Interesting, although, without studying the issue, I don’t think it’s quite as clear cut as the article makes it out to be. Rule 5 doesn’t state specifically that the Chief has the power to issue “subpoenas.” Instead, it says he may issue “orders, mandates, writs, and precepts.” Does that include subpoenas? Maybe. A subpoena is arguably a mandate, writ or a precept (it doesn’t seem like an order, although maybe that too), but it raises the question — why didn’t the authors of the Rules refer to subpoenas specifically in Rule 5? They knew how to, because Rule 25 (the article wrongly says Rule 24) specifically mentions subpoenas. Does their omission from the list of things the Chief has authority to issue indicate that he doesn’t have that authority?
Further, the resolution that governed the Clinton impeachment clearly empowered the Senate to vote on witnesses. I could see Roberts possibly concluding that, in light of the ambiguity in the Rules, he has to defer to precedent and the current resolution, which, like the Clinton one, delegates authority to the senate.
