Trump Impeachment Trial Is Chief Justice Roberts' Nightmare

NWRatCon said:

While that seems to be the case, it could create yet another constitutional crisis. "Presiding" over the trial is not a ministerial function, even if Chief Justice Rehnquist treated it that way (after all, he was of the same party conducting the proceeding). I'd as soon we not test that theory.

Will Justice Roberts call balls and strikes at the impeachment trial? (Opinion, The Hill)

Click to expand...

Salmon Chase didn't call balls and strikes at the Andrew Johnson impeachment. In fact many of the first few rulings he did make were simply overturned by the Senate Republican majority. After that, Chase simply stopped making any more rulings.

The OP went off the rails when it talked of Roberts as a party stalwart. Not hardly. Roberts may be the centermost Justice at the moment. Party stalwarts would be Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Everyone else has played hooky from time to time.

GreatNews2night said:

Yes, once the trial begins, at ANY point the majority of senators can change the rules, 51-49, and there is nothing that Mitch or Chief Justice Roberts can do about that. There is no real way to act partisan for Chief Roberts. I don't think the Dems will blame him. The Dems will, however, blame the 53 GOP senators, appropriately, for being the cowards and sycophants that they are.

Is the Senate or is the President allowed to sue for Pelosi to send the articles of impeachment? The constitution doesn't detail a deadline. And also, she can initiate investigations for a third article (this possibility has been raised) and say that she will send all three once it is all done.

I don't know if the Senate or the President can do anything about it. Maybe they can, but I just don't know. It's probably uncharted territory given that this has never happened before.

And sure, you can berate Pelosi for having said that she wants to verify what the Senate process will be as a statement that is contrary to her constitutional limits, but if that's what you want to do, it must be also said that Mitch's statement that he will coordinate with the White House defense and that he won't be impartial, is also a violation of his constitutional duty, which requires the senators to serve as impartial jurors. Both statements by Pelosi and Mitch were disgraceful. Both parties are full of it; the Dems don't have the monopoly of disgraceful statements.

See, Justice Ginsburg strongly rebuked Mitch for saying that. She knows a thing or two about the Constitution. And when Trump tweeted that he'd do this or that to influence the trial, she said "Trump is no lawyer", mocking his ignorance of the rules that govern what the Legislative can do, and what the Executive can do.

Click to expand...

Apparently its being sycophants and cowards for disagreeing with Democrats. Who knew?

FYI Schumer said the exact same damn thing back when Clinton was facing impeachment.

joko104 said:

What a stupid message. John Roberts is who put ObamaCare into effect. He is not a "party stalwart" and it is ignorant to claim otherwise.

This is not a difficult job for the Chief Justice. The Rules of Evidence, Rules of Court, upholding legal privilege including attorney-client and Executive privilege, and other well established principles of due process make all his decisions for him if he is going to be legitimate.

It is John Roberts who sets the trial date and who rules on all objections. He is the presiding judge. If he acts like it, his job is a piece of cake. If he tried to be a politician, it will be a disaster and further trashing of the Bill of Rights, due process rights and rule of law.

This means NO hearsay. NO speculation. No witnesses giving political orations against President Trump - nor any Democrats allowed to do so - nor Republicans to orate political talking points either.

Click to expand...

The rules of previous trials include silence and the senators only asking questions in written form, and not speaking.

However the rules can be changed anytime by a 51-49 majority and the GOP controls 53 votes, so it is in their power to change the rules.

All this talk of due process and Bill of Rights does NOT apply in an impeachment trial. There is NO due process in this circumstance. It's whatever the senators decide to do. This is NOT a court of law, so, there are analogies (the Chief Justice is like the judge, the senators are like jurors, the House Managers are like prosecutors) but that's what they are: analogies, not the real thing. It's a DIFFERENT and entirely independent process to which due process does not apply. Now, if the senators decide to have something similar to due process, they are welcome to do so, again, by simple majority when they set the rules.

I'm just saying, stop with the due process nonsense. It is not applicable.

Like I said before, if the House by simple majority decided that having unruly blond hair and orange skin constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors and decided to vote immediately to impeach Trump with no hearings and no witnesses, and sent that article of impeachment to the senate ("this president is hereby impeached for committing the high crime and misdemeanor of having unruly blond hair and orange skin"), and the Senate decided not to acquit immediately but to hold a trial, and then without any witness or questions whatsoever decided by two thirds majority that yes, that hair and that skin tone are definitely impeachable offenses, and voted to convict, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD STOP IT, NOT EVEN THE SCOTUS, and the president would be removed with no due process whatsoever. Get it?

Any appearance of due process is a concession, and entirely voluntary. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires due process in the House impeachment and in the Senate trial. The constitution only determines what kind of majority the House needs (simple), what kind of majority the Senate needs (two thirds), and who presides over it (the Chief Justice). Period. Nothing else. Not even a definition of what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" - it's whatever the House determines to be the case.

It's not a court of law. It's a political body. See if you guys get it for once.

This said, I'm all for something similar to due process. But it's not required.

OpportunityCost said:

Apparently its being sycophants and cowards for disagreeing with Democrats. Who knew?

FYI Schumer said the exact same damn thing back when Clinton was facing impeachment.

Click to expand...

Being sycophants and cowards has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with Democrats. It has to do with being the rubber stamp of a corrupt president without exercising the constitutional duty of providing checks and balances. It's a travesty and an offense to the institution of the United States Senate. It's akin to what happens in corrupt Banana Republics ruled by tyrants, where the legislative body is merely a rubber stamp for the president.

Schumer did that? Wrong too. Two wrongs don't make a right. Still, five Democrats voted to impeach Clinton. No Republicans voted to impeach this extremely corrupt president.

GreatNews2night said:

Being sycophants and cowards has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with Democrats. It has to do with being the rubber stamp of a corrupt president without exercising the constitutional duty of providing checks and balances. It's a travesty and an offense to the institution of the United States Senate. It's akin to what happens in corrupt Banana Republics ruled by tyrants, where the legislative body is merely a rubber stamp for the president.

Schumer did that? Wrong too. Two wrongs don't make a right. Still, five Democrats voted to impeach Clinton. No Republicans voted to impeach this extremely corrupt president.

Click to expand...

Because they don't believe what he did rose to the level of impeachment. Again, they disagreed. The fascist left no longer allows disagreement, let the smear campaign begin.

GreatNews2night said:

Being sycophants and cowards has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with Democrats. It has to do with being the rubber stamp of a corrupt president without exercising the constitutional duty of providing checks and balances. It's a travesty and an offense to the institution of the United States Senate. It's akin to what happens in corrupt Banana Republics ruled by tyrants, where the legislative body is merely a rubber stamp for the president.

Schumer did that? Wrong too. Two wrongs don't make a right. Still, five Democrats voted to impeach Clinton. No Republicans voted to impeach this extremely corrupt president.

Click to expand...

One Democrat quit the party in protest.

OpportunityCost said:

Because they don't believe what he did rose to the level of impeachment. Again, they disagreed. The fascist left no longer allows disagreement, let the smear campaign begin.

Click to expand...

What he did is the very reason why the Framers wrote the impeachment clause to start with! If this is not worthy of impeachment, nothing is, according to the opinion of 500 constitutional scholars. The Framers provided the impeachment device precisely to avoid foreign influence in the US government (together with the emoluments clause). Trump clearly tried to enlist a foreign head of state to help him with a domestic election. There is little that is more in tune with the spirit of the impeachment device than this.

By the way, if the Dems chose to investigate him for violations of the emoluments clause, they'd have ample opportunity to find very damaging stuff. Like I said elsewhere, I wouldn't hold him accountable for the simple fact that foreign dignitaries stay in his Trump properties (hotels, resorts) although yes, several memos and opinions by the DoJ and think tanks establish that this is a violation of the emoluments clause. I'd say to this, don't sweat the small stuff. But I'd love to see an investigation on the Chinese-Indonesian deal. Remember when the Department of Commerce imposed sanctions on a tech Chinese company whose cell phones were deemed by the FBI as containing espionage devices, and the State Department issued a directive that no American officials should carry those phones, and the company suffered consequences? Well, Trump has always spoken against the Chinese in these matters... but then, he spoke in private with the Chinese president, and suddenly changed his mind, and directed the Department of Commerce to lift all sanctions against the company, atypically saying that he thought that holding the sanctions would damage employment creation in China. Since when is Trump worried about creating jobs in China??? What a lame excuse!! So, I was puzzled about it, thinking, what the hell is Trump thinking and doing? Surprise surprise, seven days later the Chinese government announces a 500 million investment in an Indonesian touristic conglomerate project that will include.... drum roll... a Trump resort!

Now, if what Trump did was to change the US policy towards a foreign entity, as a quid-pro-quo to obtain for his corporation's Indonesian project a fat financing deal from a foreign government, that's the utmost violation of the Emoluments Clause, and an impeachable offense.

Did it happen as a cause and effect, as a quid-pro-quo? I don't know, but it's precisely why I think it should be investigated. The coincidence, and Trump's lame excuses to favor the Chinese company, are too close to ignore. Maybe it's all innocent, maybe the Chinese would invest in this business anyway, but it is worth investigating.

Unfortunately, instead of looking at all the corrupt dealings this guy is surrounded with, the Dems acted too fast and only voted on two articles of impeachment. They should have continued to investigate, and should have followed the money.

GreatNews2night said:

What he did is the very reason why the Framers wrote the impeachment clause to start with! If this is not worthy of impeachment, nothing is, according to the opinion of 500 constitutional scholars. The Framers provided the impeachment device precisely to avoid foreign influence in the US government (together with the emoluments clause). Trump clearly tried to enlist a foreign head of state to help him with a domestic election. There is little that is more in tune with the spirit of the impeachment device than this.

By the way, if the Dems chose to investigate him for violations of the emoluments clause, they'd have ample opportunity to find very damaging stuff. Like I said elsewhere, I wouldn't hold him accountable for the simple fact that foreign dignitaries stay in his Trump properties (hotels, resorts) although yes, several memos and opinions by the DoJ and think tanks establish that this is a violation of the emoluments clause. I'd say to this, don't sweat the small stuff. But I'd love to see an investigation on the Chinese-Indonesian deal. Remember when the Department of Commerce imposed sanctions on a tech Chinese company whose cell phones were deemed by the FBI as containing espionage devices, and the State Department issued a directive that no American officials should carry those phones, and the company suffered consequences? Well, Trump has always spoken against the Chinese in these matters... but then, he spoke in private with the Chinese president, and suddenly changed his mind, and directed the Department of Commerce to lift all sanctions against the company, atypically saying that he thought that holding the sanctions would damage employment creation in China. Since when is Trump worried about creating jobs in China??? What a lame excuse!! So, I was puzzled about it, thinking, what the hell is Trump thinking and doing? Surprise surprise, seven days later the Chinese government announces a 500 million investment in an Indonesian touristic conglomerate project that will include.... drum roll... a Trump resort!

Now, if what Trump did was to change the US policy towards a foreign entity, as a quid-pro-quo to obtain to his corporation's Indonesian project a fat financing deal, that's the utmost violation of the Emoluments Clause, and an impeachable offense.

Did it happen as a cause and effect, as a quid-pro-quo? I don't know, but it's precisely why I think it should be investigated. The coincidence, and Trump's lame excuses to favor the Chinese company, are too close to ignore. Maybe it's all innocent, maybe the Chinese would invest in this business anyway, but it is worth investigating.

Unfortunately, instead of looking at all the corrupt dealings this guy is surrounded with, the Dems acted too fast and only voted on two articles of impeachment. They should have continued to investigate, and should have followed the money.

Click to expand...

If you need that much verbiage to explain your position when quoting 3 sentences, you probably are wrong. Lots of subjective nonsense. Very few facts.

Jay59 said:

One Democrat quit the party in protest.

Click to expand...

You know why, right? He was never a real Democrat to start with; was a previous Republican who lost a primary then joined the Democrats to run. But then, the tide turned after his victory, and currently his district is heavily red and dominated by Trump supporters, so the opportunistic PoS flip-flopped again.

Is that your best example? LOL

OpportunityCost said:

If you need that much verbiage to explain your position when quoting 3 sentences, you probably are wrong. Lots of subjective nonsense. Very few facts.

Click to expand...

Verbiage? Again, if you can't deal with a few paragraphs due to poor attention span, an Internet forum is not for you.

Very few facts? Look up the deal I'm talking about (edit: I got links for you, posted below). If you call favoring a Chinese Tech company by lifting sanctions, in order to earn a 500-million investment by the Chinese to benefit your corporation, "subjective nonsense" then I don't know what to tell you. You are probably someone who is a Trump cultist and won't acknowledge any wrongdoing by him.

OpportunityCost said:

If you need that much verbiage to explain your position when quoting 3 sentences, you probably are wrong. Lots of subjective nonsense. Very few facts.

Click to expand...

Oh, and you can read about the "subjective nonsense" if you care for getting informed:

U.S. Lifts Ban That Kept ZTE From Doing Business With American Suppliers - The New York Times

Read this:

President Trump asked the US Commerce Department to reconsider the ban in May at the request of Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The decision was controversial in the US. Some politicians in Congress are trying to take action to reinstate the original penalty, citing national security concerns about the company.

"ZTE should be put out of business," Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida, said on Friday.

"We must put American jobs and national security first, which is why I have urged NDAA conferees to ensure the bipartisan provision to reinstate penalties against ZTE is included in the final bill."

Click to expand...

And this:

Trump Indonesia Real Estate Project Gets Chinese Government Ally - The New York Times

GreatNews2night said:

Verbiage? Again, if you can't deal with a few paragraphs due to poor attention span, an Internet forum is not for you.

Click to expand...

He doesn't care about the facts. He's well aware of what Trump did and not only does he not think it's impeachable, he actually fully condones it, because the target was a Democrat.

That's how totalitarians that follow a personally cult think. Whatever their ideology needs to do in order to win is by definition moral.

You'll drive yourself mad arguing the facts of whether Trump "did it'". The problem with the totalitarian right is a moral crisis, not a legal one.

GreatNews2night said:

Verbiage? Again, if you can't deal with a few paragraphs due to poor attention span, an Internet forum is not for you.

Very few facts? Look up the deal I'm talking about (edit: I got links for you, posted below). If you call favoring a Chinese Tech company by lifting sanctions, in order to earn a 500-million investment by the Chinese to benefit your corporation, "subjective nonsense" then I don't know what to tell you. You are probably someone who is a Trump cultist and won't acknowledge any wrongdoing by him.

Click to expand...

Did it ever occur to you that working to re-open the US market to ZTE may have been helpful to the US-China trade talks?

Of course not, you have orange man bad syndrome and every single ****ing thing must be viewed not if it is good or bad for Americans but if you can criticize Trump for it.

NWRatCon said:

An interesting article penned by Harvard professor Noah Feldman looks at Chief Justice Roberts' role in Trump's impeachment trial:Trump Impeachment Trial Is Chief Justice Roberts' Nightmare (Bloomberg Opinion).

The article points out that Roberts cannot avoid participating, as the Constitution requires it, but this is the most partisan trial in modern history. Roberts will be between a rock and a hard place - balancing his desire for a constitutional legacy and his positron as a party stalwart. The strain could break him, or at least stain his reputation forever.

Click to expand...

All Judge Roberts has to do is assure there is a fair trail and Trump will be exonerated. The Democrats do not have a strong case and Trump has better lawyers than the Democrats. The Republicans will not have the play the games of the Democrats. Once again, in this piece, the Democrats are projecting their own crimes, accusing the other side of what they did. Most people of common sense will be satisfied with a fair trial and Trump's exoneration.

Roberts is a good man and will avoid a mock trial, like the Democrats did, that violated due process and the Constitution. Only a moron and criminal would think the other way. Roberts only problem with be the Democrat criminals and their buddies in fake news will try to spin a fair trial, as biased simply because they will lose each day. My hope is there is another round of cheating by the desparate Democrats, that will lead to top level Democrats called as witnesses, so they can be indicted by their actions. Biden and Obama for corruption and Schiff, Schumer, Nadler, and Pelosi for abuse of power. Time to cut the head off the snake.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

There is NO requirement for her to forward the Articles of Impeachment.
I don't think I am wrong on this so please pull up a constitutional arg to the contrary if one is to be had.

Far as I know she can leave that sucker hanging for eternity.
And at this point, that's probably what that orange putz deserves.

I'm all for a proper trial with witnesses but if Mitch is going to try to rub everyone's faces in some sham, then he gets nothing, and neither does his boss, nothing but a big fat asterisk that will never go away.

Enjoy, POTUS *45

Click to expand...

A trial without any witnesses is not a trial. It would be the proverbial kangaroo court the republicans have been accusing the dems of having.

No witnesses, no articles forwarded and trump will be forever impeached no matter what the right tries to say that he isn't.

Rich2018 said:

Then who benefits if the articles of impeachment are withheld from the Senate?

Is there a time limit ?

Click to expand...

I would think once a new congress is sworn in they would disappear but im not sure.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Stealers Wheel said:

Hamilton wrote that when he envisioned senators elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote of the people. In 1913, the 17th amendment changed this.

Click to expand...

Thats a good point about the 17th A.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

NWRatCon said:

An interesting article penned by Harvard professor Noah Feldman looks at Chief Justice Roberts' role in Trump's impeachment trial:Trump Impeachment Trial Is Chief Justice Roberts' Nightmare (Bloomberg Opinion).

The article points out that Roberts cannot avoid participating, as the Constitution requires it, but this is the most partisan trial in modern history. Roberts will be between a rock and a hard place - balancing his desire for a constitutional legacy and his positron as a party stalwart. The strain could break him, or at least stain his reputation forever.

Click to expand...

I think you're right, but Bill Clinton's impeachment came close to be just as partisan. On the articles of impeachment in the house, the first article 5 democrats voted yea and 5 republicans nay, it passed. On the second article which failed, 5 democrats voted yea, 28 republicans nay. The third article passed with 5 democrats again voting yea, 12 republicans nay. The fourth article failed with with only one democrat voting yea and a bunch of republicans voting nay, 81.

Compare that to Trump's where only two Democrats voted against impeachment with no republicans voting for impeachment. That's about as close to 100% partisanship one can get. In Bill Clinton's senate trial, all 45 democrats voted not guilty on both articles, 10 republicans voted not guilty on the first article, 5 not guilty on the second.

During Bill's impeachment one could say the Democrats stuck to the party line, the more partisan and less impartial. I think the democrats who are crying about the senate trial being impartial forget about their own impartiality during Bill's and also for the upcoming Trump trial. I can guarantee that at least 45 of 47 democratic senators have their mind set to vote guilty regardless of what the trial shows. That probably 49 or 50 GOP senators have their mind set to vote not guilty regardless of what is brought forth in the trial. The trial itself is meaningless as to the outcome with both sides votes for the most part set in stone before the trial begins.

The hearings, investigations and vote in the house was the same. It didn't matter what evidence was produced, whether that evidence warranted impeachment or not, both sides minds were set in concrete before even one investigation began. No fairness, just 100% pure partisanship and no impartiality at all. The same holds in the upcoming senate trial. For Democrats to scream about the impartiality of senate Republicans is asinine since they themselves are 100% impartial and partisan. Hypocritical lot on both sides.

As for Roberts, he'll survive.

NWRatCon said:

An interesting article penned by Harvard professor Noah Feldman looks at Chief Justice Roberts' role in Trump's impeachment trial:Trump Impeachment Trial Is Chief Justice Roberts' Nightmare (Bloomberg Opinion).

The article points out that Roberts cannot avoid participating, as the Constitution requires it, but this is the most partisan trial in modern history. Roberts will be between a rock and a hard place - balancing his desire for a constitutional legacy and his positron as a party stalwart. The strain could break him, or at least stain his reputation forever.

Click to expand...

A case for the judicial Power in this case?

GreatNews2night said:

You know why, right? He was never a real Democrat to start with; was a previous Republican who lost a primary then joined the Democrats to run. But then, the tide turned after his victory, and currently his district is heavily red and dominated by Trump supporters, so the opportunistic PoS flip-flopped again.

Is that your best example? LOL

Click to expand...

You're going to claim this is no-biggie. Seriously?

When is the last time it happened, anyone, either party?

MovingPictures said:

He doesn't care about the facts. He's well aware of what Trump did and not only does he not think it's impeachable, he actually fully condones it, because the target was a Democrat.

That's how totalitarians that follow a personally cult think. Whatever their ideology needs to do in order to win is by definition moral.

You'll drive yourself mad arguing the facts of whether Trump "did it'". The problem with the totalitarian right is a moral crisis, not a legal one.

Click to expand...

If you want to call me out, you can actually quote me. There is no cult think. I am not in the slightest bit totalitarian. You are a political opportunist with judgment issues that still can't accept the 2016 election.

trouble13 said:

I would think once a new congress is sworn in they would disappear but im not sure.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I read a theory that suggest that Speaker of the House Pelosi might be seeking to hamstring some senators by making the conduct a trial when they would prefer to be out campaigning in election year.

Whisper it quietly but that might include Warren and Sanders whilst leaving Biden free to campaign.

bongsaway said:

Not that I am aware however I'm no constitutional scholar.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine the articles of impeachment are indefinite so I imagine they expire in November next year. But then again it's been suggested that the House can re-pass the vote to impeach and pass to a more friendly Senate should Trump win re-election.

Rich2018 said:

Then who benefits if the articles of impeachment are withheld from the Senate?

Is there a time limit ?

Click to expand...

Ultimately the Democrats and those who do not support Trump which includes the majority of Americans such as Republicans and Independents who want Trump out.

Imagine Trump giving the SOTU Address on 4 February with impeachment still hanging over his head. It will be Trump at his most infantile moment. It will be a marathon gibberish rant by a lunatic. It will be the last thing Trump’s handlers want to see broadcast to the nation and the world.

Withholding the impeachment gives Pelosi and Schumer a great deal of leverage.

More information is being discovered and revealed since the initial articles of impeachment as more documents are being released through freedom of information requests. The longer Pelosi waits the more information is discovered. When the WH obstructs justice/Congress as it has more time and witnesses are needed. Pelosi and the House May yet add more charges based on forthcoming evidence and testimony.