"preside": "to exercise guidance, direction and control". That's how the dictionary defines

[Atticus]

the term.

The Constitution says that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside over the impeachment trial of a POTUS.

Will he, or will he refer all decisions ( relevancy, subpoenas, etc. ) to McConnell and his squirming caucus?

[MineralMan]

1. Good question. There is not a lot of precedent for

Chief Justices presiding over presidential impeachment proceedings. I think we will have to wait and see.

[maxsolomon]

2. Rehnquist did.

We'll see how Roberts wants to play it. It is not possible that he doesn't understand McConnell's threats to short-circuit the process.

There's not much we can do about it except call out bullshit when we see it.

[Karadeniz]

3. I think his role has been misinterpreted. Media keeps saying he will just sit there, but I don't

Read the constitution that way. It says the senate will conduct a fair trial and he will preside over it, a fair trial. So when senators said they'd already made up their minds, he should've said their votes wouldn't be counted. When McConnell vetoed witnesses, he should've pointed out that it is his job to insure a fair trial, not a kangaroo court.