>>7950308

>How are four jurors with the clearest of Conflicts of Interest be able to sit on a trial in the Senate and be considered impartial by their peers?

POTUS has said he would take witness requests to court.

Perhaps this (along with Roberts overseeing the FISA court) is the constitutional crisis Q alluded to?

<not a lawfag

>>7950370

>When the whole Senate was sworn in did the managers get sworn in too?

Note that Roberts and the senate swore to judge according to "the constitution and laws", but "of the United States" was omitted.

>>7950242

>>7950242

>>7950619

Cleared out the background for moar fun