• 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!

Roberts sworn in to preside over Trump impeachment trial

Moderate Right said:
It is painfully obvious that it is YOU who follow Hannity. I could care less about him.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
NeverTrump said:
I posted a link to it in post 180. It's clear you aren't reading my posts clearly or fully. I think it's funny you can't name any heroes of yours that know the constitution. That says it all Good day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Post 180 isn't even one of yours so again you are delusional which defines most of your comments. Knowing the Constitution? Have seen no evidence that any anti Trump liberal/radical here understands any part of the Constitution.
 
Marine Electric said:
Barack Obama made it clear that his successor would enjoy the fruits of his economic planning. I didn't look at all the BS you posted but all credit goes to the previous administration for anything positive about this economy.

So, thanks Obama.

:lamo
Click to expand...

You are right, I thank Obama every day for giving us Trump. You seem to lack even a basic understanding of what Obama left Trump and how after 8 years the Obama record is the worst recovery in American history. Explain why you are so loyal to Obama and liberalism

Interesting how official data which comes from bea.gov, bls.gov is BS but your personal opinions are fact, that is liberal arrogance and failure to even come close to recognizing reality
 
danielpalos said:
It cannot be under the sole authority of the Senate since they have no judicial authority nor Power. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court brings the judicial Power of the United States with him to resolve any legal disputes in this case. The sole Power to Try the impeachment and render a verdict is with the Senate. There is no provision for summary judgement without any Trial by the Senate.
Click to expand...

I thought we moved past the "He Has the Power!!" conversation.

Yes, the impeachment trial is under the sole authority of the Senate. (Please reference the Constitution). The Chief Justice is not even involved in most impeachment trials. He is ONLY required if the person under impeachment is the President - again, because there was a concern about the VP presiding over the removal of a president, in effect making himself president.


The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Click to expand...

There is no 'judicial authority' in an impeachment hearing. The Chief Justice is not there to exercise authority over disputes - he has no authority to do so. While I'm certain he would offer advice and act as a mediator, he isn't there to issue a judgement over any disagreements.

Note that an impeachment trial is not the same as a judicial trial. The proceeding does not result in a 'summary judgement', or any type of judgement. The results only determine if a person should be removed from office, and whether a person is eligible to hold office in the future.
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. Every time one of you lefties have lost an argument, out come the gif's, cartoons, and videos.
Click to expand...

You're argument was "I know you are but what am I?" because it's impossible to defend you're idiotic positions.

Where am I supposed to go from there? It's clear that you're unarmed, I have no need to stroke my ego by continuing to curb-stomp your ignorant ass.

Be happy about that.

:2wave:
 
Marine Electric said:
Barack Obama made it clear that his successor would enjoy the fruits of his economic planning. I didn't look at all the BS you posted but all credit goes to the previous administration for anything positive about this economy.

So, thanks Obama.

:lamo
Click to expand...

Obama's economic planning? He was reactionary, at best, and did a poor job at managing the economy.
 
Conservative said:
Right, all these results benefit only the President?? What is wrong with you people, total lack of understanding of our private sector economy. Tell us exactly which of these results are solely for personal gain? The truth seems to be whatever you want it to be
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with them. They just want a President who abides by the Rule of Law. You fail to understand that the President took the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

What this means is the President is entrusted with a much broader range of responsibilities than just the economy. Simply presiding over a good economy is simply not good enough. A President must do more than simply preside over a good economy.

The bottom line is this: the President must follow the rules, and if he can't follow the rules, he can't be President.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
There is nothing wrong with them. They just want a President who abides by the Rule of Law. You fail to understand that the President took the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

What this means is the President is entrusted with a much broader range of responsibilities than just the economy. Simply presiding over a good economy is simply not good enough. A President must do more than simply preside over a good economy.

The bottom line is this: the President must follow the rules, and if he can't follow the rules, he can't be President.
Click to expand...

the rule of law as determined by you and the radical left? If Trump broke the law why aren't those listed in the Articles of Impeachment?

Trump has defended the Constitution including providing for the common defense and PROMOTING domestic welfare. You seem to believe the rule of law is whatever you want it to be even though not stated in the Constitution
 
Conservative said:
You are right, I thank Obama every day for giving us Trump. You seem to lack even a basic understanding of what Obama left Trump and how after 8 years the Obama record is the worst recovery in American history. Explain why you are so loyal to Obama and liberalism

Interesting how official data which comes from bea.gov, bls.gov is BS but your personal opinions are fact, that is liberal arrogance and failure to even come close to recognizing reality
Click to expand...

I'm quite familiar with the actual numbers and how they are spun by the dishonest, radical right-wing media to trick dummies like you.

The facts don't change -- this is Obama's economy -- Trump's will kick in soon when the reality of record deficits, yield curve inverts, stupid trade wars and unnecessary farmer bailouts comes to fruition. The vast majority of economists agree, the economy is inevitably headed for a downturn, mostly thanks to Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party.

But you can be happy that that will likely come during the next administration which will surely be a democrat.

:2wave:
 
Marine Electric said:
I'm quite familiar with the actual numbers and how they are spun by the dishonest, radical right-wing media to trick dummies like you.

The facts don't change -- this is Obama's economy -- Trump's will kick in soon when the reality of record deficits, yield curve inverts, stupid trade wars and unnecessary farmer bailouts comes to fruition. The vast majority of economists agree, the economy is inevitably headed for a downturn, mostly thanks to Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party.

But you can be happy that that will likely come during the next administration which will surely be a democrat.

:2wave:
Click to expand...


So the actual numbers are being spun dishonestly? So this is the Obama economy? Have you ever taken a civics class? your loyalty to Obama is your problem and that of the rest of the 24/7 anti Trump group. The actual results are being felt by the American people and the Obama legacy was rejected in 2016. Not sure what results you believe are being spun dishonestly nor why this is the Obama economy because you have offered nothing here to support your claims. I gave you the 2016 numbers which Trump inherited, maybe you ought to get some help reading them.

How do you explain GDP dollar growth in 2016 being almost doubled by Trump in 2017 and then more than doubled in 2018-2019? You don't seem to understand even how to read the data and are only reacting on emotion.

So why exactly should anyone vote FOR a Democrat in 2020?
 
Conservative said:
the rule of law as determined by you and
Click to expand...

I think a good faith effort to follow the logic of the law and the Constitution is everyone's duty.

the radical left?
Click to expand...

You over-emphasize the influence of the "radical left" because you listen to idiots like Hannity every night.

Within the confines of the logic of the law...

Within the confines of the Constitution and the system the framers put in place...

EVEN the people you despise, EVEN the people who have a different political opinion than you, EVEN the people who disagree with you on policy goals....even they get to have a say in the process. They have the right to participate just as and your favorite political representatives do. And their participation is not "out of bounds" just because you don't like them.

If Trump broke the law why aren't those listed in the Articles of Impeachment?
Click to expand...

I am speaking in terms of the broader obligation Trump has, by virtue of his oath, to put the interests of the Republic above his own, and to execute policy without engaging in abuses of office or corrupt acts.

Trump's actions do not represent a criminal violation in the sense that there is a specific, element by element, analog in the federal criminal statutes, but his actions still represent a violation of Trump's obligation to the U.S. and the U.S. Constitution by virtue of the oath he took and the responsibilities he took on when he assumed office.

The President is violating his oath of office, and the U.S. Constitution, by engaging in acts of public corruption and abuses of office. The Constitution allows in certain circumstances for the President to be impeached absent treason or bribery in situations where abuses of office have occurred. Part of the reason being is the criminal law statutes cannot account for every conceivable possible act of wrongdoing on part of a holder of high office. There is an infinite universe of wrong acts a President or holder of high office could engage in, and the legislative branch was given the power to determine to a great degree if an act of great wrongdoing or abuse of office should be an impeachable offense.

Trump has defended the Constitution including providing for the common defense and PROMOTING domestic welfare.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is one of his duties.

But imagine a janitor saying he's only going to mop the floor, but not clean the toilets. The janitor would be fired.

This is no different.

You seem to believe the rule of law is whatever you want it to be even though not stated in the Constitution
Click to expand...

I do not believe the Rule of Law is whatever I want it to be. I do not believe this is about me or what I want, I believe this is what the logic of the law requires. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I believe the Rule of Law is what the logic of the law and the Constitution says it should be. If I have ever made a mistake it has been a mistake of logic. And if I have failed to persuade you that the logical argument I have put forward should be adopted by you, it has been a mistake on my part of explaining that logic to you.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
LOL, expose says?? Come on, your anti Trump feelings serve no purpose as you aren't changing any minds here but are showing what a partisan liberal hack you are
Click to expand...

Why don't you list who your constitutional heroes are? Let's see you prove you know what you are talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dcsports said:
"Authority" is definitely a better term to use than "power" in this case. However, this is an impeachment trial - under the sole authority of the senate. It is not an "Article III court". This isn't a criminal trial, and the chief justice is not acting in his capacity as a judge in a courtroom. He will have the authority granted to him by the Senate under the rules they adopt for this proceeding.
Click to expand...
Unlike the House's plenary authority to impeach, the Senate's authority to "try" is not plenary, although they presume it so. The Constitution requires the Chief Justice to "preside". That is not a ministerial function, but has to have real meaning. Is the Senate required to give the President "due process" in the proceedings, for example? Can they vote to convict without presentation of evidence or even argument? Does the President have the right to defend himself if the Senate says "nope"? Who can "judge" these questions? (Hint: the presiding officer.). The Chief Justice's role is closer to that of a trial judge in Impeachment, and the framers intended it that way. Why do you think they structured the Constitution that way, if his role is merely to rubber-stamp everything the Senate does anyway? Impeachment is a trial, and the Constitution explicitly says so. It should be conducted like one.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
So the actual numbers are being spun dishonestly? So this is the Obama economy? Have you ever taken a civics class? your loyalty to Obama is your problem and that of the rest of the 24/7 anti Trump group. The actual results are being felt by the American people and the Obama legacy was rejected in 2016. Not sure what results you believe are being spun dishonestly nor why this is the Obama economy because you have offered nothing here to support your claims. I gave you the 2016 numbers which Trump inherited, maybe you ought to get some help reading them.

How do you explain GDP dollar growth in 2016 being almost doubled by Trump in 2017 and then more than doubled in 2018-2019? You don't seem to understand even how to read the data and are only reacting on emotion.

So why exactly should anyone vote FOR a Democrat in 2020?
Click to expand...

A civics class? Do you mean an Economics class? :lamo:doh:lamo

I didn't vote for Obama. And in 2016, more people voted for the democrat, not sure how you spin that into "a rejection of Obama" when it's quite literally the exact opposite?

You're not good at arguing politics because you don't follow the American political process, rather you watch a pop-culture, scripted reality-TV show, filled with fiction and put on by the dishonest, radical right-wing media, whose sole intent is to trick you into carrying their water. Which you do quite well.

:2wave:
 
W_Heisenberg said:
I think a good faith effort to follow the logic of the law and the Constitution is everyone's duty.



You over-emphasize the influence of the "radical left" because you listen to idiots like Hannity every night.

Within the confines of the logic of the law...

Within the confines of the Constitution and the system the framers put in place...

EVEN the people you despise, EVEN the people who have a different political opinion than you, EVEN the people who disagree with you on policy goals....even they get to have a say in the process. They have the right to participate just as and your favorite political representatives do. And their participation is not "out of bounds" just because you don't like them.



I am speaking in terms of the broader obligation Trump has, by virtue of his oath, to put the interests of the Republic above his own, and to execute policy without engaging in abuses of office or corrupt acts.

Trump's actions do not represent a criminal violation in the sense that there is a specific, element by element, analog in the federal criminal statutes, but his actions still represent a violation of Trump's obligation to the U.S. and the U.S. Constitution by virtue of the oath he took and the responsibilities he took on when he assumed office.

The President is violating his oath of office, and the U.S. Constitution, by engaging in acts of public corruption and abuses of office. The Constitution allows in certain circumstances for the President to be impeached absent treason or bribery in situations where abuses of office have occurred. Part of the reason being is the criminal law statutes cannot account for every conceivable possible act of wrongdoing on part of a holder of high office. There is an infinite universe of wrong acts a President or holder of high office could engage in, and the legislative branch was given the power to determine to a great degree if an act of great wrongdoing or abuse of office should be an impeachable offense.



Yes, this is one of his duties.

But imagine a janitor saying he's only going to mop the floor, but not clean the toilets. The janitor would be fired.

This is no different.



I do not believe the Rule of Law is whatever I want it to be. I do not believe this is about me or what I want, I believe this is what the logic of the law requires. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I believe the Rule of Law is what the logic of the law and the Constitution says it should be. If I have ever made a mistake it has been a mistake of logic. And if I have failed to persuade you that the logical argument I have put forward should be adopted by you, it has been a mistake on my part of explaining that logic to you.
Click to expand...

AS stated when you lose arguments it is always due to someone supposedly listening to Fox News and Hannity. Why is it you people cannot debate the issues instead of showing your own ignorance of the official data.

The rule of law? Why don't you tell us exactly what the rule of law is in that world in which you live because in this country one is INNOCENT until proven guilty and the 2016 elections are over, he was vetted and the people saw through the incompetent Hillary. WE are getting exactly the results I voted for and those results warrant re-election as no one here can give us a valid reason to vote FOR a Democrat, just their reasons for voting AGAINST Trump. I prefer results to rhetoric

Why is it you people talk about the rule of law and then ignore it, Republicans are guilty until proven innocent? Where is that in the rule of law?
 
NeverTrump said:
Why don't you list who your constitutional heroes are? Let's see you prove you know what you are talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't have heroes, I have respect for the office something you don't seem to understand and even more respect for results. You claim he violated the Constitution but have offered no proof and no legal action to support your claims. the Articles of Impeachment don't even mention the Mueller Report or have any violations of law. Abuse of Congress? the Senate is Part of Congress and I don't see them making that claim

You want to remain a minority party then keep ignoring the issues and keep focusing on politics of persona destruction
 
Marine Electric said:
A civics class? Do you mean an Economics class? :lamo:doh:lamo

I didn't vote for Obama. And in 2016, more people voted for the democrat, not sure how you spin that into "a rejection of Obama" when it's quite literally the exact opposite?

You're not good at arguing politics because you don't follow the American political process, rather you watch a pop-culture, scripted reality-TV show, filled with fiction and put on by the dishonest, radical right-wing media, whose sole intent is to trick you into carrying their water. Which you do quite well.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

There you go again showing how civics challenged you are, the popular vote means nothing in the Presidential election as it is the Electoral College that elects the President and the fact that Trump lost California by 4 million votes doesn't resonate with you as that is what represented the loss of the popular vote

Keep saying I watch right wing media whereas none of the results I have posted came from right wing media and all refute your personal opinions and support for Obama. You are either an Obama family member, a paid political operative, or someone dependent on taxpayers to provide you with your personal responsibility issues, Either way you are out of touch with reality and showing exactly what is wrong with this country today, your failure to accept consequences for poor personal choices
 
Conservative said:
I don't have heroes, I have respect for the office something you don't seem to understand and even more respect for results. You claim he violated the Constitution but have offered no proof and no legal action to support your claims. the Articles of Impeachment don't even mention the Mueller Report or have any violations of law. Abuse of Congress? the Senate is Part of Congress and I don't see them making that claim

You want to remain a minority party then keep ignoring the issues and keep focusing on politics of persona destruction
Click to expand...

Who do you turn to for constitutional experts? Who on the right is a constitutional expert if no liberals are. You have to have someone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NeverTrump said:
Who do you turn to for constitutional experts? Who on the right is a constitutional expert if no liberals are. You have to have someone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think Jonathan Turley said it best, suggest you listen to his opening statement in his hearing. He is a Constitutional expert who didn't vote for Trump. You believe what you want to believe through a liberal lens, not a legal lens as the rule of law isn't a D or an R issue, You don't seem to grasp that reality
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom