Even though the Constitution calls this a "trial," we saw in the Clinton impeachment trial that the Senator still think of themselves as Senators first, jurors second. This means that that the Constitutional power of each chamber to make its own rules applies to the trial in the Senate, too.
This means that the "trial" does not have to operate like any civil or criminal trial. It's actually a loose term as applied here, more like a body that decides one's political fate. The Senators will debate the rules of the trial before it begins. I expect the Democrats to try to limit the subpoena power of the President, that is, his ability to call witnesses in his defense. The Democrats may also try to limit the scope of the defense to only what was in the article of impeachment, and not allow the President to call into doubt the veracity of other Congressional Democrats. They may even try to limit the number of days that the President has to offer his defense and who may be allowed onto the Senate floor in his defense (e.g., no Giuliani).
The wild card here is the part of the Constitution that says that the Chief Justice "presides" over the trial. Does this mean that he is simply a figurehead who rubber-stamps anything that the Senators demand, or will he actually run the proceedings and exercise his authority to "preside" as HE sees fit (separation of powers)? Rehnquist seemed a bit weak, to me, in this aspect during the Clinton trial. I'd like to see a more assertive "presiding" by a Chief Justice to ensure that the Legislative and Executive branches both get fair treatment, even thought this is the Senate's playground.
So, I'd like to see the President's team try a trial tactic of motioning the Chief Justice for a summary judgment, saying that the outcome is obvious. I'd like to see the President's team declare that the articles of impeachment are flawed, that they are based on unproven hearsay by biased witnesses, that the procedures that produced them in the House were illegitimate, that there were no "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by the President, and that the nation would be severely harmed by proceeding with this when an election is less than a year away. Essentially, let the people decide.
The House Democrats would naturally object, and Roberts would hear their objections. Then Roberts should decide for the President and summarily end the trial. No Senator will be on record voting for or against, so they are all protected with their constituents. The House will say they did their part. The Chief Justice will be somewhat rehabilitated with conservatives. The People will be spared a national embarrassment.
And the President is free to begin his reelection campaign.
-PJ
What you said!