Mark Levin said on his show yesterday that if he recuses then Kamala Harris could preside over the case.
+++++
That sounds logical but looks like a disaster for any Trump plan to introduce evidence of fraud. The Presiding Officer, potentially Harris, would have the power to disallow any evidence she wants. And the only way to overrule her decision would be by a vote of the Senate. And so the Judge would, in this crazy case, be the tiebreaker and the Dems would prevail.
This is nuts. But the Constitution and the rules of the Senate DO NOT require Justice Roberts to preside over a Senate trial of a citizen.. I assume he could if he wanted to but he would be on solid ground if he refuses.
But in either case I have serious doubts that the evidence that needs to be presented will be found admissible. I think a Senate, with the Dems in control, can reject anything it want to.
Where in the Constitution does it say the VP shall step in if the Chief Justice will not?
She’s hardly knowledgeable for this job.
Since truth is the ultimate defense proving the vote fraud during the trial is the obvious choice for the defense. Harris , however , will brush it aside , claiming 50 courts have already looked at this and decided the election was fair killing any chance of the fraud actually getting a real trial. It will also make the sham trial go quicker so the Senate can get back to its work of destroying America.