The Impeachment Thread

#36,452
#36,452
vols40 said:
Yes it's out of your backside. Roberts oversees the trail and rules that were set forth by the Senate
Click to expand...

Ahhh making me Google stuff...

So, it would seem that per Time Magazine, at least, Roberts has more power than you think...

"I see nothing in there giving McConnell, or a majority herd of senatorial sheep, the power to limit the Chief Justice’s constitutional power — and duty — to “preside” over this trial.

Is there a remedy for this illicit power grab? Yes. The remedy is for the Chief Justice of the United States to exercise his sworn duty and “preside” over the trial unencumbered by unconstitutional Senate rules. If he deems it relevant to call witnesses, he has the power and the duty to do so, whatever McConnell thinks."

John Roberts Has More Power Than Mitch McConnell Would Like You to Think. But Will He Use It?
 
#36,454
#36,454
volfanjustin said:
So everyone was on board with corruption and bribery? That’s your argument
Click to expand...

No, justin. Do you know anything? The Prosecutor General of Ukraine who Biden wanted removed was notoriously corrupt. He never prosecuted a corruption case and covered up corruption crimes which were well known. The investigation of Burisma was inactive, and it had concerned events before Hunter Biden was on the board. Our entire government and the European Union wanted the corrupt Ukraine Prosecutor General removed, in order to allow aid to Ukraine. There was no basis for the investigation Trump was demanding. None.
 
Last edited:
#36,457
#36,457
MontyPython said:
Ahhh making me Google stuff...

So, it would seem that per Time Magazine, at least, Roberts has more power than you think...

"I see nothing in there giving McConnell, or a majority herd of senatorial sheep, the power to limit the Chief Justice’s constitutional power — and duty — to “preside” over this trial.

Is there a remedy for this illicit power grab? Yes. The remedy is for the Chief Justice of the United States to exercise his sworn duty and “preside” over the trial unencumbered by unconstitutional Senate rules. If he deems it relevant to call witnesses, he has the power and the duty to do so, whatever McConnell thinks."

John Roberts Has More Power Than Mitch McConnell Would Like You to Think. But Will He Use It?
Click to expand...

That is a layman's opinion.

Here's a piece that will give you an idea of how much power the CJ has in an impeachment trial.

Yet under Senate rules, it is the senators themselves who have the first and last word. They establish the procedures for the trial and can, by majority vote, overturn any of the chief justice's rulings. The extent of the chief's powerlessness was driven home to Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the beginning of President Bill Clinton's Senate impeachment trial in 1999.

When Rehnquist asked Senate Sergeant at Arms James Ziglar how to turn on his microphone, Ziglar replied, "You don't. We control that."

"I don't know if 'shock' is the right word," Ziglar recalls, but Rehnquist certainly had "a sense of dismay" that even though he was going to be the presiding officer at the trial, "he really had absolutely no control of his courtroom."
Click to expand...

At Impeachment Trial, Chief Justice Roberts May Have More Prestige Than Power

And another.

The role of the chief justice in an impeachment trial - SCOTUSblog
 
#36,459
#36,459
MontyPython said:
Ahhh making me Google stuff...

So, it would seem that per Time Magazine, at least, Roberts has more power than you think...

"I see nothing in there giving McConnell, or a majority herd of senatorial sheep, the power to limit the Chief Justice’s constitutional power — and duty — to “preside” over this trial.

Is there a remedy for this illicit power grab? Yes. The remedy is for the Chief Justice of the United States to exercise his sworn duty and “preside” over the trial unencumbered by unconstitutional Senate rules. If he deems it relevant to call witnesses, he has the power and the duty to do so, whatever McConnell thinks."

John Roberts Has More Power Than Mitch McConnell Would Like You to Think. But Will He Use It?
Click to expand...
You need to keep on looking with your search instead of putting up the first one that tickles your fancy.

Here's the first one that came up on my search, yes, the very first one:

The role of the chief justice in an impeachment trial - SCOTUSblog

There has been a good deal written about Roberts’ role, some of it intimating – or at least hoping – that Roberts could wrench control from the politicians who make up the Senate and transform the proceeding into a trial of the conventional judicial sort, with both sides able to compel the appearance of live witnesses and the production of documents and to inquire into any matter logically relevant to the charges against the president.

For better or worse, neither the Constitution, the rules of the Senate, historical precedent nor the personal predilections of Roberts himself make this the least bit likely. Instead, Roberts is most likely to serve as a dignified figurehead in an affair entirely dominated by the Republican senatorial caucus.

The article goes on to explain the reasons why. Go ahead and read the rest for yourself.
 
#36,462
#36,462
vols40 said:
You do realize that all presidents in the past have said something less than flattering about other leaders in a private setting that they would be best served by having said comments remain private.
Click to expand...


Sure. What's your point?

Bolton would not be called to testify as to insults he overheard.
 
#36,463
#36,463
Vol Main said:
No, justin. Do you know anything? The Prosecutor General of Ukraine who Biden wanted removed was notoriously corrupt. He never prosecuted a corruption case and covered up corruption crimes which were well known. The investigation of Burisma was inactive, and it had concerned events before Hunter Biden was on the board. Our entire government and the European Union wanted the corrupt Ukraine Prosecutor General removed, in order to allow aid to Ukraine. There was no basis for the investigation Trump was demanding. None.
Click to expand...
There was plenty basis asking for an investigation, you all just don’t care because it was a democrat
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#36,464
#36,464
utvolpj said:
It's becoming clear that numbers and research aren't quite your thing.

The guy you support actually says he doesn't care about the budget. Why do you continue to try ande convince people he does?
Click to expand...

On the first part, I assume you are speaking about GJ and his budgets. I have not bothered to look into the nuance of why his budgets exploded as the numbers speak for themselves. If he could not get a handle on state legislature spending, I doubt he could handle DC.

To the second, I stand corrected and was wrong as I did not see where Trump said what he said, which is very disappointing and an unacceptable answer. I would imagine that he entertained the entitlement cuts after backlash from his earlier dated comment. We will see as it is not a good look.
 
#36,470
#36,470
evillawyer said:
Just a good Christian man

Click to expand...


Do you really know of a non profit or charity that isn't making somebody rich? I'm convinced the majority are simply scams that pay out just enough to look the part. Something along the communist governments where the people scrape along and the leaders do quite well for themselves ... the "some are more equal than others" game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#36,471
#36,471
vols40 said:
The only reason you would pull this crap is if you think your bombshell case is not so bombshell. To assert that some obscure poll is evidence of a sinister plot to investigate a political opponent is a sign they are running on empty.
Click to expand...

That was not my impression at all. It was one set of facts in a well woven set of facts which concluded that Trump had no motive or cause for demanding investigations.in Ukraine except to make splash headlines which would harm a Biden presidential campaign, while diverting attention from Russia, which helped his own campaign and continues to do so.
 
#36,472
#36,472
GVF said:
First off, he did win. And your guys didn't want him in the sand box, so they have been bullying him for over 3 years running.

Second, we just don't like Pelosi, Schiff, and the rest of the gang and the crap they've been chasing and trying to pawn off on America, and have done absolutely nothing for America by being alive, except convince us they are not worth listening to the things that come out of their mouths. My support for Trump fails in comparison to my disdain for them and their falsehoods. Therefore, Trump still wins by default. Take how Luther feels about Trump. Triple it. That is how we view and feel about the entire left and their agenda, both for Trump and everything else they shovel.
Click to expand...

Another way to put it presidents come and go ... 4 to 8 years unless the predecessor got unlucky. We can do something about them. Congress is forever, and most of us can't do a thing about it ... the bad ones always represent somebody else ... but mostly themselves. Although I'm certain there are some of those "somebody elses" that love Lamar. Congressional leaches bleed the country dry better than the plague of locusts.
 
#36,475
#36,475
volfanhill said:
That’s not how it works. You don’t argue in court what the lawyer argued before.
Click to expand...
As it turns out, you were dead wrong about this, at least as it pertains to the opening arguments during a Senate trial being presented by House managers. Earlier today, Rep. Jerry Nadler used old video footage of both Alan Dershowitz and Sen. Lindsey Graham from 1999, when they had argued that a President's impeachment and subsequent removal from office didn't require a crime to have been committed.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top