All the kangaroos ran from the fire and took shelter in the right aisle of the US senate ! Not sure if Mr. Roberts can take the heat that is simmering outside. Mr. Mueller couldn't and choked.
14
“ You dance with the one that brung you “. Roberts will need some mighty fine footwork to appear impartial.
Seriously.
14
Roberts has the blankest stare of any man I've seen."Crazy Eye" like that Heavens Gate leader. I don't trust him. No emotions.
Which might seem good for a judge but bad when the Patriotism one needs to have for ones country and system requires to do the right thing here is always built on Emotion at it's base.
7
I don't know if Justice Roberts is wise enough to determine that the real mother would give up her claim rather than see the baby split in two.
The first time I studied this trial was 60 years ago when I was studying the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In most Judaic tradition the Evil Cities are destroyed not because they did evil but they tried to justify it.
The USA is not a country of laws it is a country of lawyers. Sodom was destroyed because it was a country of lawyers.
The impeachment trial is a farce and the play must come to an end.
It is 2020 and the USA has proven that it can justify everything because everything is transactional. When the lawyers of Sodom excused the behaviour towards strangers God could no longer defend his decision to allow Sodom as many chances as it needed to avoid his decree to destroy the evil cities.
I cannot imagine the shame of all the honourable citizens who gave so freely of their love of country.
This trial is unneeded the world knows the USA cannot be trusted and in critical situations the USA can really not be trusted. That is what this trial is all about but we already knew the verdict. It is axiomatic that the USA cannot be trusted.
11
If only Chief Justice Roberts has not been, and always will be, a partisan who only rarely steps outside the line. Look at the deaf, dumb, and blind job he has done enforcing the rules about Senators remaining in the chamber and paying attention. Seems like he's obeying a directive to not make any waves. It would be nice if he actually acted like a Chief Justice.
20
Come on guys!
You have seen how JR looks the other way as Trump & his gang dismember Immigration statutes and run right through precedents saying asylum seekers and other migrants are entitled to due process. The idea that he will stand up against Trump and the right wing deconstruction of our Constitution is beyond preposterous. He and his 4 buddies in the Supremes have been allowing Trump to stomp all over democracy for the last three years. Maybe if “The People” were a corporation we’d have rights JR would defend. But, we’re only humans and that makes us irrelevant to the righties on the Supremes. Just ask the lawful immigrants the “gang of five” happily shafted today!
11
John Roberts is a Republican hack.
Why would he call witnesses that Trump doesn't want called?
15
Justice.
I use the term advisedly.
8
Much has been said about "trading witnesses". You know, Hunter and Joe Biden for Bolton. I guess you'd be making a deal with the devil, but I would say "bring it on!" If Joe and Hunter are really that important to the Republicans, let's make the trade for all witnesses and those co-conspirators in Trump's crimes. Bring in Bolton, Giuliani, Barr Pompeo, Pence and Mulvaney. They're all filthy, and It sure would be fun to watch them squirm.
11
Is Robert Ray nuts?
I was engaging in hyperbole yesterday when I wrote a comment that Trump lawyers in desperation would change the Impeachment Clause, to require "[both] high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Ray has done exactly this, saying "High Crimes" is sine qua non. in bald contradiction of virtually every reading of the Constitution.
He claims incredulity at Democrats invoking Hamilton to support the argument, strange to Mr. Ray because Hamilton was among the founders the staunchest supporter of strong executive authority. This disingenuous shock is belied by the obvious benefit of invoking Hamilton: Hamilton himself despite being the most monarchy-leaning framer, still accorded relatively robust impeachment powers to Congress. Ray pretends not to notice this.
He pretends, with no support, that Ukraine was under no pressure from the administration.
The man is a liar. Liar for Hire.
11
Will the Senate Republicans vote to remove Hunter Biden tonight, or tomorrow?
7
I'm sure the Chief thanks his lucky stars that he doesn't work in the Senate full time--all that pesky partisanship.
But the notion that he'll ask for witnesses in an honest search for the truth is naive.
Roberts is as partisan and political as they come.
He's the guy that voted in favor of big money in politics, who stood silent when McConnell trampled the Constitution and did not give Garland a hearing, and who every day serves with two serial sex harassers ... that we know of.
Don't hold your breath.
14
except the writer of the "opinion" piece is incorrect. if he wasn't it would be in more articles than just his opinion.
2
First: Roberts should just do the right thing, call witnesses, and be done with it. But am I ready to bet on THAT? Sell me bridge why don't you. Hunter Biden is not the focus here, and is not in legal jeopardy (I assume). If getting to the truth of Trump's shenanigans means Mr. Biden testifies, well is that not worth the greater good??? https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/eric-zorn/ct-column-hunter-biden-burisma-zorn-20200124-rfegdqkvwbfxlcaykqyp2xtsze-story.html
Just saying (and I promise) - I will testify if it means Bolton testifies. Let's have some perspective here, and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We should suffer ANYTHING to drag out the truth. No SHAM. Lets have a trial.
3
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
7
This reporting is utter rubish. The Senate rules for impeachment are exactly what 51 senators today say they are. The Democrats have set themselves on fire and now desperately want Justice Roberts to put out the flames.
4
Roberts will do nothing, In his votes on the court he has shown he has none and as the Chief Justice has become a right wing tool along with Clarence Thomas and the other right wing members. People forget that even if by a slim chance Trump is defeated which I doubt. Oh, he will get probably six or seven less votes, the Electoral College is a joke. It was put in a swop to the Southern slave owning states guess what they never lost the Civil War they won. The court packed with Republican lackeys who never won election forgotten that Bush lost to Gore Trump to Clinton. They have had the right push their right wing racist agenda the court back it up and says we are a nation of law. I remember Earl Warren and the Progressive court, how quickly forgotten Warren had been the governor of Calif. during WW II when the Japanese Americans and lets not quibble they were honorable American citizens. They had everything taken and Warren who did speak of those times knew the evil of the action and tried to turn the Supreme Court into an institution of good to bring about equality, fairness and not be a tool of the racist right wing. Now, look at Roberts quashed court orders that prevented Trump from making if one took food stamps could not get a green card and I am sure if took any social service it would mean their days in the US were over. Forgotten by Roberts was his ancestors and mine how did they make it in America. We live in the Nazi 1930's. Civil war on the way.Jim Trautman
4
This will be the chance to show that the Supreme Court isn't just a puppet group controlled by the GOP... don't hold your breath... the conservative Supreme Stooges, led by the Chief Stooge has proven again and again with "Citizens United", gutting the Voting Rights Act, and refusing to rule on racist gerrymandering that they are just tools.
8
CJ Roberts is charged with the Constitution to preside over the trial. Judges have the power to call witnesses if they think they are needed. The CJ's constitutional powers cannot be overridden by Senate rules. Time to step up, CJ.
4
Roberts is just another wolf in sheep’s clothing.
If it doesn’t help the rich or corporations, don’t hold your breath.
7
Justice Roberts is spineless; we're not fooled by the admission of no Republican or Democratic Supreme Court Justices. What kind of "trial" in the Senate has no evidence or witnesses? Ans. a sham trial presided by the GOP "Just Us" Roberts!
5
Of course not!
Having watched Justice Roberts put up with all variety of bombastic offense, from Trump's offensive "defense team" this afternoon with varying waves of nausea, and not so much as a peep from the chief justice, as America watched the slanderous "Barbie" from Florida who especially delighted in taking shots at Joe Biden's remaining son, (and in case you missed the nuance, Hunter Biden's work in Ukraine had absolutely nothing to do with Donald Jennifer Trump's abuse of power). I am so disgusted. I once thought Roberts might be capable of fair judgment. I no longer harbor that kind of hope. For shame, Judge Roberts. For shame!
3
Chief Justice Roberts role is to insure that the minorty party follows the majority party rules and that the majority party follows its own rules should that be necessary. He would only decide to require wittnesses if the majority party rules that he needs to decide to call witnesses.
3
How will the USA avoid being called a Banana Republic if despite all of its pomp and show, the signing of the oath book and with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court watching every step of the way - this trial is just a sham?
7
If ever there was reason to quarantine an entire city we're seeing it play out now.
4
I hope the I-know-better-than-everyone-else Justice Roberts has a long and terrible life:
He who opined there was no more discrimination and gutted vital portions of the Voting Rights Act- opening the door to wholesale voter purges and bizarre congressional districts...and turning money into a man; a veritable modern day "Blue Fairy" to Dark Money's Pinocchio.
The man either has a naive- unshakable faith in the *goodness* of mankind or is the quintessential wolf in sheep's raiment: Both are unacceptable.
4
Please, can we just stop with this naive hope that somehow John "Citizens United" Roberts or any other Republican is going to "do the right thing" and bail the Dems out?
Dems are still effectively out of power. Period. They have to look ahead to November and, like Republicans and for the good of the nation, put party unity above anything else.
6
As the Nike phrase simply says.." Just do it!"
Dems should ask Roberts to subpoena all the relevant witnesses...US citizens deserve and want a fair trial and the world is watching.
3
Then the president should be subpoenaed immediately. He is a key and relevant witness.
1
Trump attorney Robert Ray continues today's trend of ignoring new public information revealed in Mr Bolton's book, as well as the attempt to cover it up when caught red-handed. Misdemeanors and high crimes and their cover-up, IGNORED? DENIED? MISDIRECTED? If bribing a foreign government for one's own political gain, obstruction, and cover-up are permitted today, AMERICA LOSE THE RULE OF LAW. Will the Court call witnesses -- or will we continue to hear irrelevant arguments?
2
Mr. Robert is proving that he just wants to be a tool of the Republicans.
All republicans are supporting the party more the the country, and Mr. Roberts is fitting right in. How any person can support Trump is just insane.
Vote all republicans out of office now and forever and save America.
6
Five justices of the ‘Supreme Court’ are a wholly bought subsidiary of the right wing Republican Party. John Roberts especially. Like in many dictatorships they just rubber stamp whatever the dictatorship wants. John Roberts does it with elegance perhaps, but none the less, he does it.
4
And John Roberts says: "Witnesses, Evidence? Don't ask me I just do what I am told."
4
The only comment Roberts has made is about tamping down language. After being subjected to Trump's disparaging language over the past three plus years, that comment was a joke. It appears that no one knows the rules. Hopefully, Roberts will speak up since it appears he is able to attempt to change the course of this trial. What a travesty if Trump, once again, gets away with his criminal behavior.
3
He will not. Every day Roberts sits on his hands in the Senate he shows as what he is....a Republican hack. Dogma before the Constitution.
Are their ANY Republicans PATRIOTS? The answer is NO, they are all self serving political HACKS.
3
The Senate Impeachment rules, with respect to subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum, are clear and unequivocal. So Speaker Pelosi and House Managers what are you waiting for?
It's crystal clear what the Constitution says, but what is not clear is whether the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will perform his duties as an impartial, Constitutionally-guided justice, or show his colors as a partisan jurist.
I hope he remembers that history will be his ultimate and eternal judge.
As for the traitorous Republicans, the have indelibly stained themselves with dishonor and cowardice. The all deserve impeachment and removal.
2
YES! Democratic managers do it! At least that would call McConnell's and the sycophantic Republican senators' bluff.
1
John Roberts won't call for witnesses. John Roberts is as bought as the 53 Republican senators.
3
anyone holding out hope for "conscience," "doing the right thing," or "honoring your oath of office" when it comes to republicans -- including Roberts -- is foolish.
republicans aren't "scared" of trump or his base. Instead, ALL are COMPLICIT in trump's criminality, his betrayal of the constitution, and his numerous, impeachable, acts of obstruction. the only one who was not down with selling out to Russia was Justin Amash, and he's no longer a republican.
republicans know they will never again win a popular election. their jig of decimating the middle class for the last 55 years is up. so the next best thing is to corrupt elections.
shameless republicans in the judiciary already have shown (in 2000) that not even an election is off-limits anymore when it comes to brute-force, illegal-made-legal, partisanship.
3
This testimony has been very dry. Maybe some witnesses would put some spark to it and liven things up a bit. If the Democrats are allowed to bring in additional witnesses so should the Republicans. How about John Bolton and Hunter Biden? I do not think the Democrats would go along with this though. They only want it their way. Life is compromise but the Democrats have proven over and over they do not know how to comply.
@KMW But it's not about the entertainment value, is it? IT's about the truth and about the relevance of the witnesses. Bolton is clearly relevant. Hunter Biden clearly is not-- even if you think he did something wrong (though there is no indication he did), he still wouldn't have anything at all to say about Trump's actions because he wasn't there. To say he should be called just because it would be "livelier" or satisfy your sense of symmetry is absurd.
7
I wish these learned people would stop placing these framers of the Constitution, these founding fathers, on such a high pedestal. They may have used what appears to us as some "high language" but they simply wrote things that made common sense. Can we please stop asking "what did they mean?" like it is hard for us to know. They wanted people to use their common sense to do what is right without trampling on the rights of minorities. If we'd stop with the myths about the "Founding Fathers" we'd see what should be done here is totally obvious.
4
Why does everyone assume Bolton will tell the truth? Can you imagine Republicans finally giving in and calling Bolton, and then Bolton's testimony supports Trump?
I don't understand why Mr Schiff and Mr Roberts wouldn't be aware of this already.
If he doesn't call witnesses, no one will ever trust him or the supreme court again - except for Trump and McConnell.
2
Chief Justice presiding over a trial - and not calling witnesses? He is presiding over a sham trial. He is sullying his reputation.
I acknowledge there are differences between a court trial and an Impeachment Senate trial. But not calling witnesses is not one of them. I believe C.J. has the power (I have read of no such restrictions) to summon witnesses
2
I'm genuinely curious. When is the coverage going to match or convey the enormity of this crises? Is the thinking that if we just keep pretending that this is normal we can contain it? The exact opposite is happening.
Another day has come and gone as if Bolton had said nothing. The GOP continues to dismantle the Constitution. It's as if no one familiar with the laws of the land were in attendance.
Where does this end? How much more can we withstand?
8
I think many comments are misguided about CJ Roberts. If you've looked at his record, he has always taken the side of Power - never the side of Justice. Like Trump, he is exactly as he appears to be.
6
A big question is whether the Democratic Senators will request that Roberts approve the subpoenaing of witnesses and documents. If they don’t request he will do nothing. He already has responded quickly to Susan Collins request to have the participants act more civilly towards each other and did so almost immediately. When the senators ask for this, they should ask that unredacted versions of the documents be provided alongside versions with proposed redactments be submitted to Roberts for him to decide the appropriateness of each redactment.
6
In contrast to that of politicians, the job of the Chief Justice is not on the line. Therefore, history can judge his decisions without mercy.
8
at this point, the only thing that seems certain is roberts claims of judicial neutrality and independence will be severely tested if he called upon to express an opinion or render a critical decision on evidence, procedure or witnesses. it's seems pretty much a no win situation for him at this point, but in the event he is called upon, it remains to be seen how far he is willing to stray from his conservative roots.
2
So the question is: Why haven't the Democratic impeachment managers already issued such a request to John Roberts and put it on the spot to do his duty? What are they waiting for?
3
So far Roberts hasn't stopped the talking, note-passing, spitball throwing and leaving the room at will. He did give a "keep it civil" warning because Susan Collins complained. Today his Court handed Trump an anti-immigrant victory. If you want to emigrate to the US, you have enough to pay for any future government assistance. Unless a person is shoeless and illiterate, how can you determine future needs unless you're a fortune-teller or psychic? Prognostication and assurance of payment for any future government assistance is likely beyond what most of us can manage unless there's an Act of God clause in the contract.
2
Roberts should think ahead to the future of this country. He should forget about his convictions and leanings and ask himself if he thinks a man of non-existent morals like Trump should be President. He mentioned the Senate as being a highly esteemed entity but did he forget what Mitch McConnell did with Neil Gorsuch? Does he not read or watch these Senators lie daily? There is something seriously wrong with his characterization.
9
As much as I hoped this article was correct, there's a fatal flaw in logic. Rule V indicates that the Presiding Officer has the power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders....authorized by these rules or by the Senate.
The important words being, "all orders....authorized by these rules or by the Senate." Nowhere in the rules is the Presiding Officer authorized to "compel the attendance of witnesses," only the Senate is given this right in Rule VI.
3
If Roberts ever has a crisis of conscience, now would be the ideal time for that to happen.
But Roberts is a Republican player, not an honest man.
10
It doesn't matter of the Chief Justice issues a subpoena, he is not in a position to enforce it against a claim of Executive Privilege. The "court" consists of 50 Senators sitting as a tribunal. They decide all procedural matter by majority vote.
2
@Eugene Patrick Devany
....100 senators....
Sounds to me like this entire situation will be decided by the individual that controls the U.S. military.
At the end of the day, Justice Roberts is powerless. He has only the good faith of executive brand, which does not exist, to execute his, or the Supreme Court's rulings.
Same with Congress. Both branches are now neutered lap dogs.
MB
3
geeez send him a note ! P L EEEEEZ! isnt that what ms. collins did?
2
Dear Chief Justice: Man up! Or perhaps I should say Justice up! Do what's right and fair and just. Justice Brandeis: “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Whitney v. California. Bring on the available evidence. Let it speak for itself.
8
Roberts does not want to get politically involved. It is a wise decision. He will let parties decide the witness issue.
@NOTATE REDMOND
Actually, the most politically impartial stance would be for Roberts to ensure that all relevant witnesses, documents and testimony is heard. On the other hand, if he chooses to allow important evidence to go unheard by the court, he will essentially have made a politically calculated decision and sided with one party over the other. That’s not justice
14
@NOTATE REDMOND When the issue is one of stopping the country from degenerating into a mafia dictatorship, it would be criminally negligent of Justie Roberts to not get involved.
1
It is evident to me that 25 per cent of the US public are solidly behind Trump, just as so many support Putin. Trump's primary appeal is to flashiness, ignorance and authoritarianism, which also puts him in good standing with current Republicanism. In these circumstances will a conservative jurist speak out? Of course not!
8
If Roberts stands with the Senate Republicans and trump,
then trump will have achieved a trifecta of demolishing the credibility of all three branches of our government
— with the exception of the House under Democratic leadership.
The nation is watching, Chief Justice Roberts.
20
@Doug Keller .......too bad they cant be removed from office.....the scotus will side with IT.....and the enablers....
1
all the president's men includes all the republican appointed members on the supreme court. roberts will not be coming to the rescue of the constitution.
9
Whilst a presidential impeachment trial is neither a criminal nor a civil one I would hope that the presiding judge (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, no less) would care enough about his own personal reputation for juris prudence as well as that of the U.S. Supreme Court as a whole to see to it that all relevant witnesses & evidence were presented to the Senate (sitting as jurors before him).
8
@Lewis Sternberg
Keep hoping. As shown in Linda Greenhouse's recent columns, the Court has ignored legal precedent to make political decisions in several cases.
4
The commentary from the television reporters has been informative and interesting. They have explained the testimony in an unbiased manner. It makes one want to listen.
3
Judge Roberts has so far been a bump on a log.
Maybe he is just waiting for the right time to do the right thing.
(trying to be positive here)
7
This is not a power that the blandly collegial John Roberts covets. He will find a way to duck out of it.
5
The presiding officer, under our Constitution, is the chief justice. As such, the chief justice, as presiding officer, has the “power to make and issue, by himself,” subpoenas.
Well, well, well. It seems our 'Founding Fathers' were one whole heck of a lot smarter than many might have thought. Is there ANYTHING they didn't think of?? Roberts is a bit of a maverick, and he certainly believes in Justice and fairness. This shines a new light on possibilities, doesn't it?
4
Liberals want too much. It is not like John Roberts was chosen for outstanding courage.
5
Roberts will have to decide whether to call witnesses and risk the wrath of a tRump Tweetstorm or have his legacy be complicit in a cover-up.
8
@ Joseph B
But remember that Roberts rebuked Trump on this and somewhat controversially (for the manner of his rebuke and insertion into the political debate) pointed out the SC didn't have democrat or republican judges( Bush, Clinton or Obama judges), merely judges doing their best to apply the law.
6
Witnesses, no matter what they say against Trump, would have zero effect on the outcome of this pre-decided Republican dominated senate trial. Zero. It is certain that Bolton and Mulvaney would be hostile to any questioning by Democrats. Does anyone actually believe that they would turn? There would be no satisfaction in their testimonies for Democrats. I suggest we move on.
@Sydney - They would be under oath as witnesses where they cannot blatantly lie without consequence...supposedly. However, we are living in a Bizarro world nowadays.
2
@Sydney Yea, but Trump's position in History, will a bad one.
1
Chief Justice Roberts will get a chance to decide whether the Constitution is worth the paper it’s written on or will be a silent observer watching the shredding and demolition of the Constitution and installation of a dictatorship. If that happens, Supreme Court will be powerless and his own position will be like a puppet.
235
There are no puppets in tenured positions that last longer than any President’s or party’s tenure.
@Blue state fan
I have to say, Roberts looks like a reasonable person.
But this is a case where looks are very deceiving.
He says that corporations are people, money is speech, the voting rights act is unnecessary, and the list goes on.
He is a Trump judge.
He is a rubber stamp.
But he looks honest.
That’s the problem.
11
Look at Roberts’ track record.
Will it help the rich?
Will it help his party?
Of course he won’t.
13
We all know John Roberts is too weak to do anything to protect our democracy. I feel sorry for him. He has a life-time position where after his actions in this case, which we are pretty sure about, he will be judged forever to his death. I hope that some light awakens him to his bigger responsibility to our Democracy and country.
5
Forget John Roberts. Here is a surefire way to get witnesses
Joe Biden should demand to testify before the Senate. The Senate would them have no choice. Come on Joe, show us you are a patriot. Politically, you would cement your lead as the Democratic presidential nominee.
I won't hold my breath. So, perhaps Bernie, Elizabeth, Pete or Amy can demand that Joe testifies for "the good of the country" If he doesn't, he's done.
3
So all the process failures from obstruction of justice because Trump was protected by McConnell and the Senate was the houses fault. The house represents the majority of the people, not the minority. Might want to rethink your argument Ken Starr who works for Fox News propaganda.
All of it smoke about a process that they can argue all day long because it’s vague while the senate assisted Trump in ignoring the subpoena power of congress.
Massive hubris. Vote every republican out at every level.
7
This Opinion appears to have blindsided both sides in the trial.
Remember early on in proceedings the House Managers moved a motion to have Roberts resolve disputes on the matter of calling witnesses, and they lost the motion.
Roberts had an opportunity then to clarify his procedural role as the presiding officer of the trial.
Having said that, it may well be that Roberts will not speak up until such time as the question or 'requirement' is framed properly to invoke his 'power' as the Chief Justice 'presiding' over the impeachment proceedings - so perhaps the House Managers need to change tactics and simply lodge documents requesting specific witnesses thus allowing Roberts to issue subpoenas (or at least reveal what he considers to be the limitations of his role).
10
I think the title of this article is an absurd question. Of course he won't. To do this would risk his legacy by taking an action that will be inevitably spun as partisan by whomever it does not benefit, thus not only harming his legacy, but also further damaging image of the court system. Is it the right thing to do? Yes. Will be be done? Unequivocally no, not by Chief Justice Roberts in the context of this impeachment trial.
3
Trump believes all judges he appoints must be loyal to him, not the truth. This goes against everything America ever stood for. I think republicans who fail to uphold the constitution will suffer at the hands of the American people.
5
Roberts doesn't really matter at the trial since there are enough senate republicans who can overrule him if they want, and they definitely would. They would enrage Trump's base if they voted for evidence and witnesses, and they don't want to do that. They feel they need them to stay in office.
Everyone who thinks there should be witnesses should call their senators and say so, even Republican senators, and especially senators who are up for election in 2020. I put mine on speed dial; it takes less than five minutes to call both their office and express my opinion. Do it!
13
These Republicans, like fascists, stick together. That's what made John McCain such an anathema to the party; he dared to (very occasionally) vote against the groupthink of the party, which is lately determined by their orange leader.
That's the hallmark of Republicans: falling in line, and Roberts is a Republican. I expect he will be a little brown mouse and that the most that will be heard from him is a very small squeak every now and again, if that...
11
White House counselor McGann and Mick Mulvaney would be two crucial witnesses.
Bolton will only go all Lebowitz on them when asked to respond to a simple question.
3
Dream on.
5
One advantage of a life time appointment is you don’t have to dance with the one that brung ya. Most of those berobed Justices want to leave a legacy that will be written up in the history books, and I don’t take Roberts as one who wants his robe covered in the feces of this Administration.
12
@Evan I think you're wrong, while hoping you're right. I think Roberts will not want to be lumped in with Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who presided over the Andrew Johnson trial. History's judgement there is that Chase became too much of an activist in that trial; he got too involved.
Roberts is a Republican; an activist Republican judge during our current era? Now you're talking Original Sin! Ain't gonna happen... I'm rooting for you, though! -L.
4
the
2
Mr. Roberts should call witnesses, not only because it's witnesses that make a trial valid, but also to secure his own legacy.
8
Please keep in mind before we do a “happy dance” , he can be overruled by 2/3’s of the Senate!
This proceeding will determine whether the Republican Party will have to substitute an ostrich for the elephant as its representative animal.
I don't think that the Democrats have the courage to demand anything of Roberts, but if they do it's not certain he will accede to their demands. All of this pertains to the 10% of the iceberg that we outsiders can see...but in time, months and years from now, we will learn all there is to know about DJT.
2
Believe you are right, also believe Roberts cares more about his (R) legacy and will do what it takes to protect Trump.
5
I appreciate the authors' explanation here, but the Constitution doesn't give the Senate the authority to even make a set of rules for impeachment. It's not clear these rules should be taken seriously in the first place.
2
Every bit of evidence and testimony presented by the House corroborates Bolton's eyewitness recounting of Trumps knowledge and ordering of using his Presidential power to enlist a foreign government interference and corruption of a U.S Presidential election - a specific cause to impeach and possibly convict.
Trump's tweet (for popular support) that Bolton is lying must compel Chief Justice Roberts to subpoena witnesses - as it cements the clarity of the not only the need to hear testimony - but of the how pernicious this obstruction has become.
Bruce Ackerman, in his Tanner Lecture on Human Values, published in 2010 as THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC (Harvard University Press), remarkably predicts the danger of Executive Power becoming destructively extreme through the use of, amongst other factors, direct media, and the use of tweets specifically - upending the balance of powers so fundamental to our democracy.
In this case, when the validity of our elections(!) AND the power to obstruct Congress are in question, the Chief Justice must act to hear the direct testimony of the agents/actors involved (Bolton, etc) - though he may feel uncomfortable doing so - to restore the Constitutional balance of power by insuring a fair treatment of ALL the branches ( a fair trial based on evidence as prepared by the House) as they were designed - one of the reasons, by the way, he sits in his presiding and tenured position.
10
The Times reports today, concerning Republican resistance to hearing from Mr. Bolton:
Missouri’s Roy Blunt... said on Monday, “Unless there’s a witness that’s going to change the outcome, I can’t imagine why we’d want to stretch this out for weeks and months.”
This shows something much insidious and darker than mere determination to exonerate Trump regardless of the facts, which itself is an execrable violation of the oath Mr. Blunt and other senators took, apparently in bad faith, with no intention to comply. What Mr. Blunt says he "cannot imagine" is the public's right to know what actually transpired, which can only come out through the trial properly presenting evidence and witnesses, for the purpose of guidance in future action.
A verdict is surely an important judicial objective, but so is ascertaining the truth. Truth is the lifeblood of democracy; its suppression is the lifeblood of tyranny, as Trump, if allowed to prevail, will show.
14
@anon
It is also vitally important that any senators going on record supporting the president go on record in light of the actual facts of the case, so we can know exactly what sort of conduct is is that they supported.
By suppressing this testimony, it gives senators a kind of unwarranted, immoral cover, so later they can claim "WE DIDN'T KNOW THE FULL STORY." They don't want to be accountable for how they vote. Mr. Justice, do not give them this dodge, do not give them this cover,
The Nazis said "We didn't know." Don't give senators who want to abet and enable the destruction of our "rule of law" principles that protect us from tyranny to say "WE DIDN'T KNOW." Do *not* give them this excuse. Please.
2
When I phoned Roberts’ office on Friday the outgoing message basically said he has no power in the Senate trial and that callers should phone their senators. There was no option to leave a message.
I think Roberts should change his outgoing voicemail message now.
20
@ML : Wow. Pretty cowardly message for the SCOTUS.
But, then, Roberts is a Republican.
2
The GOP Senate should consider that Trump has no loyalty to anyone but himself. They should consider the very real possibility that MbS, Putin, or maybe just the Ukranian Secret Service has a dossier on them as well.
The fact that they attend the same political convention does not mean that they are friends.
4
So many have hope that Roberts will do the right thing. Sadly, I’ve read too many of his opinions to believe that he will. He’s as political as they come and has denigrated our Constitution on too many occasions. I believe that he has no interest in standing up for the truth.
14
Missing from this piece is acknowledgment of the provision in the Constitution stating that the Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachment. If there is disagreement over interpretation of the Senate rules leading to the Chief Justice to undertake an action that 51 Senators disagree with, the Senate has the sole power to clarify the rules.
1
The democrats HAVE to force scenarios where the Republicans overrule Judge Roberts. That will expose them and the farce they are propagating. That will be a terrible look and make it obvious there is no justice here.
13
I’m not sure he is a real Chief Justice. He seems more like a chief Trump enabler. For instance, are lawyers really allowed to blatant lie to a judge’s and jury’s face in a normal trial for ordinary people. Is this Facebook or a trial?
Would a normal trial for any other ordinary person allow the defense to threaten the jury and block evidence, all documents and all witnesses?
We seem to have a Chief Trump Stooge Roberts, not a Chief Justice. This is treason.
10
I hope Chief Justice Roberts does the correct thing by this country and for its people and calls witnesses and even evidence. Without witnesses and more evidence as needed this is no longer a fair trial, its a monkey court.
5
I think Roberts should ask Kavanaugh to sit in for him and then have Dems just try to ask for anything from him.
2
If the summary points offered in this opinion piece are in fact accurate, then why hasn't an appropriately credentialed scholar, and or attorney with a Constitutional Law background, commented on this before now? My bias favors this interpretation; however, that doesn't make it necessarily factually accurate.
4
CJ Roberts should also disqualify senators who openly said they are biased and coordinating with WH in contempt for violating the oath they took at the start of this impeachment trial. Isnt that the practice in any trial by jury? Otherwise what is the purpose of having him preside wearing his robes, might as well have an empy chair and a gavel.
8
And of course, any senators that have said negative comments publicly about the President.
Some brave republican is going to get sick and tired of cowering before Trump and is going to be the first one to go against him and he or she, after the initial shock and Trump's reactionary avalanche of Twitter threats and emergency meetings called by Moscow Mitch, will be considered a hero and will go down in history as such.
6
@Wally Wolfd That'd be nice. I hope it happens. If one steps forward with bravery, others will. Doubtful.
6
Drip, drip, drip … it doesn't take even the (anything but) "stable genius" enablers of Trump to know there will be more info surface to further implicate Trump -- especially considering the company he keeps. Oh. what a tangled web he weaves with his mendacity. Surely Justice Roberts, along with Senators with any ounce of survival instinct, will want to leave no witness/document stone unturned. Who would want to go down with the USS Trump? Who wouldn't want to be on the side of the U.S., Patriotism … that pesky little thing called JUSTICE.
5
A trial needs witnesses much more than lawyers.
4
Here's the clincher for me. What is going on in the US senate is a TRIAL. The court room is the senate chambers, the judge in the case is the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. The jury is made up of the 100 US senators.
When was the last time you came across a trial in which the judge's rulings were subject to a vote by the jury?
5
It's amusing to hear republican senators complain of being blindsided by trump. Wy are they surprised? He has been blindsiding them for three years already. I look forward to seeing their expressions of their faces atop a pike.
11
Justice Roberts will not call witnesses.
7
There’s No Such Thing as Free Will
But we’re better off believing in it anyway.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/
"Will He?"
2
when will the dems grow up and fight dirty like the repubs have been doing successfully for decades?!? At this point in time winning the battle is far more important than showing integrity! I'm all for getting down in the mud to wrestle the pigs, this is a life or death battle and for the sake of the country-dare I say the WORLD- we must win this one.
2
@Jo There is no need to play dirty. The law is clearly on the side of Democrats as far as impeachment goes and lowering themselves to the level of Republican lawmakers would only further polarize the country.
I trust that Adam Schiff will make the right call when the time is right. Right now, the momentum of calls for Bolton's testimony is still rising. If Schiff requested that Roberts supoena Bolton right away and Roberts denied the motion, that momentum - political momentum - would quickly deflated feeding the narrative of Republicans. So, Schiff is letting them stew a bit longer. At some point, McConnell may even agree to subpoena Bolton to further political damage.
For now, I am enjoying the mayhem that has ensued for Republican obstructionists.
4
This testimony is so dull. They just drag it on and on. This is an important time in history but it is just so difficult to bear. I know we do not have to listen and I honestly think most are not. The television ratings will prove my point.
@KMW
It is not entertaining. Let's dump this boring Rule of Law nonsense.
2
@KMW
Sometimes democracy is dull. Get over it. Impeachment is not a Keeping Up With the Kardashians episode, which granted, what most citizens prefer and use as their cultural standard. The IQ necessary to indulge those nitwits belong to the same populace who elected Trump.
2
I want to have faith that Justice Roberts will prioritize the actual truth over everything else. But he has foreshadowed his view of his role as ministerial. As usual, it's always someone else, some other department, some other institution who we must look to for justice as one after another fails to step up. It's hard to see the chances for any real effort to simply get the bottom of what happened. God help us if we don't find a way to do it. If not, there's no escaping the fact that we will be a different country. How could such a spectacularly unworthy person such as Donald Trump bring us so low in just three years? What a tragedy we face.
6
The survival of American democracy as we know it may now be in the hands of one man, Chief Justice John Roberts. If it's his prerogative to issue subpoenas to call witnesses, then Democrats should request that he subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Perry. I hope John Roberts values both democracy and his legacy on earth.
6
@Nina RT. He will do no such thing.
4
When the House managers do request CJ Roberts for the subpoena to John Bolton and Mulvaney, they need to be prepared for a denial. So, with your motion or request, ask also that CJ Roberts as presiding officer to note for the record that the request was made and a brief statement of a reason in the event of a denial.
Let Roberts be aware that his ruling will have the effect of closing off the only sure way for a country wide concern for thoroughness in this trial could be assured. All Americans need to know that, yes, both those of us living in the moment as well as those for generations to come.
9
Perhaps Donald J Trump should be subpoenaed and given the chance to defend himself in public testimony under oath before the Senate. I'm sure the Senate Republicans will pay full attention. Release the full record of the "perfect" phone call tucked away in the supersecret server. Clear his name (or not.)
Hillary Clinton cleared the air with her Benghazi testimony. Too bad that James Comey "swiftboated " her twice over an email server that never betrayed or compromised any national security secrets.
10
To think that Roberts isn't in the bag for Trump and McConnell is to believe in rainbows and unicorns.
11
Save the republic, protect against corruption, preserve the constitution and rule of law, or, side with party that appointed you to your (chief justice) office. Hmmmm what to do ....what to do.
9
John Roberts?
That John Roberts?
The one who gave us Citizens United……..you know the ruling that said corporations are people………..
The ruling that allowed this mess to happen in the first place…….
Don't go betting the farm that John Roberts will do the right thing……..
12
Roberts has already had ample opportunity to take charge of this circus. Instead, he's done nothing except issue a silly, school-girl admonishment about 'civility.'
He KNOWS that multiple senators have said they have already decided how they will vote. He KNOWS McConnell is coordinating with the White House. He KNOWS we need witnesses. He KNOWS Trump is a lunatic.
But watch him sit and smother under his fancy robe and let the farce play out.
This is his chance to take a stand for a desperately ill country and he does nothing.
Some legacy.
12
Very interesting piece. But, whatever happens in this Senate Land of Oz, the Trumpublican insistence that Americans "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" will, one hopes, be no more persuasive this November than it was to Dorothy.
Meanwhile, my new Fantasy Dem Ticket is Adam Schiff and Mary Louise Kelly -- or the other way around!
5
It is quite obvious that there are other witnesses out there who can add valuable information to the impeachment inquiry. Devious politicians like Moscow Mitch who would hide this information from the people are not worthy of their office.
5
Hopefully the lifetime appointment to SCOTUS will insulate Roberts from Trump's same intimidation and control of the Senate Republicans, who so far have lacked the courage to stand up to Trump.
7
Not to be too obvious, but what is he waiting for ??? And if the head of the Supreme Court is as partisan as the majority of the Senate, we should probably all call it quits right now and go home .... and decide what other places on the planet might offer a real democracy in which to live.
10
If witnesses are called, this impeachment trial could go on for a long time. Is this what the Democrats want? They are the ones who are demanding that more step forward. They will not be looked upon too favorably by the American people who want our politicians working for them. How can they be taking care of business when time is being wasted on this frivolous trial? President Trump is working and getting things down but seems to be one of the few doing so. This is not what our politicians were elected to do.
@KMW
You don't speak for "the American people."
8
@KMW : "Going on too long". Good reason to dump the Rule of Law. Too inconvenient. Just install the King.
1
I am afraid that if this issue is presented to Roberts, he will find a legalistic way to duck it. He doesn't have the experience to deal with it. His entire career has been spent in the lofty, abstruse world of appellate litigation -- as a lawyer (writing amicus briefs for corporations), as a Judge on the D.C. Circuit, and as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Who me? Issue a subpoena? This would be a routine call for a former litigator in the trial courts, or for someone who had been a trial court judge, but I fear that Roberts will feel it is just not in his job description.
4
Judge Roberts should provide more leadership in this proceeding. So far his input has been minimal, if any. I don't believe that he has contributed anything of substance. Being a figurehead is not enough.
6
I do not hold out much hope for Roberts. He allowed GOP Senators who openly told the public they were not going to be impartial jurors (Moscow Mitch's coordination with the WH for a "quick" trial; Graham's statement that he would not look at the evidence and evidently is not looking at it now..). What does that say about Roberts' integrity and determination to give the nation a fair and impartial trial?
9
I agree with the others who believe Roberts is nothing more than a partisan Republican. He has no interest in the truth, none. His only interest is to maintain Republican control of our future.
Why else would Roberts and his ilk rule as they did on Citizens United, a sneaky means for allowing mountains of corporate cash to control our electoral process?
Why else would Roberts allow the perjurer Kavanaugh to sit on his court and conveniently brush off the ethics complaints against Kavanaugh because of technicalities.
10
The polarization of party politics ultimately may be exhibited by the silence of Chief Justice Roberts intention not to leverage his authority and rule to call for witness in this historic Senate impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump!
This would be a watershed moment not only for the Senates exhibition of power over the impeachment process, it would also, translate into the Supreme Courts willingness to politicize issues going forward.
The House of Representatives will have been show to become impotent in its ability to act as check and balance against an autocratic president.
In short, our entire system of government would start to fall prey to what banana republics are notorious for, graft and corruption.
6
Justices are appointed for life to provide insulation from threats of termination during deliberation. Unfortunately, life appointments also allow insulation from doing their duty.
12
Mr. Roberts is a partisan, though more sophisticated and soft-spoken than the worst we regularly hear on the news channels.
3
If we think John Bolton and John Roberts are going to save us, we are in deep trouble.
9
Hope this argument works, but its failure even to mention -- much less address -- Rule VI ("The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses...") makes one dubious. (Also, it's Rule XXV -- not Rule XXIV as the authors say -- that outlines the required subpoena language -- see http://bit.ly/2RTKlmT.)
2
@Reader It's a very sloppy argument ... and an obviously incorrect one.
1
Very interesting legal clarification for those of us following this impeachment trial.
But the Republicans seem intent on calling on Joe or Hunter Biden in some kind of a tit-for-tat arrangement. Obviously, John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney are relevant witnesses for a trial about Trump's abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Can somebody please, please, please provide me with a coherent explanation of how the Bidens are actually relevant to this trial? Seems to be a separate issue - completely and fairly settled already - but separate no matter what.
If I break into your house, steal your things, and get charged with crimes, are your shortcomings - up to and including a criminal past - in any way relevant in my criminal trial??
5
@KG I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, but the argument (as I understand it) goes like this. First, the premise of the abuse of power article is that Trump withheld aid from Ukraine for an abusive, personal reason -- to coerce Ukraine into initiating (or announcing) an investigation into the Bidens that would make Biden look corrupt and, thus, harm him in the election. If there was a credible reason to believe that the Bidens were engaged in corrupt behavior, which could be uncovered by a Ukrainian investigation, then that might be relevant to determining whether Trump's motivation in seeking the investigation was actually for political purposes or whether the purpose was to actually root out corruption. Withholding aid is not, by itself, evidence of corruption. Many Presidents (including Obama, as we know) have done it in the past. It's Trump's motivations that are at issue. If there is evidence that there was something real to investigate regarding the Bidens' conduct, that might support Trump's arguments that his motivations weren't improper.
John Roberts' interest in keeping Trump, the man who solicits prostitutes, scams poor children, separates babies from their mothers, puts people in cages, plunders and defiles our Earth for no other reason than to make his rich friends even richer, blatantly cheats on his income tax, hobnobs with heads of state who cut up journalists, endlessly screams about the democratic system, sells Trump steaks at the RNC, openly cheats on his wife, extols his cult supporters to get out on the streets with guns, if he doesn't win the nomination, threatens the media, employs mafiosi to run his presidency, and lies with every breath he takes - John Roberts wants to keep this - monster in power so he can return us to the good ole days of Christian white men running the country. That's the Supreme Court's agenda. But if Roberts refuses to do the job he was sworn to do, there will be no turning back to those good ole days, there will be a country in shatters.
10
NYT has a business model, the Supreme Court does not. So.....just sayin’
I hope the House Managers hear you and proceed accordingly. Surely, if impartial Justice has a chance, the Chief Justice will not impede the production of relevant documents and first-hand witness testimony. At some point, if democracy is to have a fighting chance, stonewalling must hit a backstop. We are looking at you, Chief Justice Roberts.
6
Shortly before the trial, Justice Roberts publicly decried the decline in "civics education," training in active, engaged, thoughtful citizenship focused on realization of the Constitution's aspirations concerning *justice,* the common defense, the general welfare, domestic tranquility, & (maybe the most important part, on which the others are predicated) "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves & our Posterity."
Note two things: "ourselves" is not capitalized, but "Posterity" is. The framers thought Liberty (also capitalized, like Justice) must be exercised in the present to promoting "Liberty" in the future, cultivation of those conditions to ensure that the experiment in democratic self-governance structured by a Constitution does not decay, deteriorate or atrophy, but continually thrives & grows in fuller realization of these aspirations. Justice Roberts affirmed this advocating for strengthened civic education.
This message would be heightened now by more robust Judicial assertiveness on 3 things: "Rule of Law" (in which "nobody, not even the president, is 'above the law'"; "Checks & Balances"- requiring in this case the Judicial Branch to hold the Executive & Legislative Branches to high legal standards, including matters like the Impoundment Control Act, Power of the Purse, & Impeachment Proceedings.
As to the inclusion or exclusion of witnesses, Justice Roberts should recognize witnesses, discovery, & evidence are essential to a truth-based, justice-focused outcome.
6
Justice Roberts should remember that Trump famously said, in public, "I can do whatever I want." He said "I Could Stand In the Middle Of Fifth Avenue And Shoot Somebody And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters."
He said when, shortly after his election divestment and the Emoluments Clause was being discussed, "The law is totally on my side." He showed, in other words, a determination to push the legal envelope in every case, an open indifference to the spirit of the law when he could get away with something "by the letter"; clearly repudiating underlying moral principle.
If Trump has showed at every turn proclivity to hollow out law's moral principle, brashly exploiting a "what I can get away with" standard, he must be held to the strictest "letter of the law" when he oversteps, otherwise we plunge into total lawlessness and tyranny.
He bragged about his use of fancy accounting (on tax returns we have yet to see,:" saying voters don't want the sort of sucker who pays one penny more in taxes than his accountants can allow him to withhold.
The arrogance and disdain for the most basic standards of decency have been this bully's hallmark from the get-go. Don't forget he got the nomination and elected by winning people over by his knack for abusive name-calling, a bullying tactic most outgrow in 4th grade.
Now that same bullying personality has been caught bullying Ukraine with Congressionally designated (Power of the Purse!) as his crowbar. Don't appease a bully. Restrain him.
3
Do the Democrats know all this??
I'm assuming they do, but if they don't why not?
This is what they should be demanding when they are outside the senate chamber doing interviews, thus placing pressure on Roberts to either subpoena the witnesses or make a ruling on the Democrats' motion that a subpoena be issued.
Personally, I don't want witnesses to be called!
This way all these Republican senators intent on continuing their obstructive behavior will pay for it dearly at the next elections.
Don't forget, we not only need to defeat Trump, we need to regain control of the senate!
In the end, that is just as important.
McConnell has been controlling this county for too long, by playing fast and loose with the senate rules.
6
Can we believe John Bolton? He is a disgruntled ex-employee who did not leave on good terms with President Trump. He has an axe to grind and may not be a reliable witness. Anyone who has ever been terminated or left a company due to differences knows they have negative things to say about an ex-boss. He should be no different in voicing his disagreements with our president.
Can we believe donald trump?
6
IF Trump is innocent he would welcome Bolton’s testimony!
4
You're absolutely right. There are definitely valid questions about Bolton's credibility. There are similar issues relating to the other witnesses. In this country, questions of credibility are resolved not by speculation about what a witness might testify to and what weight, if any, such testimony should be given, but by putting the witness under oath and allowing lawyers and the court to examine and cross-examine them. And that is what must happen here.
3
An innocent man would want a fair trial. How can you have a fair trial without witnesses? Is this the USA or the old USSR?
Truth and justice are essential in a free country. Why do Republicans want foreign powers meddling in our elections? And isn't witness intimidation a crime?
11
Like Renquist, Roberts doesn't want any part in this. No chance he does anything.
7
We should consider where he spent his formative years, no?
3
Though a lot of people are still expecting Republicans to acquit Trump, it's also possible we're a couple weeks out from every one of them declaring they were never Trumpers all along, they just wanted to carry out the resistance from inside!
Ha! Oh, the flip-floppers are coming! You can bet on it! Did I know he was a liar and fool? Of course, who didn't? But I saved the country! Once, at 9:05 am, with a single vote of conscience. The other 3 years of spinelessness don't count...
6
ln this latest edition of Judge Crazy, Trump lawyers just drew a rabbit out of a hat:
"Pelosi handed out pens after signing the Impeachment!"
Case dismissed.
3
Wow! So there is hope?
1
"John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?"
Are there snowballs in hell?
3
Roberts will probably not go so far as to introduce witnesses. This is not a normal court of law.
1
@Casual Observer In my opinion, Roberts is in Trump's back pocket. He can make the decision to issue subpoenas, but I believe he will not.
4
I can not help but think that this has been the Pelosi/Schiff game plan from day 1. That is; the quickest way to the necessary judicial review on witnesses, relevance, or executive privilege questions is to have Roberts do the review in real time.
Could Roberts call witnesses before a full vote? Ironically, this would be a convenient off-ramp for GOP Senators; who could say to Trump and the base that they tried everything they could to defend the President, or stonewall/ obstruct the proceedings, but were forced by the Chief Justice to have a 'fair trial'.
1
What is the point of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, it not to enable principled, independent decisions at a time like this? He has no reelection to consider, no future lobbying career to consider, no risk of being fired by POTUS or anyone else. Nobody else in that room can say the same.
5
There are quite a few comments here today from my fellow readers pointing out all the "bad rulings" Chief Justice Roberts has made. Citizens United is the primary one. I agree. Citizens United was a tragedy we are still paying the price for today.
But, here's the but. Roberts has also come to the rescue on two significant decisions. Specifically he broke ranks with the other conservative justices on gay marriage and holding up Obama Care. Both of these decisions impacted millions of Americans.
These two decisions give me hope that he will do the right thing again in admitting evidence in this case. I'm hopeful and keeping my fingers crossed.
3
The moment of truth has arrived. Will Chief Justice Roberts do the right thing or not? I am of the opinion that he will. Something tells me that he will not want to go down in history as the man who could have done this important thing - and didn't. Luckily, he doesn't have to worry about "the base" and whether he will be re-elected or not. The only one he has to listen to is his own conscience. I believe he will do what the majority of the people want him to do.
I was wondering the same thing. If Roberts rules to call witnesses or places a tie-breaking vote in the Senate trial, he will have to recuse himself from all Trump cases brought to the Supreme Court. The court could then cast a 4-4 vote down the line and the case would go to the next lower Court of Appeals for the Districts of Columbia Circuit where, ahem, Chief Circuit Judge Merrick Garland presides.
3
John Roberts' role in US history, and the main issue upon which his entire professional career, will be judged based on how he handles this Senate trial. Nothing else he does or has done will be as significant. Let's hope he acts to protect the institutions of US government and best interests of the American public, present and future, in using his full powers in his present role in this trial as outlined by the authors in this article.
7
Roberts is not a man who will do the right thing, obvious as right is in this case. Amazing, isn't it? No one is looking for a superman -- just someone decent enough to do right by the people.
Roberts is not that man.
7
@nikicervantes He's in Trump's back pocket...
2
Our impeached president has said Bolton can't testify because of executive privilege and in the interest of national security. He'll tie the issue up in court, not during this trial. It's laughable that impeached Trump is saying he's concerned about national security when he is the one who jeopardizes it the most. Also, he wasn't concerned about that when he was in a room full of people with Parnas and decided to remove the ambassador to Ukraine from her position while the people laughed at what he was saying.
10
Can we all just calm down? I'm sick of reading how "this is the last chance for this Republic to be saved" and how "America is doomed if [the person of interest] doesn't do their constitutional duty." Do you really think that this is THE MOMENT, out of the hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of so-called "constitutional crises" we have faced since Trump came to office, that is going to cause the Republic to fail? Go watch a documentary about the 1960s, or perhaps read about what was happening in our great country in the 1860s. As bad as things are now, they don't even compare to the circumstances America faced in those moments.
I get it, you, like me, dislike the President and hate his policies, but face it, even if Roberts does his "duty," Trump will not be removed from office when the Senate votes on this in a few days time. The only way we are going to get him and the GOP out of office is at the ballot box.
3
@NGL
Impeachment is not the last chance but it is must be at the very least strong, a warning shot over the bow. A subpoena of Bolton backed by 51 Senate votes and signed by Chief Justice Roberts would shake this occupant and the his Senate Republican loyalists. Top that with a guilty vote of up to 60 senators — even some loyal Republicans might cheer that outcome.
3
@NGL Yes, it is THE MOMENT.
2
Only a guilty person would be as afraid of witnesses as Trump is.
7
a high 5 to Romney. He finally did something right. Revenge is sweet, every time
3
"John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?"
Doubtful. The time when the Supreme Court was a branch of Government independent of the WH is slowly coming to end, aided by the likes of Mitch McConnell.
Sadly the picture accompanying this article seems to confirm this, as John Roberts walks forlornly in the background.
As Michael Moore asked, "dude, where's my country?".
4
Of course he will bow to his masters. He is spineless, as is almost every member of that party.
4
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
8
The Democrats are getting desperate and see their chance of removing President Trump slip through their fingers. They lead the house impeachment trial and set the rules now it is the senate who gets to set the rules. But do they really need any more witnesses? Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler have stated publicly they have overwhelming evidence that President Trump is guilty. Where is that evidence? We are waiting.
@KMW
"Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler have stated publicly they have overwhelming evidence that President Trump is guilty. Where is that evidence?"
Have you not paid any attention to the House hearings? If not, THAT is a problem...
Head out of sand - think beyond your "tribe", please...
5
If the Chief Justice elects to sit silently while the Corrupticans contemptuously shoot spitwads and leave the Senate chambers with impunity, why should we think he would allow a witness to testify against His Royal Malignancy? Hope my cynicism is unjustified.
If the Corrupticans allow HRM to crow that he has been "exonerated," a solid majority of the population nonetheless understands what is true and will vote to remove him, and them, in November. Indeed, if he slithers through the basement window of the Electoral College yet again, especially with a loss of the popular vote by many millions, and if voter suppression and other chicanery also gets them a one-or-two-vote Senate majority, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for the Corrupticans, who will have lost the respect of the world and "won" a flaming bag of poo.
4
Roberts should have a clear view of this: Democrats want witnesses because they know Trump is guilty of the two offenses. Republicans don't want witney sses because they know Trump is guilty. I doubt Roberts cannot see this and he certainly would not care to preside over a trial conducted without witnesses and have a legacy that he condoned such a trial. To maintain his integrity Roberts should recommended the calling of witnesses and let the chips fall where they may. If McConnell and his cohorts overrule Roberts, they will have to answer to the voters.
2
There is a lot in the Senate Manual to chew upon, including:
"The person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him." DJT needs to appear and answer under oath the articles passed by the House against him. If he fails to appear, " ... this shall be so recorded".
Furthermore, given that the President has been threatening impeachment managers, the Chief Justice should order a secret ballot, as permitted by Senate Rules. He can be overruled on this matter, but by a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
5
@RSSF
Their lawyer can appear for them, that's also in the manual.
Roberts has already ignored two major problems:
1) Alleged non-biased Senate "jurors", who, despite their oaths, have announced already that they will find in favor of Trump before Trump's lawyers even present their refutation of House impeachment charges.
In any courtroom, down to the tiniest village, such jurors would be removed and replaced - replacement is impossible - any senator who has declared an unchangeable position on the outcome should be removed from having anything further to do with the trial.
He has also ignored members of the Senate rising from their seats and leaving the chamber at will, not just during scheduled breaks. If more bathroom/food breaks are needed, a Senator can rise on a point of personal privilege.
Senators, particularly Republicans, have been reported (the Senate controls its C-Span cameras so their actions are invisible), doing crossword puzzles, reading, sketching, doing things that would lead a juror in the smallest village courtroom jailed for contempt - and removed from a jury.
At the least, Roberts should take away their toys, and order each senator who has pre-judged the resolution to come before him, apologize, and declare that s/he will indeed look at the evidence with an open mind - furthermore, these Senators, if they wish their votes to be counted, will provide a full written explanation outlining specific evidence that led to their vote.
If insufficient, their seats should be declared "vacant". for the trial.
8
What makes anyone think that testimonies from Bolton or Mulvaney will incriminate Trump beyond any doubt in Republicans eyes? Do they not remember the Mueller Report, or Lewandowski's testimony? Both of these witnesses are Republicans First.
1
Justice John Roberts is reportedly concerned with the independence and integrity of the Court. Now we will see if that is true. He should call witnesses to the impeachment hearing. The American people want a fair trial and justice demands witnesses and documents.
7
@Joyce Jackson Unfortunately, the present court has taken independence to mean to just stay out of whatever the government wants to do. It's not going to be any different when it comes to the Senate.
1
Ah, the twists and turns of American "justice" usually brought about by power and money. In theory our justice system is "exceptional", but with human beings involved it can just as easily become a shell game. Look at Mitch McConnell and other politicians pronouncing platitudes about defending our blessed Constitution when in reality it is about power and the Constitution often an inconvenience to be bent to one's will with reams of rationalization and an electorate who are either asleep, confused, or watching reruns.
6
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something (as a lawyer).
I cannot understand how, in a great country like the United States, it can be the majority of the Senate to decide whether a witness should be heard or not. This is not democracy, but the dictatorship of the majority (that is the exact opposite of the concept of democracy). I can accept (with difficulty) that in the end it will be the majority that will issue a verdict, but I cannot accept that the majority even denies the possibility of holding a trial worthy of the name.
The majority can defend Trump IN the trial but not FROM the trial. I hope that Mr. Roberts will make his decisions in the light of this principle and will not deny two millennia of legal culture.
16
Good luck on this one. If forced to, McConnell will simply ask for a vote to acquit and it'll be over. Never forget that the faithful WANT Trump to be above the law because they perceive that as strength which affirms his divinity.
10
Simple. The Democrats should add John Bolton to their team of managers. Then he could participate in their summation.
7
John Roberts has really shamed himself. He had a chance to admonish trump's legal team each time they lied about procedures and witnesses. He chose not to. In any real court, not this kangaroo court, a judge would be censored at some point for allowing obvious fabrications to go unchallenged.
17
John Roberts - Your presence in the Senate is due to the fact that you are the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, supposedly a strictly apolitical body. So represent the Constitution, in the Senate trial. The Constitution allows that you can call witnesses, so uphold the Constitution. Call witnesses. Unlike the Senators who's election prospects are on the line, your job is secure for life.
18
Correct. The Chief Justice is presiding, not the Majority Leader.
10
Oh, super-interesting ! Democracy seems to be here a fascinating game of following the rules (for Dems) or circumcizing them (for Reps), oh ... circumventing them ? Where is that darn(ed) dictionary ? To play devil's advocate: if all that you said is correct, then the legal/practical way for Reps to prevent Bolton's testimony is to subpoena him and then to block anything that Bolton would say because, if subpoenaed by Reps, then the Reps would have that authority. I hope that B. McConnell does not read the NYT.
Still, it may well be that the new rules from the Senate leader cover also witnesses called by the chief justice/trial president because that new rule does not contravene with existing rules, so Bolton can be silenced by Reps even if Bolton was called by Roberts.
1
The House can impeach Roberts, right? If he messes up, let's do it.
5
I've had it with saying "Democrat Managers" when referring to the Senate Impeachment trial. Properly it is "House Managers", and "House Prosecution".
It is a fact that the majority in the House are Democrats, but the HOUSE impeached the president, and that's what the TV commentators should say, and these print journalists as well.
14
Anybody who trusts Roberts to do the right thing is delusional.
10
Then we should Impeach Roberts too.
2
You're assuming that either the Democrats can mount a successful coup, or that they can win the next election. I doubt if either of these is going to be possible unless conditions change radically. The Democrats wasted three years on Russiagate McCarthyism, the Mueller report, and the impeachment, when they should have been putting forward positive plans which were an alternative to Trumpism. They didn't. The Democrats are also radically split between their progressive and conservative-plutocratic factions. Trump hate was supposed to bridge the gap, but it's not happening.
1
@Max
Actually they are putting forward plenty of plans, you're just too busy watching Faux News to know about them. And if you think Russiagate, Mueller and impeachment were wasted efforts then you have no idea how this country is supposed to work.
Sounds like we might be dealing with a bot here, folks.
4
Yes.
Request Roberts to subponea Bolton, and Mulvaney immediately.
11
Why is this not all over the news? Why didn't Schiff explain this on Meet the Press just yesterday?
This kind of foolish partisan garbage would not fly in a local courtroom where any one of these Republican Senators (or Congress) had personal gain in the balance. Having witnesses is fair. Obstructing them is despicable.
They are all afraid of the wrath of the Tweet.
5
There is simply not enough space here to point out all of Ken Starr's selective arguments, contradictions and purposeful omissions today.
Interlaced with his argument that impeachment must be based only on a statutory crime he referenced among others Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist papers in general, conveniently leaving out #65 where Hamilton wrote;
"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
In one breath he specifically argued that with all due respect the academia of law professors has no place of weight in this discussion, it's solely the text of our framers to be considered and in another breath bestowed credence to a Yale professor and then anointed Alan Dershowitz by name.
Yes, all of this is a political process, make no mistake about it. But it is at it's core, or should be, fundamentally about the truth of the behavior of the president.
Starr offered no defense of the accused behavior, neither did he argue that the framers supported concealing testimony and documentary evidence unfavorable to the accused. Because there is no honest defense on that point.
9
No.
Stayed tuned.
And at this very moment, 1:56pm EST, January 27, Fox News website's lead story is:
"FOLLOW LIVE: Clinton-era figure takes floor to defend Trump at trial".
Truly Fox News is not news, its propaganda.
6
I am perplexed , which Republicans want to call Bolton to Senate trial . I have not met any so far in the country!
Its again the dreaming elitist Dems doing their usual mixup !~
Please the walk the streets or drive around in in the states like WI/ MI/CO or KY .. ( so called battleground states ) you will know what I mean.
2
You have dreamt of a coup, of anything but Trump.
Keep dreaming, it will keep you calm. Somehow.
And yet somehow, us commies aren’t the ones whose syntax is disintegrating, who can’t seem to offer more than repeats of the same gunk, and who fire off 147 tweets a day.
2
Roberts will be a good serf and bow to the demands of King Trump.
7
If he does, then he is a RINO, a Republican in name only. he is a Trumpian? I doubt it. Too bad, Trump can replace him.
Just so’s ya know, no, a President cannot simply wave his hand and get rid of any member of the Supreme Court, let alone the Chief Justice. Sorry, but there’s this Constitution thingy...
4
American Justice ? ? ? Where is it !
5
"And that’s precisely what the Democrats must ask him to do — now"...
And the managers should have a right to subpoena those senators who do not agree with this article--at least, out of respect for the truth-seeking publication, namely, The New York Times!
2
Amen to the first four paragraphs!
1
A serious problem with a jury of 100 Senators is the diffusion of responsibility (i.e., "Genovese syndrome"). Enough Republicans (read: all of them) are going to acquit Trump because no single one of them will be blamed.
Sticking together as a bloc, in fact, is exactly what they must do, giving the egregious obviousness of Trump's crimes (and they are; see "Don’t Be Confused by Trump’s Defense. What He Is Accused of Are Crimes," by Nikolas Bowie, in today's NY Times). This "hang together or we all hang separately" effect is the exact opposite, of course, of any particular individual's head ending up "on a pike" for having voted for impeachment.
America is Kitty Genovese, and the witnesses to its murder are America's Republican Senators, and perhaps Supreme Court Justice John Roberts as well.
2
There's only one reason people try to suppress evidence, and everyone knows what it is. Preventing an eye witness from testifying is not something you're concerned with if you're innocent.
The founding fathers created a three-pronged balance of power for a reason. I have no doubt that Justice Roberts understands that what is at stake here is nothing less than that constitutional principle: if the executive branch can be allowed to ignore subpoenas and withhold evidence, the legislative branch cannot fulfill its constitutional duty to hold the president accountable.
Justice Roberts is a conservative and a Republican, but he cares about the country and he cares about his legacy. If called upon to do so, he will do what's right. So let's call!
5
Why does it take so long for guys like Katyal to read the rules and come up with these kinds of analyses? This material has been sitting there for over 200 years. McConnell runs circles around Democrat’s exploiting rules and they are just coming up with this now?
Republicans figured out over a decade ago that demographic changes would doom their party. So, they devised a plan to take over state legislatures, gerrymander, suppress the vote and target the federal judiciary with Federalist hacks as soon as the opportunity presented itself. All of which they have done. It got them control of the presidency, the house, the senate and now the Supreme Court and much of the lower federal courts.
Even now, Democrats speak of Republicans and especially Republican Senators as though they actually believe their position is true. The reality is they know it is not. They are advancing it in bad faith. They cannot be convinced to do differently because they are in a fight for their survival that leaves them no choice. Their only hope of viability is single party rule—by any means possible. They will obstruct the impeachment and acquit Trump because it is either that or oblivion. Dems even give Susan Collins a pass as a potentially fair-minded senatorial stateswoman when she is just a far right hack who just knows how to play them.
Democrats value truth, fairness and justice, but they seem to be one step behind republicans when it comes to effective political strategy, and it shows.
3
No. The idea that John Roberts oversees justice is a myth. The only time he voted against Republican interests was wshen he voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Not even he could condemn millions of low income Americans with cancer to death with inadequate healthcare.
But Roberts will not sustain justice overseeing the impeachment trial of Donald Trump in the Senate. There are too many Senate seats at stake and Roberts wants to keep his court Republican.
2
I would argue that under the precedence of Marbury v. Madison since the Senate is sitting as a jury it cannot exercise the powers of the judiciary, which, under the Constitution have been left to the Chief Justice.
Since the Senate under McConnell seems to tremble at the mere thought they could be seen to oppose the White House occupant, Adam Schiff's remarks, though appearing to be directed toward them, may have been more for the need to get all those reminders of duty and fairness before Chief Justice Roberts. A reminder of what is truly at stake here. Not 'just' the fairness of this proceeding, but the Constitution itself and the integrity of the Court.
2
I get the feeling that Roberts is in the GOP swamp. He seems disinterested in the whole charade.
3
We would have a better chance with Julia Roberts...
7
Funny how John Bolton, long viewed by Dems as a crazy hawk, will end up being key to opening up this process to witnesses and evidence, and maybe even convicting Trump. How the worm has turned.
2
@What in the World
Maybe Bolton has made a deal with Pence.
The title of this piece is: "John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?"
My response? I HOPE TO GOD HE WILL! If not, he will go down in history as the most partisan, least patriotic Judge, to ever sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
2
If at this juncture in our Constitutional turmoil John Roberts must rise to the occasion or be branded as a liar and traitor to that living document that he swore to defend. It's really up to you John!
Mark a place in history with John Marshall, that chief justice who empowered the court in the 18th century or be held in contempt with Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump and his gang of thieves.
Who is worse John, the thief who robs a house than the cop who let's him do it?
Hey, who do you think is presiding here: The Majority Leader (praise be upon him), or some lousy Chief Justice?
Donald Trump, the first to be President with absolutely no experience at being a human being.
5
Has Kenneth Starr bothered to read either the GAO report OR the Mueller Report? Good Lord, he really is taking his sweet time when it comes to flogging a dead horse, isn't he.
Dear Mr Chief Justice,
Dear John Roberts,
You and I share the 27th. I’m 81 today. A brilliant OpEd moves this writing.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.amp.html
Courage. Courage.
You will be remembered for Citizens, Obama Care, and MOST of all, for your willingness to call witnesses.
Our nation looks to you.
A republic if you can keep it.
Precedent need not rule.
Create precedent, Sir. Save us from the chaos of a lawbreaking scoundrel in the White House.
He’s not the first. With your action he might be the last, or with inaction, the first of many.
Break this tribal chaos. Teach us that Common Sense and our first amendment are what matters.
Aeropagetica should be required reading, Mr. Chief Justice. John Milton was a good man. 1644.
Happy birthday, Sir.
Make us proud, lead us.
Thank you,
Sandy
6
@S B Lewis
Happy Birthday, to you, too, Sandy; thank you for your contribution. BTW, you share your birthday with composer W.A. Mozart and the dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov. The are good people; let's hope Roberts belongs to this group and does the right thing.
@sh Thanks... Wolfgang is my hero. There are others. Baryshnikov they are not: Jay Henry Perry, block trader, Salomon Brothers, now dead. Eric Bettelheim, son of Bruno, a student in the 4th grade class at UCLS of my wife... in 1961-2, a lawyer in London, married well. Chief Justice John Roberts has a chance to stand tall. Neal Kumar Katyal is the most virtues lawyer. I'd love to see him on SCOTUS.
No. The potted plant will do nothing. He wants to be so distanced from this historic event and does not want to go down in history as having made a decision.
He's mostly a political guy (how else are Repubs chosen by their coven...not on scholarship alone), posing as an "Originalist".
Does that mean he's in favor of slavery, landowner only voting, women not voting...shall I go on?
2
If he doesn't (call witnesses) he'll be in the unique position of not only obstructing justice but being forever known as Obstructing Justice.
2
Expecting John Roberts to do the right thing and subpoena witnesses is akin to Dems hoping that Robert Mueller's report and testimony would set into motion actions to impeach, convict and remove Trump from office.
In other words, I am not holding my breath.
2
Seriously! Why haven't the House Managers done so already?
1
I have to think "preside" over the trial means more than just sitting in a chair and calling the meeting to order.
3
What undercuts this is that everybody knows Trump is guilty. So what revelations could there be? If Mick Mulvaney says we have to "get over it" you can't get over something that never happened. Obviously, it did happen, but Republicans care only about getting re-elected and avoiding the wrath of Trump.
3
Roberts may surprise us, but I wouldn’t count on it. Also, nothing he allows—if he allows—will get 67 votes. Bolton could come in there with video showing Trump stabbing someone to death, shooting that person on 5th Ave. and it wouldn’t make any difference. The proto-dictator wins.
Will he act? If he's forced to. If he's not forced, he won't act. Simple. He's shown his colors.
I would not be delighted if the Chief Justice decided to crush a rogue president by asserting this power ... tho I would be totally pleased to be rid of this rogue president.
No matter how much this president refuses to uphold the Constitution, I want the Chief Justice to do so. Anything less merely multiplies the damage done to this country by Donald Trump.
The problem with regicide is that it begets ongoing regicide. That is not in the USA's best interest. Ken Starr's sappy sermon against impeachment may have been the worst possible argument against it. But his threat against the Senate -- by mentioning that the sworn oaths of Senators go to the National Archives -- is clearly meant to be a reminder that the Parliament that condemned Charles I to death, a century before our Revolution, led to persecution and execution of people who dared to rule against the king.
Not a chance. Roberts is a dyed in the wool Republican and he is solely responsible for all of our issues with Trump due to making Citizens United the rule of law.
No one on the right appears to have either the moral center or decency to end this rush to fascism. Power is an aphrodisiac and it has permanently deformed the minds of Putins Party. Even with Ken Starr bloviating right in front of him, Roberts will continue to play solitaire and read his emails while Rome burns to the ground.
1
I am 100% sure that Bolton is telling the truth. Why? Simply because Trump has a long list of lies that reach 9000 since he took office. He is lying again to save himsel.
@Dr.. Arturo F. Jasso
It is striking that Bolton is making these claims. Doing so removes any possibility that he might serve in future administrations.
Rule V. says:
The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.
Whatever power this rule gives to the presiding officer is also given to the Secretary of the Senate. I doubt the Senate intended that the Secretary of the Senate be able to issue subpoenas on his/her own. So I doubt that this ability was intended to be given to the presiding officer.
2
@Gary Exactly. This argument makes no sense. Surprising that people with such good reputations would put out such nonsense.
A trial with a pre-defined result is an aberration of the law and an insult to Justice. Mr. Roberts, just make sure there is a fair and sound trial, give truth a chance, save our judicial system, this "trial" will set up a precedent of such importance that the future of our institutions, democracy and with them the future of our nation is at stake. Just give truth and justice an opportunity.
3
Well ...Roberts sure didn't hesitate to consider Corporations people and release loads of dark money into elections with Citizen United and subsequent rulings (Davis v. Federal Election Commission). Also unfortunate votes on Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and District of Columbia v. Heller. Minutes ago he voted to allow Trump's punitive limit on immigration to go into effect. "SUPREME COURT in 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court allows Trump plan to deny green cards to those who may need gov't aid".
The problem is that his record is to be "bold" when it benefits the powerful and his conservative views and quite cautious indeed when it doesn't. I hold NO HOPE he will even consider witnesses.
2
What we have here is a demonstration that identity politics is more powerful than reason, respect for the rule of law and abhorrance of crime.
This is a dark part of the American soul, present since the beginning, and fanned into flame in our lifetimes.
4
While I strongly believe witnesses should be compelled to testify, the authors of this article are wrong. The Chief Justice is not the Presiding Officer.
173 IV. When the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States, upon whom the powers and duties of the Office of President shall have devolved, shall be impeached, the Chief Justice of the United States shall preside; and in a case requiring the said Chief Justice to preside notice shall be given to him by the Presiding Officer of the Senate of the time and place fixed for the consideration of the articles of impeachment, as aforesaid, with a request to attend; and the said Chief Justice shall be administered the oath by the Presiding Officer of the Senate and shall preside over the Senate during the consideration of said articles and upon the trial of the person impeached therein.
The Presiding Officer administers the oath TO the Chief Justice. It will still need a simple majority (51) to compel witnesses.
1
Uh...there’s the word, “preside,” in there, three times?
1
I seriously doubt that Roberts will insert himself to that degree, he'll never do it. He'd rather be the "potted plant" that was predicted rather than draw the ire of the alt-right. He wants to be dissociated from this circus months from now rather than be remembered as an active, high profile, possibly game-changing participant.
That said, I would love to see this "trial" drag out for 2 or 3 more weeks into February as more incriminating information about trump drips out each week.
Look for more deflection/distraction about the Bidens.
3
So not is only the Senate "on trial," so is the Supreme Court. IF he doesn't allow witnesses, then half of our government has now failed the people. The founders, when they didn't know what they were doing, left enough ambiguity in their plan to ward off despotism and allow for change. This is a critical point in our history. Ben Franklin's quote about keeping our Republic was prescient. He might have anticipated this moment.
5
@Doug Garr
Actually, all 3 branches are currently broken. That's 100%, not half.
1
I don't know if these authors are being deliberately misleading or just don't understand the Senate Rules but what they are saying is dead wrong. I would expect people with such high credentials and good reputations to be a little more careful when making such a audacious assertion.
1st, the 1868 Senate Rules for Impeachment do not contain all the rules for impeachment. They have been supplemented by various resolutions, including a resolution governing this specific impeachment trial . The 1868 Rules must be read together with these resolutions, which are of equal force.
2nd, Rule V (which this entire argument rests on) says that the Chief Justice has the power to make and issue orders "authorized by these rules, or by the Senate." It does not give the Chief Justice free reign to issue whatever subpoenas or other orders he wants.
3rd, S Res 483, passed at the commencement of this trial and which has equal force of the 1868 Rules, expressly bars the House Managers from making motions to subpoena documents or witnesses until after the opening statements, questions by senators, and arguments. Only at that point will the Senate vote "on the question of whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents."
In other words, when the 1868 Rules are read together with S Res 438 (as they must be), the Chief Justice is not authorized to issue subpoenas until after a further vote is held.
3
No way, no how is Roberts going to subpoena witnesses, or any other action that, in his mind, indicates that he is supporting one side or another.
Roberts still maintains that the SC is nonpartisan. He is obviously delusional in this regard.
3
I was wondering how the public was going to witness a fair trial on the McConnell no impeachment plantation. His Senators act like peonage sharecroppers mindlessly doing Mitch's bidding. There can't be any justice there.
I wonder the Chief Justice really could and would ask for witnesses in this impeachment hearing as these law professors say he can. Witnesses and testimony are so much a part of trials in this country and the public knows it is an essential part of a fair trial. It's not a partisan maneuver.
3
Dream on
4
The senate is going to acquit trump no matter what. Hard stop. That's it. The impeachment trial is not a legal affair it's a political event. If Bolton's testimony is blocked by senate republicans, public opinion will turn heavily against them because the information on Trump's motives as reported in Bolton's new book clearly undercuts the defense's position that the impeachment managers need a first hand witness from someone who was in the room where it happened. If Bolton testifies, they can attack his credibility in real time, and put on a public defense of their client that will pettifog the facts. I think they will go with option number two, the lesser of two evils. And then GOP senators will have talking points to rationalize their acquittal votes.
2
I don't get it. If Trump says he is innocent, and the Republicans believe and support him, why are they afraid of witnesses, documents, e-mails, etc. requested by the Democrats? If Trump were really innocent, he would encourage witnesses to testify and voluntarily provide documents to prove his innocence.
15
Mr. Roberts, just do the right thing. Even a 5 year old can tell right from wrong here. Bolton has now come forward, twice, claiming to have relevant information. From what we now know, this seems true. We furthermore have been led to believe that it is not classified information (although it might be politically sensitive). Do the right thing and have him testify -and have him do it publicly.
14
Just recently Roberts called trump on his abuse of power and
I would be surprised if Justice Roberts did not tip his hand in favor of a fair trial as chief of SCOTUS, and his rulings would be immediate and cannot be appealed.
That said I believe Roberts will wait till the very last moment before taking action.
5
@Gianni
Roberts won't do anything, so forget about it.
Then again, it would be quite the scene if Roberts pronounces that witnesses should be subpoenaed, and McConnell rules him out of order.
So the Trump's defense is that Trump did not commit a crime. Not according to Mueller. Not according to the GAO Report. Not according to Individual Number 1's former attorney. Not according to NY State - one example would be that self-enriching charitable organization (and there is more than one example). Isn't fraud at least a crime? I always assumed fraud was felony.
But apparently Trump's attorneys are claiming that when it comes to Trump, there's no criminal activity - nothing to see here.
Perhaps it's just that Trump's GOP does not consider fraud to be a crime because when it comes to fraud, they're swimming in it.
5
This is an interesting explanation of the specific powers with regards to calling witnesses that the Chief Justice seems to have in these proceedings.
However, it won't make any difference if he does call them. It won't make any difference if the Senate is suddenly delivered an avalanche of evidence and a chorus of eye witness testimony. The Republicans in the Senate will vote as a block to acquit this President no matter what else may occur. Nothing can or will change that, just as nothing can or will change the hearts or minds of Republican supporters.
I'm glad we Impeached the President. This sham of an impeachment trial will not change that and the result delivered by those Republican senators will never change the facts surrounding the entire affair.
At this point, though, given where we all know it's headed, I'll just be glad when it's over.
1
the REPS don't want all the facts. They don't want to hear 1st hand testimony or see official govt. docs. Trump's defense team sounds like they're giving a closing argument in criminal court every time they try to make their case. No disputing testimony given in the house, no referencing evidence introduced, just repeatedly saying the president didn't commit a crime
4
It would be nice if Justice Roberts would act like a Chief Justice, but the real problem is still begging the simple question:
What good is more evidence and more witnesses if the Republican Senate majority continues to ignore the evidence and the witnesses?
The corruption we are addressing here is no longer just Donald Trump's personal actions - it is a coverup and corruption that extends throughout the entire Trump-controlled Republican Party.
10
To begin with, Justice Roberts must assert that a defendant does not have the authority to block anyone from testifying.
To those who cite executive privilege: the privilege does not extend to crimes or to investigations of criminal activity.
15
What a complete circus.
The establishment will do anything in their power to maintain the status quo. Of course, the status quo is "Anybody But Sanders".
A Trump re-election is fine.
Any of the other Republican Lite candidates is fine.
A Sanders presidency is Not fine.
The plan: Do whatever is necessary to drag out this "impeachment" as long as possible. Why? Because Sanders is gaining rapidly and the establishment needs to keep him cooped up in the Senate so that he can no longer campaign.
This is pure political theater at its finest.
4
Wow! It’s all a conspiracy against Bernie Sanders. Everyone in both parties used the impeachment proceedings to impede Bernie Sanders’ candidacy. Lord help us!
3
I think I’ll just point out the basic diff between the ways that Democrats and Republicans screw up.
When Dems get it wrong about national secrets, it’s because they put them out there too easily; Reps tend to hide everything.
When Dems foul up on voting, it’s by opening voting up; Reps, the opposite.
Border security, law, everything: they’re liberals, all righty. We tend to want the facts out there; we like to see everybody voting; we think refugees deserve decent treatment, and so on. Oh, and we’re really bad at screaming ridiculous lies over and over.
Now of course, a pol who takes money is a pol who takes money, what with money being the grand unifier among parties. There are exceptions, like the Gulf of Tonkin or some of Fast&Furious.
But by and large, I think I’ll take the Democratic foulups, every single time.
6
Here's something else for Chief Justice Roberts and Republican senators to consider:
Bolton submitted his manuscript to the NSC for pre-publication review on December 30th--four weeks ago. Ergo, the White House has known for almost a month that Bolton's damning testimony would completely undercut Trump's impeachment trial defense.
We all know that Bolton has long been an outspoken war-hawk, particularly as it relates to Iran. So, is it then just mere coincidence that, on January 3, 2020---only four days after Bolton submitted his damning manuscript---Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian Qasem Soleimani? Could it be that Trump did so in an attempt to please and appease Bolton?
Trump wouldn't do such a thing--have someone assassinated and then lie about why he did it--just to try to help himself, would he?!?
Mr. Chief Justice, do your job. Call witnesses--including Bolton, Mulvaney, and Pompeo--and demand the immediate production of all of the documents Trump has illegally withheld. If you fail to do so, both your name and that of SCOTUS will be mud. You will have destroyed the Constitution and will have ushered in a vicious autocracy.
9
He should!!!!
5
It's a pattern of the Democratic Party since RR:
Never play your strong hand.
1
Surely you jest...
Perhaps he should call Mueller as a character witness – and you could all breathlessly blog about how this could be the man's chance at redemption and decency...
Or subpoena the cast of The View – and mandate a 30-minute live panel discussion on-stage in the Senate chamber about how bad a dirtbag Trump actually is, that goes into overtime and ends only when Whoopi and Meghan start beating each other with folding-chairs...
My fave would be if you could just get B’llieBush to cough up those backstage clips of Hannity and Carlson juggling rescue puppies while Gutfeld and Watters shoot at their tiny bodies in mid-air with large-clip paintball guns…
I'd wager that if every snip of surreptitious video and contemporaneous commentary that’s been compiled (and circulated to close associates) in which Trump shows himself to be an absolute boor since being inaugurated were now played end-end...
It would go on till past election day...
3
Shame on the NYT for stringing its readers along like this. It is selling them what they want to hear.
2
@AACNY Today, of all days, resistance in the face of overwhelming corruption and cruelty is celebrated as a virtue.
2
Let’s understand what is happening. Mr. Trump has already acknowledged that he used Ukraine aid money to pressure Ukraine to tidy-up its corruption riddled government. And he asserted in many ways that he did not do any wrong as the final decision maker in that equation, as the nation’s Chief Executive.
Whatever John Bolton claims now is really a moot point. The issue now in front of the Senate is not what Mr. Bolton now suggests, but the clear assertion that the President can do no wrong as the final arbiter of the country. This is the point in front of the Senate.
And this is something we need to explore. Can the ultimate authority be always vested upon the Executive when all other components fail? If not, how do we resolve the dilemma when the President is not given the authority he requires to induce a desirable change?
1
Interesting point. If we are a republic then the ultimate decision maker(s) are the people by which the republic is composed. The people of this republic chose their representatives (representatives and senators- congress) for the purpose of promoting their interests and promulgating laws towards those ends. The executive is charged with “faithfully” executing those laws. The execute does have the authority to veto a bill that has been passed by the Congress. But if a law is duly signed and enacted it should be followed by the executive branch of government. If the chief executive draws to itself the power to become the ultimate decision maker as to what law is or is not is enforced then it diminishes those powers originally invested in the citizens of the republic and those of their representatives. It is the responsibility of the representatives of the citizens of the republic to ensure the laws it has enacted inbehalf of its citizens are being faithfully executed by the executive branch. If the chief executive refuses to cooperate with the oversight of its operations as required by the representatives of the citizens of this republic then the executive has abrogated the compact by which the republic has been created and it ceased being a republic. Instead it has evolved into an authoritarian form of governance with an unchecked executive. Samples of this form of governance abound around the world.
Dream on.
Dream on.
1
It's just the future of democracy that is on the line here. But, no pressure Justice Roberts...
4
"John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?"
He absolutely CAN call witnesses and request documents.
He most assuredly will not.
2
All most of us have known is democracy. We have clung to the hope that our system of checks and balances, a free press and fair elections will ultimately do what’s right. It has in the past. Realistically
Those times are over.
Money is power in America. Citizens United was the tipping point. Too many of our leaders are not people of goodwill. While the world economy changed these leaders did little to help those left behind. Instead they have stoked resentment for their own gain.
Mueller didn’t save us. Roberts won’t save us. The election? Republican lies, Fox voter suppression and foreign interference suggest otherwise. Even if Trump loses can we realistically expect him to leave?
Those of us concerned about America’s eroded democracy are in one way like Trump supporters.
We’re hoping to make America great again. While we must try with all our might to make it so,
As individuals we will probably have to adjust to the authoritative country we have become.
4
I would presume that this would be the best news ever for republican senators. They might not have to defend their vote to deny witnesses and evidence. Cravens that the are.
4
This is my favorite NYT opinion piece...ever.
Chief Justice, the Republic is in your hands. Please help.
7
In 2002 Bolton was beating the war drums against Iraq based on false WMD accusations. Bolton and Cheney also tried to say Iraq had chemical weapons. The head of OPCW made a deal with Hussein allowing the OPCW to go anywhere in Iraq at any time they wished, with no advanced notification. Bolton and Cheney didn’t like that because it would prove their charges groundless. Bolton first called Jose Bustani and said Bustani had to resign. Bustani asked why and Bolton answered, ‘your management style wasn’t agreeable with Washington’. Bustani refused. A couple of weeks later Bolton approached the head of the OPCW and said; “Cheney wants you out”. Jose Bustani refused to quit and told Bolton so. Bolton replied: “You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don’t comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you.”
After a pause, Bolton continued: “We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York.”
Bustani was eventually voted out by the OPCW with 43 abstentions. And we're supposed to take the side of this criminal?
5
From the Wasington Post-zjohn Robert's Come Face to Face With the Mess He Made
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/23/john-roberts-comes-face-face-with-mess-he-made/
3
The public are not audience but the swarm of bit actors in this monstrous farce of a Greek Tragedy. And how horribly tragic it is that the most crucial seats of authority are filled with abject venal cowards.
Where, hiding in the wings are the Liberals assembling to salvage this self destructive nation from its own selfish owners?
1
demand pence, pompeo, barr, trump, jared, ivanka, kellyann, mick, bolton, maria, sondland, vindman, fiona take the oath of truth.
1
@Marlene
I think you've got your cast of characters mixed up.
Maria, Vindman and Fiona most certainly spoke the truth.
But you could certainly add Graham, McConnell, Nunes, Jordan, Don Jr. etc. to the list.
So if the House Managers ask John Roberts, aka Mr. Balls and Strikes, to subpoena Bolton and he agrees. It’s strike one, Mr. President.
2
Does Kabuki theater have Deus ex Machina?
1
Odds aren't good
John Roberts will do what his Opus Dei director tells him to do.
4
I blame Trump.
3
We need to know the truth! Please press on in getting witnesses!!!!
3
Susan Collins. Lisa Murkowski. Mitt Romney. Lamar Alexander.
Their moral courage is being tested.
But instead of doing what they know is right, they operate by looking at polls and counting noses and weighing the risks and disadvantages.
7
@Ben
Murkowski is my senator and I emailed her twice this weekend. I am so disgusted with her, strictly because she *knows perfectly well* what Trump is all about yet she plays games, sitting with her BFF Susan Collins, and pretending to be 'fair' while our democracy is getting destroyed. Schiff's comment about heads on pikes was the perfect excuse she needed to stick with the pack. I told her so and called her a 'sniveling coward'. I'm done trying to be nice or professional with these people. Ugly is all they understand.
And speaking of ugly, you should see what I mailed to Marsha Blackburn. The women are as bad as the men.
As always, Mr. Katyal has written a well-reasoned legal opinion, addressing the relevant issues and anticipated opposing arguments. If possible, I'd like to see his opinion on whether there are any remedies against the Senators who took an oath, under penalty of perjury, to be impartial [just like all jurors do in any tribunal] while previously or subsequently admitting to their bias in favor of the president. Many of those Senators are attorneys, who have additional ethical duties to a tribunal. After all, any juror who violates his/her oath is subject to legal penalties. Why should the Senators be any different?
7
We keep hoping that one doozy of a revelation will do Trump in. Once it was a check that Trump wrote to a porn star, another time it was the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, and, of course, the Mueller Report. None of this has left a scratch on Trump since the U.S. Senate is controlled by the GOP that is absolutely committed to protecting him. So what if John Bolton testifies and is able to produce ironclad evidence that Trump strongarmed Zelensky when GOP Senators have a long list of excuses to dismiss his testimony as a marketing ploy for his book or ranting of a fired employee? The only thing the Senate trial is doing is deepening the cynicism of Americans toward their government and keeping the majority of Democratic presidential candidates from campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. Who can look at the roster of GOP Senators and say that there are 17 of them who would vote their conscience? Ain't going to happen.
5
Roberts ranks among the most conservative justices of the last century. But he seems perpetually driven by concern for his legacy. He hasn’t made a left turn and no one should think he will, but he does not want to be seen as a hack. Which Chief Justice will show up in the Senate chambers?
4
This is someone's opinion? Is it true? Can it be proven? If we put all of our hope into someone's opinion and it turns out that it's untrue...we'll all be disappointed.
1
Most unlikely the role is largely ceremonial he will not change that the decision is in the hands of 51 Senators to call will four call a end to this sham of a trial. Is party more important the country? We shall see Ben Franklin is worried,
1
I would imagine a number of Republican senators (the 30 that Mike Murphy said would vote to convict if it was a secret vote, for example) would be thrilled to be let off the hook by Roberts. They could "stand by" Trump as he railed about Roberts being a turncoat judicial traitor to the flag while not having to defend voting for against something 70% of the country wants during their next campaign.
3
This solves a multitude of problems Justice is done. He covers for spineless Senators who post Trump “would have” voted for witnesses. He can’t be removed and must importantly as a Jurist would uphold rule of law and the equality of the Judicial Branch for the future.
5
I really wish Democrats would stop being such weakling pushovers. Immediately after reading this well argued position, I read an update in the NYT, where Chuck Schumer said something about (I'm paraphrasing here) crossing his fingers and asking pretty please, hoping that some 'on the fence' Republicans might vote to allow witnesses.
This is the same weakness that allowed Moscow Mitch McConnell to steal a supreme court seat. Jesus, Democrats, grow some spine and fight the right way.
2
Unfortunately, I firmly believe that Judge Roberts is a diehard Republican who is in the tank for them.
3
If democrats unilaterally call Bolton as a witness, then republicans will unilaterally call the Bidens as witnesses, effectively assuring that the democrats’ leading candidate doesn’t make it to the White House.
Can we not also impeach all the Senators who refuse to call witnesses? They certainly are not upholding their oath to the Constitution.
5
If he is independent he will.
If he is a political hack he will not.
6
What remains to be seen is: "a member of the judiciary expected to be apolitical and impartial." Every single Republican Senator has fallen in line. Has the rot reached the judiciary?
7
Are you saying that the House Democrats, Adam Schiff, and the Senate Democrats and Chuck Shumer didn't bother to read the actual rules for impeachment? That they just took McConnell's word for it that witnesses needed a Senate vote to be called and Senators could over rule Justice Roberts when they can't? And you're telling me Chief Justice Roberts didn't bother to read them either??
I find this difficult to comprehend. What am I missing?
2
Why should Justice Roberts administer an oath if he will allow the oath-swearers to break it? Doesn't good faith on their part require allowing witnesses/evidence (doesn't good faith mean seeking the facts/evidence, rather than pursuing willful, systematic blindness to these)? If it does, the Republicans are violating their oath! If the Republicans are violating their oath administered by Justice Roberts, & Justice Roberts administered that oath under oath himself to administer/preside over a fair trial. Doesn't Justice Roberts violate his own oath to permit all this? The Constitution clearly places sacred importance on this oath procedure. Person A takes an oath, then immediately administers an oath to party B. That means Person A is SWEARING to hold party B to their oath, which becomes his own! This makes Justice Roberts personally responsible for Senators acting in good faith. So how can he tolerate a witness-less, evidence-less, truth-less, justice-less (which this must be, given any reasonable definition of a legitimate trial) trial? Given yesterday's developments, Justice Roberts may well be in violation of his oath, sad to say. Where does that leave us, if these oaths are reduced to hollow ceremony? One answer is "exactly where an insincere presidential oath of office leaves us." But not exactly. In a checks/balances arrangement, good faith in the one department corrects bad faith in the others; except where bad faith in each supports bad faith in the others.
4
@anon
Sorry, I meant to identify this, with quotation marks and an introducing caption, as a comment I posted last week (reproduced here verbatim), as the ground rules were being determined, and it appeared Justice Roberts was taking a very passive role (in other comments addressing this apparent passivity, I used terms like "wallflower," "rubber stamp" and "[according senators] carte blanche").
1
As an attorney -YES- do it! Is he for the country or another GOP hack?
Of course if the charge of treason or breach of national security was more clearly before the Senate, he would have no choice.
6
Quite simply, if he can he should. Period. If he is truly non-partisan i.e.
6
Roberts (and Kavanaugh) we’re appointed for a reason having absolutely nothing to do with non-partisan application of the law. Scratch a Republican and all you get is more republican...
7
"An overwhelming number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans.." are overwhelmed with rumors about "facts undisclosed"!
If a Founding Astrologer predicted/painted to the Founding Fathers ( ..no Mother yet) the picture of the coming, Mighty America-powered Information Age, wouldn't they have fainted amass?!
1
Can the Chief Justice submit a case for review by the Supreme Court?
Justice Roberts' actions in the trial so far are not encouraging: "White House counsel Pat Cipollone lied during the Senate impeachment trial when he said Republicans were not allowed in the secure briefing room during House impeachment hearings. Confronted by this blatant untruth, one of Trump’s lawyers, Robert Ray, declared, 'I’m not interested in wading in the procedural weeds here.' ... Some senator should send a note up to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asking him to admonish Cipollone.” (Washington Post 23Jan2020)
6
I don’t read it that way at all. The Chief Justice shall issues subpoenas “authorized by these rules, or by the Senate.” This language does not give the CJ authority to issue subpoenas on his own motion, it must be otherwise authorized in the rules. This is a ridiculous reading, grasping at straws.
2
The Republican senators also look bad for failing to press for all relevant witnesses be called. It is like they are afraid. Flush out the facts!
2
Expecting Roberts to call any witnesses not approved by Mitch would be the equivalent of expecting Trump to admit he faked his deferment for the draft. Cowards each in their own way with justifications to suit the occasion
3
Roberts will not call witnesses because he wants to get this insufferable farce that the Democrats are putting the country through over. Vote for America--Vote Republican.
And to think that while these GOP Congress members sell their soul to the devil, the President keeps destroying their party and the country. In a few days or weeks another scandal will break and they once again will have to cover up and lie. You, my dear GOP fellows, don’t mean anything to him. You are puppets. You will be discarded when you are not needed anymore.
Where is your dignity? Is he worthy of it?
2
Expecting Chief Justice Roberts to step up to the plate, is like hoping to hear a tremendous roar from the home crowd while heading to your car in the dark parking lot, with two outs in the bottom of the ninth.
1
Here's another comment I wrote last week on the subject, as the Senate was debating ground rules:
"I believe in every U.S. Court, the Court may make its own motions "Sua Sponte," in the interest of justice. Mr. Chief Justice, I believe, as a concerned citizen, [it may be warranted] to consider whether Your Honor has been too passive in this proceeding, allowing important judicial principles [importance of witnesses an evidence] to be betrayed. I believe the presiding Judge has discretion to either subpoena a witness (John Bolton) or invite an amicus curiae brief from him or any other party, on the Court's own motion. That is part of the Judge's discretion in any trial. I admit I'm a layman, hardly in a position to lecture a Chief Justice on such matters, but it is my impression. I hope it will at least be considered."
3
I have no faith in John Roberts or the Supreme Court, which I was taught, many years ago, would always protect our constitution by being impartial; Citizens United has disproven it. Our representative democracy is being destroyed by the very people who swore to protect it. I weep.
2
Back in 2000, I said to count the votes. In 2020, it's issue the subpoenas.
Chief Justice Roberts might not have the power to issue subpoenas. However, someone needs to speak up. Why not the Chief Justice?
3
Reproducing my comment last week:
"I believe not only that the oaths are the heart of the matter, but the process of [Justice Roberts] being sworn in and immediately thereupon swearing in the senators must have been designed not only to charge him with holding them accountable, but in a sense taking the senator's oaths upon himself, making them his own.
The framers seem to have believed the oaths structured/staggered in this way was the only way to secure a genuine commitment by all parties to pursue justice - a legitimate, fair, thorough trial - in good faith. Chief Justice swears to preside over a trial meeting this standard, & exacts an oath from participants to do their part. This set-up prevents him from tolerating shoddiness/bad faith on their part, vis-a-vis his own professional sense of what a real trial entails. He is under oath to hold all concerned to high legal (procedural & substantive) standards, whatever this/these entail. Anything less than that, he is in violation of his oath. Not only that...
Not only that, but "checks and balances" fails. Checks & balances is 3-way here. He represents the Judicial Branch in holding the Executive accountable. If he makes himself a wallflower in the proceeding (the occasional admonition about decorum not withstanding), he really betrays a) his oath, b) "checks and balances, c) the Constitution, in a way, as seriously as Trump has, by abetting it.
4
I cannot understand why the real transcript and recording of the fateful telephone call has not been an issue in all of this. Surely the Democrats should call for this to be entered into evidence, and surely Roberts can rule on whether it should be made available.
This would settle the matter once and for all. The American people deserve to know the truth.
3
Three problems.
1. The Senate Rules of 1868 are just that -- rules. And rules tailored to the circumstances of Pres. Andrew Johnson's trial. As such they can be changed by a majority of the Senate.
2. In 1999, Schumer disageed with those rules. He said during Clinton’s impeachment that witnesses were supposed to be called prior to the Senate trial and that it “doesn’t make sense” to call them during the Senate trial. He argued that 60,000 pages of testimony before the House was enough for the Senate to vote on. What has changed in this case -- other than the House Democrats' haste?
3. If Katyal et al want to rely on Rule V, then presumably Trump can call Joe and Hunter Biden to the stand.
1
@Ian Maitland
What you say in point 2 might make sense if the current House had been allowed to call all the relevant witnesses. No witnesses in the Clinton trial were suppressed by the White House, and so, therefore, there was a pretty clear record of who said what to whom and when.
What exactly are Joe and Hunter Biden going to add to the facts of the case? It wouldn't matter if they were marauding serial killers; 45 wasn't actually concerned about actual corruption, only in a sham public announcement of an investigation for the sole purpose of making Joe Biden look bad.
3
As I see it, if the Republicans succeed in acquitting Trump, he will become a true Dictator and he and his Republican supporters in Congress will either rig or override the 2020 election, cementing their power to do whatever they want for their own interests. The power of Congress as a co-equal branch of government will be rendered useless. We the people will lose all power as voters, protests will be made illegal, the press will be condemned or shut down, social security and medicare will be eliminated along with other agencies that support the social good, government land such as national parks will be handed over to corporations to be plundered, America will ruin the planet, poverty will increase, the uber rich will create their own Trump subsidairies, and on and on and on. And, I've always been an optimist, so my view is not based on a lifetime of pessimism.
4
If someone doesn't come forward and ask Cheif Justice Roberts to call witnesses, then once again, self-will / strategy is revealed, instead of trust in and regard for the strength of the law.
2
The Constitution states that the Senate shall try all impeachments. It would be interesting to see an opinion, perhaps from Justice Roberts on whether it can be considered a trial without allowing even relevant witnesses. Is a sham trial still a trial? And how would that ruling impact justice at all levels?
3
I don’t agree with Justice Roberts on a number of social issues but he strikes me as a man of convictions. He is certainly intelligent enough to see through Trump’s feeble defense and outright obstruction. I believe he and I might agree on the framer’s intent when it comes to Impeachment and what constitutes abuses of power. I think he values our democratic principals and the Constitution. He may not show it, but he has the weight of history on his shoulders. Will he silently sit back and let the Senate forego all witnesses and testimony in what most Americans already see as a sham trial and outright cover-up? Will he allow Trump’s march toward dictatorship, the overthrowing of our co-equal branches of government, the disrespect for the rule of law? Will he allow the Supreme Court’s reputation to also be gutted in this political knife fight?
I’ve given up looking for heroes to save us from Trump’s assault on our democracy, but there is alway a flicker of hope.
2
@Berlin Exile Smarts do not cure spinelessness.
1
Amazingly insightful and written like an AmJur awarded law school exam. Hopefully the House Managers will take heed.
1
"With key Republican senators having told the American people that they prejudged the case against President Trump before it began and even working with Mr. Trump’s lawyers to build the very defense for which they’re supposed to be the audience, the notion that they’re doing the “impartial justice” they’ve sworn to do is very much in question."
Did you mean, "is very much a joke?"
2
This essay is not just wrong, but ridiculously wrong. It is premised entirely on the existing Senate rules for impeachment. As the authors point out, these particular rules have been in place without alteration for a long, long time. But as the authors fail to acknowledge, they can be changed AT ANY TIME by a simple majority vote, just like the filibuster/cloture rules (which also had a long history, but have been changed repeatedly). If a new rule is needed to confirm that the Senate can overrule a subpoena issued by the Chief Justice, all it takes is 51 senators' vote to write and implement that rule. The ONLY thing the senators CAN'T change is the two-thirds requirement for removal from office; otherwise the Constitution leaves the Senate's rules exclusively to the Senate.
3
In this political Kabuki reality show, appearances can be deceiving. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, the democratic impeachment managers, so far have conducted themselves with an excellent strategy and might still have some surprise moves up their sleeves. The subpoena recourse might very well play out later.
6
Bet this doesn't get published in a timely manner... I have seen in my past postings that NYT delays comments it doesn't like (editorial critiques) to the 'middle of the night', meaning when the Comments section is closed and 'no one is looking'. Nice. I will press ahead and see but then again, but I will be the only one to know of course.
Neal, Joshua, and Mickey - Your six eyes are better than my two but you must be joking on your entire premise based on the document you provided because it says no such thing.
In fact, the first word in your quote from the Senate rules is what is being discussed, the actual FORM for the subpoena. In other words, the format and text.
Clearly, the Senate rules state: 'The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses' and according to our democratic principles means by voting.
I am dumbfounded as to how your article made it to print.
2
Yay!
2
Our laws and Constitution stand at a crossroad. If we cannot expect our Senate and our Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to follow our laws and Constitution, than why do we need them at all? Their legitmacy as a ruling body is on the line in the eyes of the real jurors; the American people.
11
@kay It does make one see less granduer in the small county courthouse, with all that fancy oak paneling and the flowing robes, when you show up for jury duty.
The framers were wise to include the Chief Justice ( 3rd branch of government) "presiding" over the impeachment trial (legislative branch vs executive branch); to minimize the potential "political" nature of said trial, & to assure a solemn nature reflecting an actual trial, and the Senate chambers, a courtroom.
We were lulled by the cooperative nature of the 1998 Clinton impeachment trial, where Chief Justice Rehnquist appeared more a presence than a presider. Witnesses and documents were obtained before the trial by a cooperative executive branch.
The situation is much different today. The POTUS (executive) has issued order blocking any witnesses from testifying and blocked any documents from being released, despite subpoenas from the legislative branch, saddled with the additional burden of gathering evidence (unlike previous impeachments; where special prosecutors were appointed by the Justice Dept.).
Chief Justice Roberts must 'step to the plate' to assure a fair impartial trial, and, take control of his 'courtroom'.
The actions of GOP Senators during presentation by the House Managers was disgraceful. Cell phones and apple watches need confiscation for the each session, doors locked during sessions, and more frequent breaks if needed. If Senators are jurors, they need to ACT like jurors.
CJ Roberts needs to reprimand those using fidget spinners, talking, working the crosswords, or any other distraction from attentiveness. I suggest they be dismissed.
10
The faculty of all top law schools in the country should sign a petition and a full page ad published pro bono in The NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, SF Chronicle, and other serious papers, asking for John Roberts to act. There is little chance that the man who gave us Citizens United will see the light of truth and act accordingly. Just look at his face in the picture you posted with the article. Do you trust this man? I don't.
7
For weeks, some republicans, including Trump sycophant Lindsey Graham, have threatened to subpoena Joe Biden and his son if democrats push for witnesses in the Senate trial. Okay, time to call their bluff. Let them call the Bidens along with Trump, Barr, Big Mike and others. Since the republicans do not want a fair trial in the Senate, Chief Justice Roberts need to do the right thing and call witnesses. The truth matters.
7
Bolton is hostile and conflicted; his conveniently leaked "book" may also place him in legal jeopardy. He would be discredited otherwise in a cross. His testimony is contaminated; his motivations personal; his management of information, possibly criminal. Open up witnesses--on both sides. Who will defend the Bidens, who are at the core of the corruption?
The only persons claiming the Bidens acted corruptly are right wing conspiracy websites. Joe Biden was acting openly with the full support of our government and our allies. Meanwhile, tRump and his goons are scurrying around in the shadows.
2
@Matt Andersson and the only person using the word conflicted is the President. On multiple news feeds.
John Roberts is not going to issue subpoenas for witnesses or evidence. He's not going to do anything to rock the boat. He, like many in this orbit, is but a mere rubber stamp for the Kafkaesque climate that he helped create.
7
Very misleading and subject to interpretation.
Author says “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself..." means that Chief Justice does NOT require Senate to issue subpoenas, but ignores the end of that line, "...as the Senate may authorize or provide.” So does that mean the Chief Justice can do what they want, or that they can do it on their own once authorized by Senate?
The full quote" “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.”
Can the Democrats bring a motion to have Roberts make subpoena decisions?
Short answer: probably not.
This waiting for this right-wing toadies to find their conscious is pretty pointless. We know this from experience. They all need to be replaced.
3
"It's always darkest before the dawn"
Then again, history has shown again, and again, how things can always get darker.
Think of it this way, Nixon seemed untouchable at the time. And, he probably would have walked if it weren't for a single, unanimous, and gloriously reaffirming Supreme Court decision which forced him to turn over the tapes.
Yes, things seem a lot worse now. The courts are not what they used to be, etc, etc. Political polarization is at an all-time high. But I can say, that having lived through the Nixon era, I don't things looked any less dark then, than they do now.
And, we know that despite all that darkness, the light eventually prevailed. And we all got to see Tricky Dick board a helicopter on the White House lawn, never to return...
Yes, the fat lady may be warming up, but she hasn't sung yet!
2
After reading this article, I fail to understand why the democrats let the media and republicans frame the situation as democrats are begging for 4 republicans to vote to call witnesses all week long.
It looks like this is a big breakthrough.
Mr. Adam Schiff, are you reading this? Let's have a showdown!
2
Anselm
Tennessee
Ethics, working values+constitutionality demand calling witnesses, including John Bolton, now for the current trial.
Period
1
I don't believe John Roberts has that much courage.
3
Citizens United, what more do you need to know about Chief Justice Roberts.
7
It's looking more and more as if Pelosi should have subpoenaed John Bolton. And perhaps she should have waited for a few more shoes to drop, e.g. Lev Parnas' revelations, etc, etc. And, by not doing so, she may have sunk us all.
Then again, we have the fact that Donald Trump, for all intents and purposes, has practically admitted, in public, that he engaged in exactly the kind of extortion that would, under any normal circumstances, have led to his removal from office in short order.
So, while you could make the case that Peslosi may have made some egregious tactical errors, the fact remains that the ones who are truly responsible for any continuation and expansion of Donald Trump's Reign of Corruption is the Republicans - And the Republicans alone.
So, for incredible damage they have inflicted, and continue to inflict on this great nation, our institutions, ours laws, and the Constitution itself - I wish a pox on their house, their party, and all who abet them.
Is there not a single Republican left who will stand up for what's right, rather than allow themselves to continually sink to lower and lower depths of indecency, degeneracy, immorality, greed, and self-serving hypocrisy, duplicity, and dishonor?
All this treachery and betrayal. The depths to which they're are willing to go. And for what? To keep a sleazy, boorish, draft-dodging, backstabbing, country club lout like Donald Trump in office. That's the pay off? I guess you guys are dumber than you look.
5
This information needs to ring loud from every news outlet in the country and beyond!
If dems have any say in witness order, line them up chronological order of events...make sure that Lev and his AV material are included.
This telling of evidence will make sense to students and historians when they study the fall of our democracy by the Senate Republicans.
Will he?
I think he won't.
Two headlines on the NYTs this morning--both Democrats delusions. President Trump will be acquitted this week and Democrats will start the profuse whine about witnesses. Witnesses to the allegations which are not crimes. Democrats--you lost in 2016 and will be losing in 2020. When the debates between Biden and President Trump begin the Democrats will realize the mistake they have made but it will be too late for them but a win for the country. Vote for America--Vote Republican.
Anyone testifying can take the 5th if they need to.
Yes indeed, even though, as trolls in here demonstrate, the Obfuscating Bloc have already started the denigration, will pivot everything toward the Bidens and do their boss's propaganda: Our Hardworking Golfer in Chief, prevented from doing his golfing.
However, I can't see Roberts carrying out this duty.
1
No way Bolton ever sets foot in the Capitol. Moscow Mitch, Bolshevik Barr, Rudy and the Russo-K Street smear machine will find some technicality to keep this away from the GOP senators who can then go on to vote acquittal due to lack of evidence.
1
What else is on that ‘secret sever’? We may be only seeing the tiny tip of a disgustingly corrupt iceberg. We need to know what else is on there.
2
Even if the Chief Justice were to issue the subpoenas, the Senators could use Rule VII to not allow them to answer any and all questions, so it would be somewhat of a waste of everyone's time.
Of course, since the Senators on both sides of the aisle have already made up their minds on how they will vote, the whole proceedings are somewhat of a waste of time anyway.
I wonder sometimes who is behind the curtain. It makes no sense that so many people in our elected government act with such disregard for their constituents. Or why only half or less than half of us can see that something si so wrong.
4
I keep thinking and feeling that the America I know and has loved, despite ifs flaws and blemishes for the last 74 years will do the right thing.
We always have at least tried to live up to out ideals and have made steady progress toward achieving a just society. This has inspired me to to try and live up to these ideals as well and to take a stand for justice.
I hope and pray that this will not be the departure from our ideals of truth and justice, that subverts our Constitution, and ends the rule of law.
Who was it that said, "Americans Will Always Do the Right Thing — After Exhausting All the Alternatives"?
America, Do the Right Thing!
3
One of President Trump’s attorneys, Michael Purpura, called into question while arguing before the Senate last week the sworn testimony of Gordon Sondland in the House impeachment proceedings. How can it now not be requisite to have Sondland testify in the Senate to address the questions and issues raised by Trump’s defense? And if Sondland testifies about his knowledge of the members of the Administration who were part of the extortion of Zelensky, how could it not be requisite that they be called to testify also? It seems to me that Purpura may have unwittingly opened Pandora’s box when it comes to the question of having witnesses.
2
We need to stop counting on conservatives to not be conservative. By its definition, conservative means resistance to change. The default setting of a conservative is "don't do anything, don't say anything, don't rock the boat." Lately they love Trump because he's their superego: he'll say anything and do anything free from the learned constraints of WASP conservatism.
The only reason to hope that Chief Justice Roberts will answer the "help me Obi-Won Kenobi" call is that he purportedly cares more about conserving the U.S. Constitution than anything. But calling witnesses would constitute an action of courage and conviction to uphold the integrity of checks and balances. I doubt Roberts has the strength to do it.
3
It is beyond my understanding how a single party's interests became higher and more important than national interests and basic democratic values!
9
We already know that Trump withheld the aid, which is a crime -- multiple people testified to that, and many documents directly show it. Trump and Mulvaney also admitted it.
We already know that Trump solicited a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 election, which is also a crime. Multiple people testified, many documents show it, and Trump has admitted to it multiple times, on national TV.
We also know that Trump engaged in a conspiracy to cover up these crimes, and obstructed the investigation every step of the way. Again, witness testimony, documents, and Trumps tweets and public admissions.
Republicans are now staking their pathetic defense on there being no condition -- the aid was not withheld to get the Biden investigation. Anyone with a brain knows that is another LIE, but Sondland testified that it was, Ambassador Taylor and others were told that it was, and Ukraine knew that it was. Plus, Mulvaney admitted it during a press conference.
Nothing to see here, right, Trump voters? All just a gigantic conspiracy right? Everybody does it, right? Pathetic.
6
Public pressure should be exerted on Chief Justice Roberts to call witnesses for the Democrats. It is his duty to do so. There needs to be a big push for this to happen.
3
Good story. Other media have said Justice Robert’s hands are tied. So there’s some hope. Though appointed by a Republican, Justice Roberts has shown himself to be a man of integrity. By all means, the House managers should make a witness request to Justice Roberts now!
3
If these witnesses are so important, Congress should have gone to the courts to ask that witnesses be compelled to testify. The problem of course was that there was a frenzy for a quick impeachment vote. If they wanted witnesses and documents they should have done their jobs and taken their time.
@Dan M
I'm not sure what country you are writing from, but in this one, trials usually have witnesses - even when it comes to the impeachment process.
1
@Dan M Huh. First, the GOP complained loudly and often that Congress was dragging things out--the GOP was desperate to get the impeachment over to the Senate so they could join hands and, er, trumpet "Totally perfectly immaculately innocent!"
Now, suddenly, "The problem of course was that there was a frenzy for a quick impeachment vote."
Sorry, can't have it both ways.
2
yes, he should call 3 witnesses...Joe and Hunter Biden along with Adam Schiff.
5
@Jim Why would they want to call witnesses who have no direct knowledge Trump's wrongdoing? Perhaps you misunderstand: the point of calling witnesses and subpoenaing documents is to provide information about wrongdoing by the accused. The only actions that are relevant here are Trump's, and the only witnesses that are relevant are those who have information about Trump's actions. The Bidens have no such information and are therefore not in any way relevant to this inquiry.
56
@Jim Neither the Bidens or Schiff would make relevant witnesses to this impeachment trial. If the Republicans were even concerned that the Bidens or Schiff did anything warranting congressional inquiry they could open an investigation and subpeona them anytime they want to. The Republicans have not once explained any possible relevant information that could be obtained from the Bidens or Schiff.
28
@Daniel True, but if there were corruption in Biden's son getting large sums of money while his VP father was overseeing matters, the only obstruction of justice would be the house that refused to follow that line and instead suggests investigating corruption of democrats should not happen.
Roberts is not going to be issuing subpoenas.. And it's a bad idea, anyway.
1
Chief Justice Roberts says that he prides himself on seeing that justice is done. We shall see if his actions support his words.
How can the chief Justice not require witnesses to be called when we know, from their public statements, that the witnesses have important direct FIRST-HAND evidence to give ?
What does 'justice' look like in America ?
Does the Chief Justice stand for justice ?
Stay tuned.
6
The rule of law, our system of checks and balances, takes second place to Republican power in this day and age--that's the reality of where we are at. To expect otherwise is to ignore what is being shown before our eyes every day--when in power, they are above the law and are a law unto themselves.
8
From the start there have always been three questions to ask:
Did he do it. Was it wrong. Does it warrant removal?
You don't need Bolton to know he did it. Everyone knows that he did and why. Everyone also knows that the GOP will not vote to remove him from office. BUT the question of it was wrong needs to be established. If it is OK for a president to disperse funds in any way he chooses, to claim executive privilege for everything he does or for anyone who helps him, why even have a Congress?
Congress is exactly the sort of cumbersome barrier to absolute control that Trump never had to deal with as master of his own business. Sure, there's this pesky thing called the Constitution but, really, it's SOOO yesterday. Think of the money and time saved by letting Trump control the budget and taxes and everything else the federal government does. The executive branch already controls the military, the Justice Department, and Treasury, and its "enforcement" of all laws and regulations gives it, in essence, control of them as well. So why not just cut out the bickering partisan, middlemen? Trump is, after all, a stable genius.
If GOP leaders refuse to declare his action was wrong, as it did with Clinton, and Nixon, any pretense remaining for checks and balances and all those other pesky parts of the Constitution, will be little more than historical trivia.
4
This article does not mention Rule 6, which is the rule that vests the power to compel the attendance of witnesses in the Senate, not the Presiding Officer. Very sad that such distinguished legal scholars would attach their names to such nonsense.
Go ahead and bring on direct witnesses to Trump's behavior. It would be helpful to have the non-strategic contents of "the Safe" where Trump secrets his transactional deals with foreign leaders. Trading with Turkey for a withdrawal from Syria, destroying NATO and more for Russia and for Israel, war with Iran and a capital move. Of course, he is getting rich, but they are crimes against Our Country. Chief Justice Roberts could make this Impeachment meaningful.
3
Bravo. Open-and-shut interpretation, from people who have taken the trouble to read the rules. Few have done so.
1
The Chief Justice should also rule on whether Alan Dershowitz is an expert witness -- in a process that suppoedly does not (yet) allow witnesses. If so, then the House Managers should have the right to bring in their own constitutional witness, instead of trying to act as their own experts on the question of what the framers meant to be "impeachable."
2
He's a Republican before he's an American or a judge. He's aligned with the Party and is not impartial. Don't pin your hopes on a corrupt system.
8
Of course he won’t call witnesses. That would pull his legacy into question.
Just as Comey justified telling the American people that Hillary was under investigation, while not disclosing the investigation into Trump.
The Chief Justice may at someday tell the American people, why he was justified in not taking action.
This is what happens when we don't vote for the Democrat in every state and federal election. Can we go back to 1980 and have do-overs, please?
1
Obstruction of Justice is in fact where the real smoking guns are here. The Don keeps pointing to the transcript, when the real recording is on some secret server. The House should have a right for impeachment and oversight, as much as the congressional facilities department should be allowed to periodically call a fire drill. If the House needed documents to get to the bottom of a concern, it needed documents. At this stage it doesn't even matter what is in those documents. This is ridiculous.
2
Chief Justice Roberts is a later day Pontius Pilate, he will wash his hands and let McConnell do his thing unimpeded. Roberts will find a way to justify it.
8
The moment is big, but it's about the next 200 years. Defend our Constitution.
5
You state "...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..."
Is this statement based on statistics and facts? Please reference
I guess you haven’t read the polls. Yes a strong majority of Americans want a fair trial with witnesses.
1
Nonsense article.
Only the senate has authority.
The chief justice has no real power in this arena.
@Daryl Diamond, you deny the existence of the provisions quoted? On what basis? Your authoritarianism is showing - I'm right! Believe me, no one else! Who cares how the rules read!
Roberts is a Republican activist judge, why would he want the trial to be fair? He wants his side to win.
3
Brilliant. But... it's not the way to bet. McConnell has already demonstrated his utter shamelessness.
GOP senators are allowing themselves to be bullied by Trump and McConnell.
3
It's hard to say which quality is most emblematic of the modern GOP. Self-Serving Greed? Hypocrisy? Corruption? Lies? Or Cowardice? Suffice it to say they exhibit all of these. In abundance.
7
The Republican Trumpers are under the illusion that the Chief Justice is just one more statue parked in the Capiitol building.
4
Well, it's nice to know that a Supreme Court judge's decisions can be upheld over the objections of Trump's pitbull, Barr. Barr was beginning to remind me of Martin Bormann.
1
He won't.
Roberts will remain a faithful GOP tool.
7
Roberts is a Republican No more No less
3
Roberts is a Republican.
2
I can't wait to see the Biden's hauled out and dissected. Now THAT will be draining the swamp.
1
@Piotr
Why? It’s been shown that they’ve done nothing wrong.
Constantly referring to the Bidens as important potential witnesses is a distraction - a handy one but empty!
To “drain the swamp,” Trump and his lackies have to go.
They’ve been polluting the political environment for three years, running roughshod over the Constitution.
Mr. Trump is a dishonest person, ill-suited to the Presidency.
4
@Piotr
Ain't never gonna happen. Sorry!
Now you can go back to annoying the folks of Ogorek.
And if you're going to pretend to be American, you might want to learn English grammar.
My, the trolls are out today!
2
Wow! Game changer.
2
Another sliver of hope. Do we still believe the rule of law and the constitution, the principles of democracy and simple decency still prevail? Who would have thought just a little more than three years after the election that the Republican Party would have shriveled to be the lock step army of this nasty thug, who insults, threatens, and mocks even members of his own party and empowers violent white nationalists. Supported by people calling themselves Christians! This trial will be a real test of character for Republican Senators and for the Chief Justice.
2
A minor correction: the authors state that the form of subpoenas is mandated in Article XXIV.
Actually, it is Article XXV.
There seems to be no end to which some would go to remove Donald Trump from office. There is a hearing in the Senate. The reason the system was set up this way was to preserve the integrity of our system and, thus, force the electorate to be the ultimate tool for the removal of the President. If you have evidence Donald Trump is a sleeper agent, one presumes Mr. Schiff would have brought it forward. If there was evidence of him of other sorts that rise to high crimes, we would have seen it. The fact that he’s a narcissist and pig-headed and can’t listen to any of the people around him and thinks he knows more than anyone else because he’s a “a genius” and seems obsessed with being in a campaign mode as opposed to leading the nation....all of those facts are true and the guy was elected. If the American people want to remove him this coming November they have a golden opportunity to do so. I think the fact that you’re spending so much time focused on other ways to do it reveals the political left is petrified of the distinct possibility that the American people will elect the guy again — all his faults and short-comings not withstanding. And because of that every left leaning person in the nation is having indigestion of the prospect of five more years of this orange haired boob as our president. But that’s the way the system was intended. And any of you Ivy educated people who bother to read history know it.....
1
"John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?"
'Chief Justice John Roberts says Americans may 'take democracy for granted'
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/john-roberts-judiciary-democracy/index.html
Time to put up or shut up Chief Justice. The fate of our Constitution, the Rule of Law and our nation is all in your hands.
2
Judge Roberts, this is your once in a lifetime chance to save democracy. Will you take it, or will you shrink?
3
Sorry, but John Roberts is a fraud. He has been nothing but a lap dog for big business since he arrived on the court. To expect him to do the right thing, ever, is just plain dumb. John Citizens United Roberts will go down as one of the worst Supreme Court Justices ever.
1
The White House is calling in their Kavanaugh and Gorsuch chits this morning. It's time for "you to do me a service."
3
It's obscene than Republicans have the right to protect their powerful positions for perpetuity. It's the fact that their terms have no limits, that's prevented them, all along the way, doing the right. If limits had already existed, there'd now be no perpetuity for them to protect and they'd see the sense in damning the torpedoes, doing the right thing and getting on with their lives. Heck, we probably wouldn't even be in the pickle we're in; anyway, we certainly would have already heard from all the firsthand witnesses. But, since these power-fat sycophants are lusting to sit on us forever, conditions are ripe for heroics. Justice has got everything to gain and nothing to lose. Get creative, Mr. Roberts. Call the witnesses. The time for Hail-Mary heroics is now.
1
Dear America,
Citizens United, gerrymandering, voting rights, Hobby Lobby etc....... Please don't count on Roberts. Take to the streets. 2 million man march on Washington. Phone,scream,demand,donate and scream some more. If your democracy dies, ours is next!
-world citizen,Canadian brother
4
By definition of the word, "trial", witnesses and evidence are 100% essential. Justice Roberts will most definitely honor that. God save the United States of America 🙏❤️
3
Why is no one following the money? The whole relationship between Lev Parnas and Donald Trump smells of crooked, laundered cash. Did Lev Parnas buy influence with Russian money? Should the Senate call on Rudy Guiliani & Lev Parnas to establish who was funding Trump's escapades?
6
Dear Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards,
Thank you very much for the prescription to witnesses!
One can only hope that if the impeachment managers did not know this before they know now!
THANK YOU!!!
1
The White House has had Bolton's manuscript for review since
12/30/19.
This is obviously a coverup.
Trump conditioned the aid to Ukraine and a meeting in the White House on falsified info from Ukraine on the Bidens to help his re-election bid in 2020.
I don't want hear anymore about the perfect call, summary transcript, Giuliani, Sondland's efforts to oust Masha, etc.
Trump is congenital liar and corrupt as the day is long.
He is a disgrace to America.
He needs to be impeached now in the Senate.
6
Innocent until proven guilty is a catchphrase of jurisprudence in our land. But Mister T seems hellbent to do his best to alert senators and us Americans at home that he is seeking to hide evidence that would further incriminate him if divulged in the open, in the Senate's chamber.
1
Perhaps Susan can pass him another note?
100
Excellent piece that explains all the 'legalese' surrounding this trial. However, in reality it supposes Justice Roberts has the backbone to step up. He has so far shown little to convince me, I feel Justice Roberts will do all he can to avoid any "constitutional crisis" that his exerting his authority would cause.
Would a contentious argument be destined to the full Supreme Court? This could make the Democrats more tentative, not knowing the outcome. Justice Roberts might see this direction as being too divisive, as if Trump's presidency has not already.
I understand why so many commentators want to believe Chief Justice Roberts will somehow stand up for the side of right and rule of law by issuing subpoenas; we still want to believe in the tooth fairy, too, but it ain’t gonna happen.
Face it,our institutions are broken and there is nowhere left to turn for justice and fairness.
The classic remedy is to turn to elections to enforce the will of the people, however, as the NYT has so clearly and repeatedly shown, that institution is also broken on every level.
I don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel, yet I can still applaud Mr. Katyal for trying to keep up some degree of hope. Thanks
5
@mltrueblood
Sometimes it's darkest before the dawn. Then again, history has shown again, and again, how things can always get darker.
Think of it this way, Nixon seemed untouchable at the time. And, he probably would have gotten away with it all if it weren't for a single, unanimous, Supreme Court decision forcing him to turn over the tapes.
Yes, things seem a lot worse now. The courts are not what they used to be, etc, etc. But I can say that, having living through the Nixon era, I don't things looked any less dark then, than they do now.
And, despite all that darkness, the light prevailed. And we all got to see Tricky Dick board a helicopter on the White House lawn - never to return...
If President Trump solicited a foreign power to interfere in the 2020 election the Senate is duty bound to inform the American public by calling relevant witnesses and presenting evidence just as the Senate Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities did during Watergate. The Barr redacted memo is not evidence. The translator and transcriber's verbatim notes and their testimony and relevant White House officials are. The Supreme Court ruling in United States vs. Nixon is more relevant now than ever.
4
I hope the House managers push the issue with the chief justice...and I hope Roberts feels the heat to do what is in his power to do for the American people and the rule of law. He has a legacy too.
3
Mr. Roberts clearly has the authority under Rule V. America will not know whether he values the rule of law -- as Chief Justice or as Presiding Officer -- unless the Democrats force the question.
The Democrats must ask Mr. Roberts to issue subpoenas under his Rule V authority. The ramifications of Mr. Robert's answer extend far beyond the impeachment trial of Mr. Trump.
Every American needs to know just how far the metastasized Trumpist cancer has spread in our collective body.
3
I hope he does. There are enough judges now to keep us in conservative-leaning interpretations for a generation. Roberts can either hope for one or two more with Trump 2.0, or he can support a reasonable trial. I guess it's up to him.
2
Events like the Trump impeachment usually find people that prefer to stay below the radar but are forced to become headliners by circumstances. Roberts, Bolton, Schiff, are these kind, Trump, Giuliani, Parnas are not.
Whose team will the jury believe?
1
The Chief Justice has the opportunity to show that he is not a potted plant. He can demonstrate that he is an agent of justice, by calling witnesses and showing the world that he, not Senator McConnell, is calling the shots in this proceeding.
5
It's a nice, cogent argument, but don't get your hopes up.
Roberts will do nothing, and when the gavel comes down acquitting Trump "before the Super Bowl", the America we've known and loved, with systems of checks and balances, will be ended.
The NYTimes might as well start planning to have a thick, black border around that edition, with big black headline letters "The Day America Died", or "The President Can Do Whatever He Wants".
7
Why can't Democrats subpoena Bolton's book, congress should do it ASAP!
4
Roberts is a disappointment. He seems to think he's been hired as MC.
2
Putting much hope in the hands of John Roberts is a bad bet. Roberts, Muller, Comie are deeply conservative men and thou they may not like Trumps vocabulary they are right in step with his actions. To hope that any of them to pull back the curtain on The Donald is very foolish. In fact, our only real hope is to tie the stinking dead Albatross of Trump around his enablers necks is the best we can hope for. It seems his base will never leave him some 40%. We can only hope the 60% want to keep our experiment in citizen rule alive.
5
3
Last Century, the white evangelical movement caused the Constitutional scare called Prohibition.
Now, nearly 100 years later, the southern white evangelical movement is pursuing a new prohibition, a prohibition of the Truth.
Is Evolution real?
Is the Earth older than 14,000 years?
Was the Bible written by God?
Is this a 'christian' nation?
Is Trump the 2nd Coming?
For those who care, respectfully...Yes, Yes, No, No, and Are You Crazy?
5
Are there any odds now on whether it would be better for the Repubs to have Pence as their candidate? With all this drip, drip, drip of evidence (truth!) might Repubs realize that trump is now a stone around all their necks???
4
Will he?
No.
1
Is Adam Schiff reading this article? Why haven’t there been subpoenas issued?
1
@Thorina Rose Can someone please answer this question.
In answer to the title’s query: one would hope so; otherwise Roberts is just sitting there looking pretty like the Queen on an old time shilling.
3
"Take her out." What does that mean?
1. Ask her out on a date. Dinner and then a movie.
2. A mafia style directive to have her killed.
3. She's fired. I'll think of a reason later.
4. I never said any such thing.
5. A careless statement made by a careless president.
All of the above except no. 1 &2.
2
We will soon have an answer as to whether our much lauded Supreme Court has been overrun by Trumpist kangaroos.
5
On September 12, 2005 John Roberts said: "My job is to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat."
What about calling a ball "fair or foul, or deciding whether a player has interfered, run outside of the baseline, or balked?"
I am so tired of sports metaphors, "horse race," baseball," "football," to describe the political ideas and battles that affect our lives, our futures, our children's futures, and our government.
No where in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or any other philosophical inspirations for our Founders' writings are any sports, or sports language used.
6
With the revelations about Bolton's book today, one must ask what did McCOnnell know and when he di he know it?
6
We are witnessing a modern day version of the 1933 Reichstag fire and the republican party is feeding the flames. Sadly, our democracy's only hope rests on the shoulders of a handful of repuclican senators and a republican Chief Justice. If Trump escapes impeachment, he will use this triumph to batter his opponents and win a second term. Our country will be the lesser for it. If he loses the election and refuses to leave office...
2
the posts from your reporters are coming fast and furious... Trump denies what he told Bolton with many witnesses saying the same thing (as Bolton).... could it be that he believes what he (Trump) said and...that he lives in a fantasy world, with one of his fantasies being, "I could be President of the United States"....new territory
Yes! Even GOP Senators will find it hard to ignore or suppress subpoenad witnesses. Checks and balances all the way!
Blue wave 2020!
1
Democrats should read applicable passages from Bolton’s book inyo the official record
1
Unsure if and when faced with more overwhelming information and facts ,regardless how incriminating ,these cover up republicans will still play see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. They are cowards who shrink at the thought of there imperial leader putting their heads on a pike. They seem unafraid of the American people and content to sit like boarded school children, which is pretty much what they have been reduced to by the school yard bully. This country is in bad shape.
2
John Roberts is a fool and, if I may say, a tool.
Having issued his pro forma "Behave yourselves" he sits somnolently gazing at Republicans abusing the very rules they demanded.
Apple watches. Tweets, texts, searches.
Frequent forays out to whatever press breaks free of their coral.
More bathroom breaks than an old folks' home.
Games, emails, sashaying about the Senate, passing notes, dozing off.
I believe I saw a red pencil and a Bic pen.
They may as well drop trou and moon Old Roberts for all the rule-minding he has done.
Yet for all the lying spite and sarcasm of "will be cause for imprisonment" Roberts barely suppresses a snore.
He proclaims the honor and the history of roomful of challenged kindergartners who, more than anything, mock and demean Roberts and his sad shadow of a court.
You expect this charlatan to issue subpoenas? To treat this like an impeachment?
You're dreaming. Which is not so unusual for you where this president is concerned.
5
Call the witnesses!
Call Obama Barack first!
Let's finally learn why the relationship between Moscow and Kiev so quickly and dangerously deteriorated during the Obama Administration, after the Russians and the Ukrainians were the good neighbors for many decades and centuries.
It is criticaly important to learn the truth if we want to normalize relationship between Moscow and Kiev, thus minimizing potential for a nuclear war between the USA and Russia.
"Call Obama Barack" about the U.S.-Russia relations? This is exactly what impeachment is NOT made for: to resolve disputes about policies and strategies. The Ukraine affair has nothing to do with this, everything with an underhanded effort to use a foreign power to influence internal politics and elections in the President's favor. Obama's approach to the Kremlin may not have been ideal, but it brought him no personal benefit.
4
@Yves Leclerc
To solve the problem the prerequisite is to understand how the problem was created in the first place...
The Republican Senate gambled recklessly in their lockstep support for Mr. Trump and his use of his office for personal gain. Their hollow argument: This is another case of the more things are wrong, the more we must act as if all were right. The cynical position of a party pulling a fast one. And what a hoaky smokescreen of emotion and finger-pointing the American people saw from this group! Shall we all now ignore Mr. Bolton's firsthand evidence? Pretend it doesn't exist? Let us get beyond the theatrics to something real.
1
Will Roberts be a Patriot and stand up for the Court, for America, or will he be a McConnell Republican sitting on the dais like a potatoe?
2
Bolton just gave them a get out of jail free card. They're so far gone, they can't even grasp that.
5
No way this will happen. The “Boy Scouts” have —and will- - do nothing to prevent the trashing of our democracy by low character Republican reptiles. When it counts, they (Comey, Mattis, Kelly, Robert, et all) behave as if they prioritize appearing above the fray and “non-partisan”.
In this upside down political age, they will find their reputations trashed in the non-Hannity History books (that will be illegal to sell during the Trump family’s 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc terms in the White House during the never ending Republican Senate “investigations” into how they have to stay because their election loss was “rigged” by millions of aliens voting, The Deep State, Guatemalan Ukrainian subversion, hackers in a Biden owned pizza parlor, etc.
Bill Barr will ensure it.
2
The sycophant with the enduring smirk won't lift a finger for democracy, are you kidding?
2
Roberts calls himself a Republican, doesn't he?
Well, there's your answer. He'll get on his knees in front of the president because that's what Republicans do.
So long, America. It was nice knowing you.
4
Justice Roberts, your legacy is in the balance, and the rule of law awaits you. Please rise for the occasion.
4
The four Republican senators most likely to vote for more witnesses -- if they get enough pressure from the public -- are Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tennessee), Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah). These are their direct Capitol Hill office phone numbers. Please call before the trial resumes at 1 p.m. today:
Se. Alexander -- 202-224-4944
Sen. Collins -- 202-224-2523
Sen. Murkowski -- 202-224-6665
Sen. Romney -- 202-224-5251
Capitol Hill switchboard number that gets you through immediately to any House member or senator is 202-224-3121.
5
"By Monday morning, several Republican senators had angrily called the White House trying to determine who at the administration knew about Mr. Bolton’s manuscript, which aides there have had for several weeks, and what was in it."
I'll tell you who knew what was in Bolton's manuscript - TRUMP!
C'mon GOP Senate - show some gumption. If he didn't tell you that your head would be on a pike - quit acting like it.
#CALL THE WITNESSES!
5
Why stop with Bolton and Mulvaney?
President Clinton testified. Trump should too.
10
Fox News might be more impartial than Federalist Society member and close McConnell pal John Roberts.
3
Thank you for bringing up this part of the Constitution and its implications for a fairer impeachment process. It does seem illogical that the Senate could work with the Executive and hold so much power over the other two branches of Government. At the same time, I’m not sure Roberts will allow House managers to convince him to call for witnesses or documents. While new evidence appears, and should be allowed into the proceedings through discovery, Roberts may take a more narrow view, that is, if you don’t have the information by now, it’s not allowed. I would definitely request witnesses and documents if I were a manager, it’s the right and legal thing to do. Just don’t hold your breath. All this really shows me we need a better constitution. Of course, if the majority of voters don’t care, and would rather have a corrupt dictator, why bother. Next election will be telling.
3
Chief Justice please consider this...
"Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest." - Mark Twain
I would love to be gratified AND astonished...
12
It appears that the MSM has simply taken the words of Republican that they have complete authority over the conduct of the trial. Why haven’t reporters told us that witnesses can be subpoenaed by CJ Roberts? Why haven’t they told us that Republicans are wrong in claiming that they have sole control over whether additional evidence is presented? It seems that laziness has allowed trump to commandeer all of the press attention.
3
John Roberts can call witnesses, BUT will he? This trial is not only a test of the separation of powers, it is a test of how our Justice system follows the Rule Of Law or the rule of Trump. Let's all hope John Roberts has the integrity required to do the right thing for our country, and the world.
8
This trial just shows how America has fallen. The Senate Republicans are perfectly fine with letting the President get away with multiple crimes and behaviour unbecoming of the office. Let the Red States succeed and watch how quickly they become third rate without the subsidies provided by the successful blue states.
3
Roberts is a complete partisan Republican hack. He had degrade the reputation of the Supreme Court to the point that most people no longer respect it. It’s truly a joke to hear Roberts say his decisions are based on the law when they do clearly are so partisan politically.
1
“The rules further empower the chief justice to enforce the subpoena rule.”
Is the Chief Justice the only recourse? Could Democrats have enforced rules earlier?
When the pizza-ordering bunch of Republicans stormed the basement hearing room, there was a perfect opportunity for a bang of the gavel, and an order to the Sergeant at Arms to arrest anybody without a suit jacket. You or I would be behind bars within a few minutes of pulling a stunt like that. Why did misbehaving Congresspersons get a free pass?
Isn’t a subpoena more than a piece of paper? Aren’t witnesses just a ring of the doorbell and a handcuffing and a trip to the slammer away? It is futile for Democrats to keep asking Republicans to do the right thing. It won’t happen, and the Dems lose face and unfortunately sound whiny. What consequences would Schiff or Nadler face if they order the arrest of anybody who defies a subpoena? Or anybody who disrupts a hearing?
Continual complaining about Republican recalcitrance clearly doesn’t work. So now it’s up to John Roberts. What would happen to the Chief Justice if he decides to use some muscle? He doesn't have to run for re-election.
3
I think that they oughta call the appropriate witnesses too, but the fact is that John Roberts is responsible to uphold the Constitution, the law, and an orderly Senate trial, in pretty much that order.
He’s really not there to reach in and compel witnesses or do what you want him to do. Sorry.
And also sorry, but a lot of the yelling looks like it comes from people who didn’t bother to vote and want an alibi, or who share the same notions that it’s their way or the highway no matter what their Party affiliation or political preference.
Might be a good idea to stop demanding that government compensate for YOUR shortcomings, YOUR refusals to learn, YOUR faithlessness. WE got ourselves into this mess, not a small cadre of evildoers.
2
Roberts could do this, but he won't. He has some lip service to the integrity of the SCOTUS, but in the end he is a died-in-the-wool hard-line Republican. He has already tasted Trump's ire. Just imagine the hair-on-fire screaming from the White House about conspiracy if he took this independent action. I would fall over in a faint if Roberts took this action.
2
Nope. When push comes to shove, Roberts is a reliable Republican operative, and the Republicans want to avoid hearing witnesses and to expedite an acquittal. Testimony and evidence just muddy the waters.
The evidence is so overwhelming and the defense so sophistic and weak, too bad Roberts does not have the power to issue a "directed verdict."
Is it possible that we are investigating for months a single phone call between Trump and Zelinski while nobody cares why the relationship between Washington D.C. and Moscow completely deteriorated during several critical months under the Obama Administration.
We know that it happened!
But WHY if it were completely preventable and avoidable?
Why there is so much bad blood between the White House and the Kremlin if that's not in the best interest of either side.
Can anybody fix it NOW?
The tragic downing of the Ukraine jet in Tehran tells us what can happen when the generals and missile operators are extremely stressed out...
1
Bolton is lying. "I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. With that being said, the transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that is needed, in addition to the fact that President Zelensky & the Foreign Minister of Ukraine said there was no pressure and no problems."
Even if Bolton were telling the truth, which he is not, there is not an impeachable offense here.
Why not have Bolton swear an oath? Then we’d know who’s lying.
If he doesn't the Supreme Court is a bought and sold sham, to service the interests of one party. What is justice?
This is not the vision for the United States of America. I don't think it's the Chief Justice's vision either.
1
Great idea. But wouldn't it be great for Republicans if one of them proposed it on the floor? It would go very far toward mitigating the tidal wave of credibility loss that is building within their base.
On second thought, maybe let the Dems do it. Who needs what the R's have wrought?
1
I hope the Dems will request Mr. Roberts to issue subpoenas and I hope Mr. Roberts will do so. Witnesses will add legitimacy to this trial which is being shamelessly coopted by Republicans.
CHief Justice Roberts - America is looking to you for a fair trial and history will remember. Please do the right thing.
4
I have a question . Why is it that Trump and his associates are able to avoid congressional subpoenas by going to the courts when the courts are a co-equal branch of government. I understand that the President cannot be indicted but what about his minions? Does the congressional subpoena have no authority at all in which case what is the point?
2
So the never ending investigation that Failed with Mueller and...we were told this same song and dance over and over WE Have Solid Proof....but Now that it Is Not that way at all they want to Drag this out even more in Hopes of Confusing the Voter for November's election/ this guy Bolton falls 100 percent under Executive Privilege ...if the Democrats had it there way the would revel to the World our Nuclear launch codes if it would bring the President down that is how LOW they have become!
Not even half as low as the lying, hypocritical Republican supporters. You are free to search your own conscience.
After Citizens United and Hobby Lobby we see where Mr. Chief Justice stands.
3
I have zero faith in Roberts doing even close to the right thing for America. I have absolute faith he will be in the pocket of Moscow Mitch.
I hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am.
6
Thank you for this information. I've contacted both my Senators, Democrats from IL. , asking them to request 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.
5
What’s all the fuss about? We’re only talking about the United States Presidency! Right or wrong, believe it or not, there are reasons we got to this most serious place. Why are Republicans treating it like a political debate? If they were honest to themselves and their constituents, this would be a bipartisan action. However; they’re not. This concerns the conduct of the President of the United States and all cards must be on the table. Witnesses, documents, every little morsel of information must be presented and reviewed. Again and I repeat, this is about the President of our country - why is there even a question? Put it all out there and let the chips fall where they may!
2
The impartiality of Republican Senators isn’t even “in question.” It doesn’t exist at all, based on their own public statements, which makes a mockery of this entire Constitutional process. A “trial” in which there is to be no documents or witnesses, and at which more than half of the jurors are collaborating with the accused on his pre-planned acquittal? That’s supposed to be banana republic stuff, not the United States of America.
We’ve heard for decades that John Roberts cares about the historical legacy and reputation of the Supreme Court. Well, now’s his chance to show it. Even for a shameless and corrupt GOP that has entirely debased itself at the feet of Trump, it would be politically difficult to try to overrule their own Chief Justice, himself a lifelong Republican.
3
There is no reason not to and every reason against a sham coverup.
1
If John Roberts actually has the legal authority to subpoena witnesses (and some legal experts, e.g. Turley, are doubtful of this authority) why would he?
1. Issuing subpoenas puts Roberts on untested legal ground. Testing the legality of this with the Chief Justice so deeply involved would be very messy.
2. Schiff and the Congressional Democrats have the power to subpoena Bolton - they would need to reopen impeachment through a House vote and then subpoena Bolton. If Trump resisted such a subpoena, they could sue and run the system through the courts. Why would Roberts want to undercut the legal system - the very system he and his court presides over - for a poorly conducted impeachment? Why should he being doing Schiff's work?
3. Why would Roberts want to react to a leaked book with quotes from people who claim they have seen Bolton's script, but which could be incorrect, or possibly even lies by Bolton? Roberts is used to reviewing detailed law cases based on high standards of evidence and does not want to have to react to every leak and rumor.
I think this is another media pie-in-the-sky story published to put pressure on Trump - the man they so loathe!
2
Uh huh. Sure. I have a great deal on the Baja Ferry for you.
2
@IndependentVoter
Something smells fishy.
This Bolton "bombshell" is reminiscent of those last minute stories democrats released in the Kavanaugh hearings. The media dutifully reported them as fact.
Now this one is released right before Trump's lawyers testify. If one didn't know better one might conclude it's all part of the democrats' strategy to hoodwink the public into believing it actually has an impeachment case. Thus far it hasn't done so.
1
Only a legal mind could write and appreciate this article. Senators? Doubtful!
Should the Dems fail to seek the action of the Chief Justice regarding issuing subpoenas of essential witnesses and documents, it will be starkly clear that actual impeachment was never the objective. The case for the entire affair being a monumental political charade will be iron clad.
It will be interesting to see what Roberts is really made of.
1
@Fern
I can tell you what he is made of but the Times won't print it. Hint: Citizens United is his gift to the nation.
1
It's absurd to fnatasize tha somehow Roberts is going to step up, like another hero in our democracy mythology, to save the day. It aint gonna happen. You think you have Truth, Justice, and the American Way, when all you have ever really had is the American Way. Although it's sad to say, it will take an election day, to make Trump go away.
These games the Republicans are playing have exposed them. Of course this Bolton story was going to come out. Snap. The lying gets awkward when the President's Republican National Security advisor is on record sharing that the President himself told him the aid to Ukraine was dependent on investigation being announced on Biden. The entire White House position is a lie. The Republicans who don't want witnesses because of their own political future are implicated in this coverup. It's not just the Emperor who is standing there naked as a jaybird.
2
It would appear we can now find out if the US Suoreme Court really is an arm of the political parties.
2
Asking a republican to do what’s right for the country? Good luck with that.
1
Democrats' demand for witnesses *now* is a red herring. More witnesses won't change a thing. Appeasing democrats' leftwing base is their problem, one which they've involved us all in long enough.
Republicans should vote to dismiss and let democrat deal with the fallout.
1
Outside of your constant hyper-partisan for Trump on any and all issues, day after day, can you even offer one cogent and factual argument in support of your position?
4
Nixon resigned over a lot less. Disgraced, he still had the guts to do the right thing.
Perfect Trump, aka Private Bone Spurs, and the Bankrupt Businessman has run away from personal responsibility his entire life.
1
So, is Roberts a judge, or a Republican fixer posing as a judge?
Roberts has made a lot of noise about a Supreme Court that doesn’t take sides as he has worked his way through the Federalist Society’s checklist. And he’s certainly willing to arbitrate when Ms Collins gets the vapors over liars being called out for lying.
But calling witnesses and defying both Trump and Mitch McConnell? That might be something a little to close to fairness and justice than he’s looking for in this trial.
Trump is plainly the most dangerous president in US history. If Roberts allows this sham trial of to proceed to a "not guilty" verdict without subpoenaing witnesses or documents, he reveals his absence of integrity for the world to see. (His one reasonable Supreme Court decision, not to declare Obamacare unconstitutional, cannot shield this partisan from scrutiny forever.)
If Roberts averts his gaze and lets Trump walk away without consequences, he will no longer have reason to pretend to be a fair and reasonable jurist. In that case, I would expect Roe v. Wade to be overturned in short order.
Cases challenging Roe v. Wade are before the high court now or are heading there and soon will be.
1
So how will it appear to these republican senator’s constituents if the Chief Justice subpoenas witnesses thereby appearing to concur with democratic senators wishes?
And how will it appear to their constituents if they choose to ignore or attempt to override the Chief Justice’s moves? I imagine that they picture him to be on their side - a “republican judge” as opposed to an “Obama judge”.
This would put GOP senators in quite a pickle. They can override the justice under certain circumstances but isn’t that then the true admission that they are in the presidents pocket for even republicans to see?
1
The Chief Justice appears to be the last person who can maintain our democracy and the rule of law. This is his time to act accordingly. If he chooses not to do so then once the White House and Senate are in Democratic hands the only choice would be to impeach the Chief Justice for his dereliction of duty and failure to uphold the Constitution as he swore in his oath.
2
No, because he is partisan.
Roberts wants to stealthily move the court to the right. This “trial” will expose him as a Trump tool.
Let's see if there is any justice to be found in the Chief Justice.
At the moment we are all powerless voters who look for justice from our leaders. Are they rulers?
2
Simple answer: Of course not. Robert is a Republican first and and American second. Look at his opinion. They could be written by the right wing of the Trump Party.
Chief Justice Roberts got the power to issue subpoenas for evidence and witnesses! Civics 101 stress test ,We the people want to fully experience our three (3) branches of government in ACTION.
2
It is information like this that just shows you there is nothing honest or straightforward about this impeachment. If Roberts wants the truth to be known, then of course he is required to call witnesses. Or, if he doesn't, then what is he telling the nation: that he is just up there to rubber stamp the GOP partisan politicians' vote in the Senate. If he desn't call witnesses, then the sooner they all go home. Pitiful.
1
What is the Constitutional basis of Rule VII to begin with?
If there is nothing to hide let the American people hear testimony under oath from trump’s men. If nobody other than Lev and Rudi told the Ukranians there was a condition on the aid approved by Congress let’s hear testimony. The republicans cannot handle the truth.
Mr. Katyal,
From your lips to Mr. Roberts' ears.
I fear that trump Republicans lack the imagination to forsee what trump and putin's true intentions may be.
With this impeachment, moderate Republicans have an opportunity to excise the cancer that is trump and trumpism from their party, will they take it?
Democrats have an opportunity to steel their spine, will they?
1
If a tree falls in The Senate Chamber but only Republicans are there to hear it, did it make a sound?
1
People keep hoping to find a republican with a soul. That will never happen.
4
Give me a break. Stop grasping at straws. They are all on this cruel joke. Roberts will never call a witness.
2
Chief Justice Roberts needs to prove he is not complicit in the creation of an amateur dictator.
(202) 224-3121 is the number we need to call to participate in saving our democracy.
1
How can you stifle a witness that you decided not to call? House democrats' backtracked on calling Bolton after his counsel sought clarification from the court.
They didn't want to involve the courts then but now they insist a Chief Justice enforce their demand? They really need to stop wasting everyone's time with their witness game playing.
1
What the public thinks does not matter.
What matters most is how the defenders of our constitution and democracy will act to preserve the integrity of each branch of government.
We're looking at you, John Roberts.
3
Agreed! The explosive revelations evidenced by the unpublished manuscript of John Bolton speak volumes. Bolton is percipient, materially relevant, witness. No hearsay. No conjecture. No speculation. Just straight forward direct eye witness testimony. Irrefutable. Incontrovertible
Chairman Adam Schiff's closing remarks Friday evening about a fair trial is appropriate and necessary. America expects a fair trial. "She deserves it."
666
@Dean Browning Webb, Attorney at Law Well, perhaps not irrefutable & incontrovertible, if only because others could testify and lie, and perhaps get away with it. But, I'm only mincing words, I agree with you completely, in spirit and hope.
12
@Dean Browning Webb, Attorney at Law And most GOP should believe Bolton's testimony as he's a GOP hawk and not one known to lie.
17
@Voter Frog Thank you kindly for your observations and remarks. Bolton's testimony responsive to specific inquiries about freezing Ukraine military assistance is independently corroborated by Dr. Fiona Hill's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. "Drug deal" is ostensibly a highly charged, sensitive issue that Bolton can drive home! And even if Mick Mulvaney were subpoenaed to appear, I believe it is a safe bet Mulvaney will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. That said, his own words from the lectern about withholding aid is the new norm, i.e., the "get over it" defense. That said, Mulvaney may have by his very expressions have waived the privilege! If any of the other three witnesses the Democrats are seeking to appear are subpoenaed, watch for invocations of their Fifth Amendment right against incrimination. Bolton's testimony substantiates Hill's testimony. Similarly Hill's testimony presents an argument of possible estoppel applicable to the White House attorneys' arguments that no eye witness accounts exist, which Senate Republicans have desperately advanced. Now confronted with Bolton's dynamite factual descriptiveness, the GOP and the lawyers find themselves between the Scylla of hypocrisy and the Charybdis of 'alternative facts.'
13
Every player in the impeachment process needs to look at the facts objectively and actively play his/her role. If Chief Justice Roberts has the power to get additional information that would be critical to findings, then he should do so. No question.
2
Whatever Roberts decides to do he will be judged by history accordingly. I have to assume a person in his position cares about his legacy.
5
Those who expect Chief Justice John Roberts to fulfill his role as the impartial “umpire” he claimed to be may be sorely disappointed. Sadly, he is just as likely to abide by his oath as Mitch McConnell & Lindsey Graham are to abide by theirs. I hope I am dead wrong. But I doubt it.
2
If you want Roberts to do something he must be confronted in the Senate. Democrats must turn around and speak to him directly, throwing decorum out the window. What choice would Roberts have? Throw a senator out of the room? Ignore the question or challenge? It would draw him directly into the process and expose his politics hopefully causing him to take a larger role than being the potted plant.
2
Thank you for clarifying this! If Roberts does not, how can he return to his day job and be taken seriously? What would have been the point of having him there? They could have just placed a house plant where he sits instead. Let those senators overrule the Chief Justice so we can all see who else is working for Russia.
7
Wonderful that the authors cite the specific lines in the Constitution on which they base their claims.
However, the fact that Katyal, Geltzer and Edwards are writing this in the NYT makes me wonder whether they have not already communicated this to the House managers and gotten no where.
Now, as I hope the news will get the public to pressure their their Republican legislators to put country over party, I also hope this news gets the public to pressure their Democratic legislators to act boldly for the country and overcome any fear of being rude.
Howe
5
Except they didn’t. They cited Senate impeachment rules, written in 1868.
1
@citizen vox The authors are wrong. They assume that Roberts can conclude what the constitution clearly states. He cannot. If Roberts tried to issue subpoenas, McConnell could ask for a ruling from the parliamentarian. If McConnell doesn’t like the ruling, he could ask the Senate to vote the parliamentarian wrong, by a simple majority, and replace him/her by a majority vote until he gets the ruling he wants. Roberts has no authority to overrule a parliamentarian, The Republicans only need a simple majority to overrule a parliamentarian, or replace one. The authors are ignoring that the parliamentarian decides what is constitutional, not Roberts. Sorry, the authors are ignoring Senate protocol, and the senate has sole authority in an impeachment trial, and that includes interpreting rules. Roberts does not have the authority to overrule a parliamentarian. Never.
1
@Jay
I stand corrected on the source of the citations: it was not the Constitution but a Senate ruling in 1868. But why not use that?
I know Katyal from his TV appearances and he has an impressive legal background. But who is Jay in Cleveland and what is the source of his statements?
My opinion of the Democrats' reticence is not unfounded. but that's another book.
1
Judges generally throw the hard decisions back at the plaintiffs and defendants, saying they have more invested in the case.
Roberts will defer to the governing bodies, saying they have a process to decide on witnesses.
3
Then it is essential that we don’t despair and instead we pressure Senators for a fair trial. Please call: (202) 224-3121 It only takes a couple minutes. Our democracy thanks you.
1
This gives Republican Senators the perfect excuse for allowing a fair trial without risking retaliation from Pres. Trump. They only have to let Chief Justice Roberts subpoena the witnesses and documents required by the Democrats – and refrain from asking any for the defense, leaving to the Trump lawyers' team the onus (and potential backlash) of doing so.
5
Even if Roberts allows the testimony of the former security adviser, just remember, John R. Bolton ain't no John W. Dean, III. Bolton is merely selling out the president for financial gains, not because it is the right nor prudent action to take to help save democracy or this country.
4
While Chief Justice Roberts's values do not always reflect those of Donald Trump, they, on the other hand, only seldom parallel those of the Democratic philosophy. Do not look for him to independently act on subpoenas and witnesses.
4
I really don't understand this. The House, in their wisdom chose to bring their case to the House without going through the proper channels to get the information and further witnesses they wanted. They had a slam dunk case. Now they want witnesses and no longer believe they have that "really strong case." I highly doubt that John Roberts is going to call witnesses for them.
I am disgusted with this whole process. Trump is corrupt and did what he did (strong-armed Ukraine President) on a matter that he had no business being involved in. His motive was to bolster his election probabilities. The House, which has wanted to impeach him since he won the election chose to bring what I believe is a weak case to the Senate. They really need to accept how this is going to play out. I believe they only want to weaken Trump for 2020 knowing that conviction in the Senate is a pipe dream. Adam Schiff said that he had to bring this case now because he didn't trust the American people to do the "right thing." Well, I trust the American people far more than I trust Adam Schiff and the rest of the Democrat House.
Let's get on with this already.
25
@Rozie James
It’s easy to understand. House Democrats subpoenaed witnessed, the White House categorically blocked them, and Democrats opted not to engage in drawn-out legal battles, since Trump continues to be a threat to electoral security. But since referring the case to the Senate, new information has come to light that challenges Republican claims that there is no direct, first-hand corroboration of the charged against Trump. So witnesses are crucially important.
I’m disgusted, too—at the blithe acceptance of White House stone-walling and the claim that House Dems didn’t do their job.
286
@Rozie James If you trust the American voters even to discern the right thing (in the face of misinformation), you are deluded. And the reason the House didn't go through all the options in terms of the judicial branch is that it would have taken too long in the face of the Trump's efforts to undermine our next election. The Senate has powers to subpoena that go beyond the House's. What would you suggest if the Senate issues subpoenas (either by Robert's orders or by a vote of the Senate) and Trump still refuses to comply?
87
@Rozie James - Let's be clear on a couple of your points.
First, the House has sole power to impeach. Judicial review of the defendant is not written into the impeachment clause because impeachment is different than a standard trial. Why? Because judicial appeals that a president might make could take years to work their way through the courts, as demonstrated by the nine months since the House issued a subpoena for Don McGahn.
Second, the House did not want to impeach the president "since he won election." A few members may have been in favor, but they do not speak for the House. Speaker Pelosi was clear in her disavowal of all impeachment talk prior to the whistleblower's information becoming public.
Third, Adam Schiff never said he "didn't trust the American people to do the right thing." He said Trump must be removed because HE can't be trusted to do the right thing regarding election tampering.
187
Finally a legal mind actually reads the Rules. Same problem happened with the Muller Report. He intentionally deferred to the DOJ Rule barring the indictment of sitting Presidents. Democrats did not aggressively question this decision. The Rule is not a Law, Statute, or Regulation, and has no meaning whatsoever. Courts "say what the Law is," not the DOJ! Any Prosecutor worth their salt would indict (if facts merit) and let the courts decide. Muller did not. Democrats let him off the hook.
Democracy has been hijacked repeatedly, unfortunately, we have to admit that Democrats are partly to blame.
5
@Dan P self edit: DOJ Opinion, not rule.
Last night after the Bolton manuscript revelations I called the Senate offices of Mitt Romney, Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Ben Sasse, Richard Burr, Martha McSally, Cory Gardener, and Lisa Murkowski.
I implored, and in fact demanded that they all follow their oath and the Constitution to prevent us from becoming a full fledged Banana Republic.
Witnesses and documents. If Trump did nothing wrong, he will win in perhaps the greatest landslide ever, if he did wrong and is removed, then Pence ascends to the oval.
Simple.
4
@Equilibrium
And add Thom Tillis and Joni Ernst to that list as well.
Call people, please call. It is just about the only thing we can do.
3
@Equilibrium Good for you. I'm calling them now.
2
This is a very interesting and important article. I disagree with it on one point: I think the better reading of the Chief Justice's stated power is that it is non-discretionary. No part of the language suggests either that the Chief Justice has discretion in these matters or that there be some process of his or her considering or ruling on whether to issue a subpoena.
1
I also wonder WHY this hasn't been in the news -- well at least on CNN or MSNBC this am.
1
John Roberts has consistently shown himself to be a loyal and a canny GOP apparatchik, and nothing more.
In the course of carrying out his party masters’ orders, he‘s paid occasional noisy lip service to impartial jurisprudence only ever secondarily, a façade that desperate optimists or the terribly naïve might believe, but which dedicated court-watchers see through.
He provides the barest verbal cover of evenhandedness needed beneath which to steer his ever-more-partisan Supreme Court towards reversing settled precedent at an alarming rate, and he never bucks his party’s orders in any matter of lasting import that can’t be easily and strategically superseded later. And that’s his whole story, as it has been from the start.
I understand desperate times occasion foxhole prayers, but no one will be eliciting real justice from that wholly partisan animal in his lifetime.
6
"John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?" Of course not. Next column.
4
Regarding the Bolton bombshell: What say you know, Honorable John Roberts?
1
If Chief Justice Roberts fails to use his clear authority to subpoena witnesses, he will be an accomplice to an outrageous sham trial. The stench of Trump will hang over the Supreme Court for generations to come.
W. L. Valenti
Portland, OR
15