court, and the best way to deal with it is pre-emption of those tactics openly and publicly. First, supersede the Articles with new information.Since you have passed Articles of Impeachment, why does that NOT trigger the involvement of the Chief Justice? There is no law or rule that says you cannot invoke his authority until the Senate receives the Articles. This is in the nature of a pretrial Motion, isn't it? Second, bombard the Chief with discovery demands to take the momentum away from Mitch. Third, ask the SCOTUS for an expedited Hearing on the pending appeals on Trump's documents, financials, and all other evidence issues, so the Chief is guided by the full Court in his responses to these issues at the Senate Trial. Why not? Where does it say you cannot? And every time Mitch opposes you, he looks more unfair, more dishonest, and more violative of his Oath.
= new reply since forum marked as read
