1) Last night on Chris Hayes show, I noted that only 3, not 4 GOP Senators were potentially needed to call witnesses since a 50-50 tie would be broken by presiding officer CJ John Roberts. Later, Lawrence O’Donnell disagreed. He’s wrong.
drive.google.com/file/d/1ZTEawu…
drive.google.com/file/d/1ZTEawu…
2) He’s right that Roberts would want to follow in Rehnquist’s footsteps from Clinton’s trial, and decide as little as possible. But if a vote were tied, he would have no real choice. That is the job of the presiding officer. There were no tie votes in the Clinton trial.
3)In the Andrew Johnson trial, CJ Chase did vote to break ties. In a presidential trial the CJ stands in the shoes of the VP, and the VP votes to break ties. I agree with L.O’D that Roberts hopes there are no ties. But if 50 Senators vote to hear Bolton he has no choice.
4) The CJ’s role is not “ceremonial”. There are very few sentences about impeachment in the Constitution, but Framers made the effort to bring in the Chief Justice to preside instead of the Vice President. VP’s conflict would hardly matter for a ceremonial role
5) The permanent rules for Senate impeachment trials provide further evidence of the importance of the Chief Justices role. No real issues arose during the Clinton trial, thus no occasion for an important role for Rehnquist.
