Replies

No, Roberts has decided (quite properly, IMO) that as Trump is not a sitting President is is not appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to preside over such an event.
++++
I haven’t heard confirmation yet that Roberts has declined but you are absolutely correct that, since Trump is now a private citizen, he is not required to preside over the trial. The Constitution is quite clear on that.

But who chose Leahy? What was the process?

Just a heads up. The real thing to watch here regardless of who presides over the trial is the ADMIISSION OF EVIDENCE AND SELECTION OF WITNESSES. I am still convinced that the Dems, because they are the Senate majority, are the ultimate decider of what evidence is admissable and what witnesses can be called.

Someone should correct me if I’m wrong about that but it how I read the Senate rules for the conduct of the trial.

The real thing to watch here regardless of who presides over the trial is the ADMIISSION OF EVIDENCE AND SELECTION OF WITNESSES. I am still convinced that the Dems, because they are the Senate majority, are the ultimate decider of what evidence is admissable and what witnesses can be called. Someone should correct me if I’m wrong about that but it how I read the Senate rules for the conduct of the trial.

You are correct.

However...

There are some unique dynamics at play here.

If Harris presides, she will have the appearance of a conflict of interest because she will be ruling on the admissibility of evidence that bars her 2024 rival from running.
If Leahy presides, he will not be sworn in as a juror. In that case, it would be a 50R-49D Senate that is trying Trump. Leahy would not be allowed to preside AND vote.
If Harris ignores the conflict of interest and presides, she will also not be sworn as a juror, and it would be debatable as to whether she gets a tie-breaking vote in this matter. Therefore, a 50-50 vote will not pass.

With that said, Republicans should push for Leahy to preside, because they will then have a majority vote on the jury.

-PJ