• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Opening Pandora's box

cabse5 said:
This.
Click to expand...
This isn't complicated.

The defense and prosecution will call their witnesses. If one side tries to call irrelevant witnesses in an attempt to turn it into a circus, the other side will object to the witnesses, and the Chief Justice will rule on the objections.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
This isn't complicated.

The defense and prosecution will call their witnesses. If one side tries to call irrelevant witnesses in an attempt to turn it into a circus, the other side will object to the witnesses, and the Chief Justice will rule on the objections.
Click to expand...

You need to read about the 'precedent' created by the Chief Justice, Rehnquist, from the 1999 Bill Clinton impeachment trial.How Chief Justice John Roberts would lead the Senate impeachment trial

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 74 years old at the time, largely kept a low profile in 1999 during the Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. But the gold stripes — which Rehnquist had added a few years prior under the inspiration of “Iolanthe,” a comic opera written in 1882 by Gilbert and Sullivan — drew attention.

If and when President Trump is impeached by the House in the coming weeks, and the Senate begins an impeachment trial, current Chief Justice John Roberts will likely seek to attract less attention than his predecessor <Rehnquist>.
 
cabse5 said:
In the last impeachment, the Bill Clinton impeachment, the Senate decided the witnesses even though the Chief Justice presided.
Click to expand...

Makes slightly more sense. Did the Senate decline to hear any witnesses? One would hope not.
I get that abuse of the process needs to be prevented but hopefully everyone can act like adults.
 
Grand Mal said:
Makes slightly more sense. Did the Senate decline to hear any witnesses? One would hope not.
I get that abuse of the process needs to be prevented but hopefully everyone can act like adults.
Click to expand...

I don't know but, in the sense of fairness and all that in 1999, I imagine all 'credible' witnesses were allowed...I recall that Lewinsky didn't grace the proceedings. Maybe Lewinsky's testimony wasn't necessary for the 'prosecution'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom