re: #102 Jay C

I don’t recall the precise procedure, (and will appreciate correction if I’m wrong), but I think in a Senate impeachment/removal trial, the “prosecution” is team of “Managers” appointed by the House, and the impeached official is represented by their own legal counsel. The Senate is the “jury”, so I don’t think they have the authority to “decide” if Trump would testify (in person? on video?) or not. And also, I believe some of the normal rules of court procedure do apply, so (as the accused), The Anus can’t be compelled to testify. Not sure what they would do if he insisted on making a personal appearance, though: I’m guessing he would probably prefer to just send over a tape from one of his Nuremberg rallies ranting away about WITCH HUNT!! and PERSECUTION!! and FAKE NEWS!!, etc.

Roberts sitting as the presiding officer of the Senate would have the power to make some rulings. I think Rehnquist referred most questions to the Senate parliamentarian. But, yeah, in putting on a defense (assuming he does*), he would be able to take the stand and testify (I believe in Clinton’s impeachment they didn’t have live testimony and instead relied mostly on deposition transcripts being submitted**).

*A possible smart play, if you really believe impeachment is improper would be to simply not appear either in person or by and through counsel. But Trump wouldn’t be able to do that, he’s not disciplined enough and way too thin skinned. More likely it’ll be Rudy (or whichever attorneys he have that haven’t gone to prison/been disbarred) up there causing a scene.

**Senate rules on impeachment allow live testimony, and give Senators the power to submit written questions to witnesses. Given the nature of the potential articles against Trump, I suspect we will see live witness testimony in a Senate trial.