Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mrknowitall who wrote (5071)	9/23/1998 7:30:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over a trial in the Senate. The Constitution does not say just what presiding entails. There are for example no rules of evidence that automatically apply, and hence no role for the presiding justice to rule evidence admissible or not. Unless the Senate so decides. Again the Constitution says nothing about the representation of opposing sides in the Senate, or the House. However, I think it is pretty clear that the "actors" consist only of members of Congress. It is only they who are automatically entitled to advance arguments. However, in the interest of appearances of fairness, I think it extremely likely that the President would be permitted to have attorneys of his choice represent him in a Senate trial, and advance the arguments and evidence he wishes to advance. However, I think they would be acting sort of like out of state attorneys, not admitted to the Bar of the state where the trial is occurring. And therefore acting under the wing, of one or more members of the Judiciary Committees in each house of Congress. Similarly with Starr. No right for him to act as the prosecutor. He could do so in the role of a staff attorney, as it were, of some sponsoring members of Congress adverse to the President. Or more likely, at the behest of the Chairman, "in the interests of justice". I think in view of Starr's great unpopularity it is unlikely that he would be given so public a role in the Congressional deliberation, now that he has delivered his report and box full of backup evidence. He is however likely to be consulted frequently by the staffs of those leading the opposition to Clinton in the two committees. And by those Congressmen as well. The lead players for and against Clinton in the Congressional Judiciary Committees debates have yet to fully appear. Some leading figures seem clear in the House Judiciary, but that is likely to be a sorry spectacle. I think the pressure on them to quickly kick it to the Senate will soon become intense. I think this given i) how certain it is that the bare majority necessary will vote to impeach, ii} how poor and partisan the level of debate is likely to be, and iii) how limited their role really is since the OIC has performed most of their role by delegation. Doug