[Political Junkie Too]

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

[InterceptPoint]

Thanks for that input on the evidence and witness selection process. I have to agree that you are very likely correct that Harris or Leahy or any other Dem Senator cannot be sworn in as both judge and jury.

But doing so would seem to provide a scenario where Leahy (for example) as Judge rejects some evidence favorable to Trump, the Republicans object, a vote is held and, at least theoretically, it could a 50R - 49D vote and that would reverse the Leahy decision,.

Since Romney and a few other Trump hating Republican Senators can and probably will vote with the Dems the 50-49 outcome is admittedly unlikely. But would the Dems take the risk of naming a sitting Dem Senator as the Presiding Officer of the trial. I’m not so sure they would. An ex-Senator would seem to be a better choice for the Dummies.