There has been speculation that Cruz and Hawley---perhaps other senators---may be called as

[Atticus]

witnesses in Trump's trial.

If this happens, how can they then "sit on the jury" and vote?

[TexasTowelie]

1. I don't know whether I could tolerate watching greasy slimeball Ted Cruz

sweat bullets while being interrogated. However, he should have to testify for over 11 hours to show that he can keep up Hillary.

[VA_Jill]

11. HA!

Besides which, he has the most annoying voice....

[Irish_Dem]

2. All of congress is witness to what happened. nt

[unblock]

3. Because, terminology notwithstanding, it's not a judicial trial

The voters are not meant to be impartial or unfamiliar with the impeached official or their conduct.

It's more like a jobs review panel, which similarly might include people who know the employee or the incident which brought them to that point.

[Atticus]

7. Thank you. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. However, presiding judge, prob CJ Roberts, would be the one to rule. Perhaps it would then go SCotUS

... if tRump wants to dominate headlines and tie it up in knots of litigation, per his usual style.

Or Roberts might say "The Senate can set the rule, by simple majority".

[Hermit-The-Prog]

22. Roberts could be replaced with a bobble-head doll and nobody would notice.

[unblock]

25. I think the working theory is that the chief justices doesn't have the final say over anything

when it comes to impeachment trials. The senate can basically have a vote at any point to overrule him or to require the trial proceed in a different manner.

[RussellCattle]

4. I guess we'll just have to rely on his sense of honor to excuse himself from the trial.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

12. "Honor" and "Republican" are antonyms. n/t

[BobTheSubgenius]

14. Very dry, very droll.

I like it!

[RussellCattle]

24. Thank you. I do try.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. An impeachment trial isn't a legal trial; it's a political one.

The rules for court trials don't apply, and there's nothing in the Senate's rules that would prohibit this. However, it would appear that objections could be made and submitted to the Presiding Officer. Here are the rules: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/3_1986SenatesImpeachmentRules.pdf

[spooky3]

6. Thanks. In one sense, they all are victims of the insurrection

so none can be “unbiased.” I think it will be interesting to see what GQPers do on record.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Except some who may have colluded with the rioters and hit squads. They're not victims

The colluders and enablers and cheerleaders are definitely biased.

[spooky3]

19. But they're biased too. My point is that it makes no sense to

exclude people who are allegedly “biased” in this situation, because all of them are directly involved (compared to jurors). Of course if anyone is charged as a perpetrator, I hope the Dems take steps to exclude them.

[ancianita]

21. And so they're really not biased, they're hostile witnesses and will be interrogated as such.

As they help build the House case, they might see that a vote to convict might on some level exonerate them as accomplices.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. Contrition after a fact does not erase the fact. . . . nt

[ancianita]

27. Absolutely not. But if I were Schumer I'd take their contrition vote, then deal with them later.

Wring every bit of compensation out of them first.

[Atticus]

8. Thanks. nt

[RockRaven]

9. IIRC, Graham was photographed with Joe Biggs (seditionist) at the Trump hotel the night prior

So he should be called as a witness too.

As for "how can they..." the Senate makes its own rules, so unless the Senate forbids it, they will do it without consideration of anyone else's thoughts or standards.

[Raven123]

10. Judicial trial rules don't apply. Unless they have a reason, I am not sure that's a good idea

Just roll the tape if you need their testimony. Speaks for itself. Or are you referring to a defense strategy?

[Pepsidog]

13. Rule 18 if a Senator is called as a witness he shall be sworn. Interesting to hear put them under

oath. Referring to rules for impeachment link in #5.

[BobTheSubgenius]

15. If one or more of them bursts into flames, we'll know they wouldn't have been a great witness.

[SWBTATTReg]

20. Really! I recall that saying, "liar, liar, pants on fire!"...

They are going to have a lot of little fires going on I suspect in the Congressional Chambers if they're not too careful...

[Evolve Dammit]

16. Cruz was captain of the debate team. Let's see what BS he comes up with. n/t

[Wounded Bear]

23. They should be on trial as co-conspirators...nt

[DeminPennswoods]

28. This is actually going to be fascinating to watch

While it's not a trial in the usual sense, witness testimony will be under oath. And this time there won't be McConnell blocking the truth from coming out.

I want to hear what Barr, Cippilone, Hawley, Cruz, Biggs, Gosar, Clark, Scott Perry and the rest have to say about their roles.