but also, don't forget of course that at the end of the day, if the appellant doesn't get the relief he seeks in the court -- in the state itself -- they can go to the supreme court. that's the backstop under younger. >> i wanted to ask about the text of the supremacy clause. i mean, it can be -- the use of the word convicted does imply, arguably, that you can't bring criminal proceedings until after the impeachment process has -- has -- has played out. and there's a conviction. and -- and what's your response to that argument? >> your honor, i understand the language and the implication of that. again, we're not -- that's not here. we are here, don't forget, on the question of the subpoena, which was long settled i think beginning in 1807 by the burr case. so that again implicates the sort of olc memo question whether hypothetically there could be a charge brought against the president while in office. i think people could argue about the implications of that language versus other provisions. you know, again, hypothetically if we want to entertain that kind of thing, you know, you c

should the appellate petition for certiorari will be can requested that the supreme court hear the case and the current taint - - term and then further forbear enforcement of the subpoena until the supreme court either deny certiorari or issues an opinion whichever is sooner. third, appellant will immediately withdraw all pending motions in this court. that i understand to be your understanding. >> that's right. >> you may be seated. >> me and please the court. this appeal presents two fundamental issues prickle first, whether the district court should exercise jurisdiction or abstain as it did. second if the district court should've exercise jurisdiction if it was invalidated of the subpoena under temporary presidential immunity, we feel those papers as to both questions and that the court would enter judgment. >> both sides will have all the time that you need to make your points. as i understand your complaint. you allege you began producing documents to the da's office in response to the trump organization subpoena until you learned that they purported to cover the tax returns as yo

involved, at the appellate and of any effort to enforce subpoenas. >> the chief justice, if there is a trial, serves as the judge. >> the constitution says and impeachment of the president, the chief justice is to be the presiding officer. to a large extent, the chief justice does not do very much in the proceedings. he convenes and makes provisional rulings, but in the end, the senate itself decides what the ruling will be and what evidence will be permitted. if there is an objection to the evidence, a chief justice might make a preliminary ruling but if the other side doesn't like it they put it to the vote of the full senate. >> steve bannon is telling the new york post he expects the house to convene and impeachment vote in the next six weeks. if that were to happen, when could we see a trial in the senate? >> there are some questions about whether or not the senate is obliged to have a trial at all, that has been discussed a lot in the media. i think the answer is the constitution certainly implies an obligation on the part of the senate to hold a trial. it is remarkably terse o

i would simply point out that the process has been enjoyed and the president is exercising his appellate rights as is his right as would any other citizen have that right and there's no reason to exclude that right from the president when the case is finally litigated you may get what you desire and you may not, but i don't see the value of including it in this resolution that we're hearing today. it's almost as if we want to give our blessing to perhaps further the case against the president and the courts. i don't think that's the purpose of this resolution. >> and i appreciate the gentleman's thoughts. there is value here and certainly the continued pursuit of these documents is within the prerogative of the congress and that's why i would ask my colleagues to vote no on your amendment. >> mr. raskin? >> just to echo mr. pearlmander's point. under article one we can shape the impeachment investigation however we like and oversight is part of it and the ways and means are part of it because they have relevant evidence to bring forward and all of them will be sending evidence to the jud