Roberts sworn in to preside over Trump impeachment trial

[Conservative]

Interesting that all the other analysts on Fox News disagree with him: Fox News Legal Analysts: GOP Impeachment Witness Is ‘Simply Wrong’

LOL, and yet you still buy what you are told and ignore Turley's testimony. In this country one is innocent until PROVEN Guilty, someone else's opinion doesn't matter but it is amazing how GOP Witnesses are demonized until they appear to support you opinions then they are true heroes to you. There is no proof that the Fox legal analyst is accurate in his opinion just like we know you aren't accurate in yours

do you even know what those individuals disagreed with? Impeachment has been a political process and that process will never be accepted by the American people if it doesn't prove high crimes and misdemeanors. You aren't proving anything here other than your own partisanship

 

[Marine Electric]

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

Melt harder, fruitcake.

You lost the argument. But keep up your incoherent spinning. It's friggin' hysterical!!

:lamo

 

[dcsports]

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.

That's essentially all incorrect.

The rules of the trial are agreed upon by the Senate. They determine what the rules are, including the questions you asked. (The rules normally do include provisions for due process, but they will differ from a normal criminal trial.) While the person presiding may make decisions, the Senate may vote to override them if they choose to do so.

The Chief Justice is serving more as a committee chair or mediator. He's there to keep things moving in an organized manner. It's not to 'rubber stamp' but his approval also isn't required.

And again, the Chief Justice does not play a role in most impeachments (and they should all be serious). It's only for the office of the president, because of the potential conflict of interest.

 

[Conservative]

Melt harder, fruitcake.

You lost the argument. But keep up your incoherent spinning. It's friggin' hysterical!!

:lamo

I lost what argument? Apparently facts have no place in your world thus indicates a losing argument. What is so sad is that someone from NYC, one of the most liberal cities in the world in one of the most liberal states in the world continues to promote the liberal ideology that is driving people out of the state. You say I am wrong. your opinion noted, the facts tell a different story as will the Impeachment trial

 

[Marine Electric]

I lost what argument? Apparently facts have no place in your world thus indicates a losing argument. What is so sad is that someone from NYC, one of the most liberal cities in the world in one of the most liberal states in the world continues to promote the liberal ideology that is driving people out of the state. You say I am wrong. your opinion noted, the facts tell a different story as will the Impeachment trial

Well, I'll let you know when I sell my vast collection of firearms and my gas-guzzling vehicles so I can apply for membership "the liberal" party.

Meanwhile, the population of NYC continues to grow.

:2wave:

 

[Conservative]

Well, I'll let you know when I sell my vast collection of firearms and my gas-guzzling vehicles so I can apply for membership "the liberal" party.

Meanwhile, the population of NYC continues to grow.

:2wave:

If you aren't a liberal then stop posting like one and recognize that the impeachment of Trump is purely political and sets a dangerous precedence for future Presidents. The Senate acquitted Clinton for a more serious crime, actually lying under oath, vs Trump who wasn't even impeached for a crime, but rather only for political purposes.

 

[Moderate Right]

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:

Oh gee, just when we were getting along so well. Yeah, you really curb-stomped me with that GIF. And you put in a cute little emojie to boot. But, I realize that that is all you've got.

 

[NWRatCon]

That's essentially all incorrect.

The rules of the trial are agreed upon by the Senate. They determine what the rules are, including the questions you asked. (The rules normally do include provisions for due process, but they will differ from a normal criminal trial.) While the person presiding may make decisions, the Senate may vote to override them if they choose to do so.

And again, the Chief Justice does not play a role in most impeachments (and they should all be serious). It's only for the office of the president, because of the potential conflict of interest.

I can't compete with your lack of comprehension, but I can help with your access to history, i.e. education. When I said that the Senate arrogated to itself that authority, that was what I was talking about.What you have described is how the SENATE views the "trial" but that is not how the CONSTITUTION views the trial or how it was intended by the framers. Your claim that "The Chief Justice is serving more as a committee chair or mediator" is NONSENSE in the historical context. That is not how the process was intended, which is made explicit in both the text of the Constitution and its history.

There have been THREE impeachments of Presidents in 250 years, and the current procedures, adopted in 1986, were an accident of history, and contrary to how the framers envisioned it. But to understand the process, it is necessary to go back to the start. Initially, it was proposed that the Supreme Court conduct the trial (at the outset, it actually did conduct what we would consider trials over certain matters). This was discussed at length by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 66 and Federalist 65. The inclusion of the Chief Justice, rather than the whole Court, is specifically addressed:

Would it have been an improvement of the plan, to have united the Supreme Court with the Senate, in the formation of the court of impeachments? This union would certainly have been attended with several advantages; but would they not have been overbalanced by the signal disadvantage, already stated, arising from the agency of the same judges in the double prosecution to which the offender would be liable? To a certain extent, the benefits of that union will be obtained from making the chief justice of the Supreme Court the president of the court of impeachments, as is proposed to be done in the plan of the convention; while the inconveniences of an entire incorporation of the former into the latter will be substantially avoided.

(Emphasis mine). I can perhaps make it clearer, as Hamilton did, by comparing it to the treaty power. It takes both the President and the Senate to make a treaty. Similarly, it takes both the Chief Justice and the Senate to conduct an impeachment. It is the combination of these authorities that makes it "fair."

 

[dcsports]

I can't compete with your lack of comprehension, but I can help with your access to history, i.e. education:. What you have described is how the SENATE views the "trial" but that is not how the CONSTITUTION views the trial or how it was intended by the framers. Your claim that "The Chief Justice is serving more as a committee chair or mediator" is NONSENSE in the historical context. That is not how the process was intended, which is made explicit in both the text of the Constitution and its history.

There have been THREE impeachments of Presidents in 250 years, and the current procedures, adopted in 1986, were an accident of history, and contrary to how the framers envisioned it. But to understand the process, it is necessary to go back to the start. Initially, it was proposed that the Supreme Court conduct the trial (at the outset, it actually did conduct what we would consider trials over certain matters). This was discussed at length by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 66 and Federalist 65. The inclusion of the Chief Justice, rather than the whole Court, is specifically addressed: (Emphasis mine).

Please note that this is a discussion board. Feel free to debate the issues. The personal attacks aren't necessary, and pretty well destroy any point you are trying to make.

Getting into the discussion of what the framers of the constitution proposed and discussed - or improvements they proposed later - is of limited value. You have to look at what was actually put in place, and the system that has been developed over the impeachments we've actually had.

Note that while we've had two impeachment trials of Presidents, we've had a number of others. The Chief Justice presides only if the President is the person under impeachment. It's been well established that the Senate sets the rules. That's not an accident - it's how it was written in the Constitution, and how it's been carried out.

 

[upsideguy]

Likely indicts Trump yet none of the Democrats. Amazing crap.

What do the Democrats have to do with Trump actions? They are not on trial here. Trump is. Can you address the issue at hand without a whataboutism.... which, BTW, is usually a concession that you can not defend the issue at hand.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

What do the Democrats have to do with Trump actions? They are not on trial here. Trump is. Can you address the issue at hand without a whataboutism.... which, BTW, is usually a concession that you can not defend the issue at hand.

Given that the Democrats have been trying to discredit and impeach trump for years now they are as much, or more, on trial for their actions than the President. They will be judged by the electorate and who they choose as their spokesperson. YouTube

 

[upsideguy]

Given that the Democrats have been trying to discredit and impeach trump for years now they are as much, or more, on trial for their actions than the President. They will be judged by the electorate and who they choose as their spokesperson. YouTube

.
...ah, no. The issue on hand is the conduct of Donald J Trump around his using US appropriated funds for Ukraine, for what appears to be personal gain followed by his cover up of same, including obstructing congressional oversight of his office. That is why he fundamentally is being impeached. Can you speak directly to the issue at hand or does it so overwhelm you that you have to discuss irrelevant things like Maxine Waters?

If you can't argue a specific issue without throwing up all over yourself with irrelevant sidebars, perhaps debate isn't for you.

..but, since you brought it up, I will indulge you with this: Maxine Waters is no more a spokesman for Democrats than Louie Gohmert or Jim Meadows are spokesmen for Republicans. There each, however, all testaments to the notion that even simpletons and fools can get ahead in America if they have big enough mouths.

 

[Marine Electric]

If you aren't a liberal then stop posting like one and recognize that the impeachment of Trump is purely political and sets a dangerous precedence for future Presidents. The Senate acquitted Clinton for a more serious crime, actually lying under oath, vs Trump who wasn't even impeached for a crime, but rather only for political purposes.

The only thing I'm "posting like" is someone who holds an allegiance to the TRUTH -- if that sounds "liberal" to you, that should tell you something. Today's right is an ideology that is predicated on lies and misinformation. I am not a member of, not do I hold allegiance to, any political party.

Donald J. Trump's impeachment was not motivated by political partisanship, but rather, dictated by his violations of our constitution and the rule of law.

No future president has anything to worry about unless he commits crimes and violates his oath-of-office like Trump has done SO many times.

TRUTH.

 

[Conservative]

The only thing I'm "posting like" is someone who holds an allegiance to the TRUTH -- if that sounds "liberal" to you, that should tell you something. Today's right is an ideology that is predicated on lies and misinformation. I am not a member of, not do I hold allegiance to, any political party.

Donald J. Trump's impeachment was not motivated by political partisanship, but rather, dictated by his violations of our constitution and the rule of law.

No future president has anything to worry about unless he commits crimes and violates his oath-of-office like Trump has done SO many times.

TRUTH.

You mean your version of the Truth. You think the average American gives a damn about Ukraine and Trump asking US for help in investigating corruption? What a bunch of BS, the Trump impeachment has been in the works for three years and now it is in the Senate and there is no violation of any law in the Articles. It was purely motivated by hatred and what your party has done is set a precedence that any President can be impeached by the majority simply because the Congress doesn't like him. Why don't you tell me which of the results generated bother you the most? This is purely political and as Jonathan Turley said, "there is no compelling evidence of any violation of law"

 

[Marine Electric]

You mean your version of the Truth. You think the average American gives a damn about Ukraine and Trump asking US for help in investigating corruption? What a bunch of BS, the Trump impeachment has been in the works for three years and now it is in the Senate and there is no violation of any law in the Articles. It was purely motivated by hatred and what your party has done is set a precedence that any President can be impeached by the majority simply because the Congress doesn't like him. Why don't you tell me which of the results generated bother you the most? This is purely political and as Jonathan Turley said, "there is no compelling evidence of any violation of law"

You're just babbling and repeating the same thing like an old drunk.

Turley? Really? That's who your gonna hang your hat on? In 1998, Turley made the opposite case, telling Congress during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings that Clinton's actions didn't need to violate any laws in order to be impeachable conduct.

And it doesn't matter anyway, there are plenty of criminal statutes that fit exactly the offenses that Crooked Donald committed -- but this isn't a criminal court so there is no need for them to be annotated.

An what's this "no one cares" -- maybe YOU don't because you're used to getting pushed around, but others certainly care about their country:

Fox News poll: 51 percent favor Trump's impeachment and removal from office
Trump impeachment: New Fox News poll shows half support inquiry, removal

:shock:

 

[Atomic Kid]

You mean your version of the Truth. You think the average American gives a damn about Ukraine and Trump asking US for help in investigating corruption? What a bunch of BS, the Trump impeachment has been in the works for three years and now it is in the Senate and there is no violation of any law in the Articles. It was purely motivated by hatred and what your party has done is set a precedence that any President can be impeached by the majority simply because the Congress doesn't like him. Why don't you tell me which of the results generated bother you the most? This is purely political and as Jonathan Turley said, "there is no compelling evidence of any violation of law"

BS! Soliciting a foreign national's assistance in an election is a crime. Federal campaign finance laws bar soliciting "anything of value" to influence a federal, state, and local local election. Using the Budget Management Office to withhold appropriated monies for political purposes was a violation of federal law.

 

[Conservative]

BS! Soliciting a foreign national's assistance in an election is a crime. Federal campaign finance laws bar soliciting "anything of value" to influence a federal, state, and local local election. Using the Budget Management Office to withhold appropriated monies for political purposes was a violation of federal law.

Then why isn't that in the Articles of Impeachment? looks like you have determined what you want to believe is in those articles. There is no violation of law in the articles regardless of what you want to believe

 

[Atomic Kid]

Then why isn't that in the Articles of Impeachment? looks like you have determined what you want to believe is in those articles. There is no violation of law in the articles regardless of what you want to believe

What I have determined is that you can't f***ing read.

From Article 1. Abuse of Power.

"In his conduct of the office of president of the United States and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, Donald J Trump has abused the powers of the presidency, in that: Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election.

He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States presidential election to his advantage."

 

[Conservative]

What I have determined is that you can't f***ing read.

From Article 1. Abuse of Power.

"In his conduct of the office of president of the United States and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, Donald J Trump has abused the powers of the presidency, in that: Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election.

He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States presidential election to his advantage."

And what you don't understand it isn't Congress that determines abuse of power it is the courts. It really is sad to see so many of you people radicalized by a failed liberal ideology and rhetoric. As for soliciting there was no personal gain in asking Ukraine to do US a favor. You really think that the American people give a damn about Ukraine?

You really need that nanny state proposed by Bernie, don't you? Trump's record speaks for itself as to the Constitutionality, not what bureaucrats or radicals think

Maybe it is you that should learn how to read but basically think in a non partisan way

Alan Dershowitz: Trump impeachment is a '''motion-to-dismiss''' case, save for '''political''' considerations | Fox News

"Obstruction of Congress is not an impeachable offense. Abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.

 

[danielpalos]

And what you don't understand it isn't Congress that determines abuse of power it is the courts. It really is sad to see so many of you people radicalized by a failed liberal ideology and rhetoric. As for soliciting there was no personal gain in asking Ukraine to do US a favor. You really think that the American people give a damn about Ukraine?

You really need that nanny state proposed by Bernie, don't you? Trump's record speaks for itself as to the Constitutionality, not what bureaucrats or radicals think

Maybe it is you that should learn how to read but basically think in a non partisan way

Alan Dershowitz: Trump impeachment is a '''motion-to-dismiss''' case, save for '''political''' considerations | Fox News

sorry; that is just hearsay and soothsay. the House has the sole Power of Impeachment. They really are delegated the authority to proclaim, when enough is enough.

 

[MTAtech]

 

[MTAtech]

And what you don't understand it isn't Congress that determines abuse of power it is the courts. It really is sad to see so many of you people radicalized by a failed liberal ideology and rhetoric. As for soliciting there was no personal gain in asking Ukraine to do US a favor. You really think that the American people give a damn about Ukraine?

You really need that nanny state proposed by Bernie, don't you? Trump's record speaks for itself as to the Constitutionality, not what bureaucrats or radicals think

Maybe it is you that should learn how to read but basically think in a non partisan way

Alan Dershowitz: Trump impeachment is a '''motion-to-dismiss''' case, save for '''political''' considerations | Fox News

The Constitution gives the courts no say in impeachment. As such, high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever the House and Senate say they are. There is no judicial review or appeal of impeachment. If the Senate convicts on the basis of abuse of power, that's the end of it.

The rest of your post about Bernie, liberal ideology and the nanny state are just more of your usual blather.

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitution gives the courts no say in impeachment. As such, high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever the House and Senate say they are. There is no judicial review or appeal of impeachment. If the Senate convicts on the basis of abuse of power, that's the end of it.

The rest of your post about Bernie, liberal ideology and the nanny state are just more of your usual blather.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is vested with the judicial Power of the United States.

 

[MTAtech]

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is vested with the judicial Power of the United States.

The Chief Justice doesn't decide whether the charges are valid. The Constitution says that the House shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. ... The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

 

[danielpalos]

The Chief Justice doesn't decide whether the charges are valid. The Constitution says that the House shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. ... The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

The judicial branch is co-equal and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is vested with the judicial Power of the United States not the Senate.

Judicial power is the power “of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for decision.”

As judicial power is the authority to render dispositive judgments, Congress violates the separation of powers when it purports to alter final judgments of Article III courts