Impeachment

Mr. Deez said:
They aren't forced to act, but Cocaine Mitch says they will. I don't agree with Joe Fan's characterization of what everyone's roles would be. The issue of whether senators act purely as jurors came up in the 1999 Senate trial. One of the senators objected to being addressed as a "juror." Chief Justice Rehnquist sustained the objection and ruled that though senators decide questions of fact like jurors do, they also decide substantive questions of law such as what constitutes an impeachable offense. Knowing that, I highly doubt that Roberts would grant any dispositive motion in the case and would instead put it to the senators themselves to decide.
Click to expand...

My hope is that it screams 'lack of due process' so loudly that Roberts has no choice. I admitted above he doesnt want to handle it this way. But my hope is that Schiff's malfeasance is so egregious that Roberts will be boxed into a corner so that he only has one way out.

Why? Because he likes Trump? No way! Because he knows he is setting key precedence that will be followed again in the future. If Roberts is about anything, he is about history and the role of the Court. In no way does he want to be the Chief Justice who drew the roadmap for the impeachment of every single future POTUS based on secret proceedings, in soundproof rooms, without counsel, without the ability to call witnesses, without the ability to cross-examine, without a neutral arbiter of legitimate disputes and without the opportunity of the defendant to confront his accuser(s). John Roberts knows all of this is wrong, on multiple levels. He is keenly aware of his place in history. He might not care for Trump but he definitely cares about his own legal legacy. I am counting on him not wanting "the Roberts Legacy" to be the trampling of due process or "the Judge who approved of Soviet Rules in the US."
 
Joe Fan said:
My hope is that it screams 'lack of due process' so loudly that Roberts has no choice. I admitted above he doesnt want to handle it this way. But my hope is that Schiff's malfeasance is so egregious that Roberts will be boxed into a corner so that he only has one way out.

Why? Because he likes Trump? No way! Because he knows he is setting key precedence that will be followed again in the future. If Roberts is about anything, he is about history and the role of the Court. In no way does he want to be the Chief Justice who drew the roadmap for the impeachment of every single future POTUS based on secret proceedings, in soundproof rooms, without counsel, without the ability to call witnesses, without the ability to cross-examine, without a neutral arbiter of legitimate disputes and without the opportunity of the defendant to confront his accuser(s). John Roberts knows all of this is wrong, on multiple levels. He is keenly aware of his place in history. He might not care for Trump but he definitely cares about his own legal legacy. I am counting on him not wanting "the Roberts Legacy" to be the trampling of due process or "the Judge who approved of Soviet Rules in the US."
Click to expand...
Maybe Nancy knows this, allowing her to say to voters to finish what Roberts couldn’t do.
 
Joe Fan said:
My hope is that it screams 'lack of due process' so loudly that Roberts has no choice. I admitted above he doesnt want to handle it this way. But my hope is that Schiff's malfeasance is so egregious that Roberts will be boxed into a corner so that he only has one way out.

Why? Because he likes Trump? No way! Because he knows he is setting key precedence that will be followed again in the future. If Roberts is about anything, he is about history and the role of the Court. In no way does he want to be the Chief Justice who drew the roadmap for the impeachment of every single future POTUS based on secret proceedings, in soundproof rooms, without counsel, without the ability to call witnesses, without the ability to cross-examine, without a neutral arbiter of legitimate disputes and without the opportunity of the defendant to confront his accuser(s). John Roberts knows all of this is wrong, on multiple levels. He is keenly aware of his place in history. He might not care for Trump but he definitely cares about his own legal legacy. I am counting on him not wanting "the Roberts Legacy" to be the trampling of due process or "the Judge who approved of Soviet Rules in the US."
Click to expand...

Most fair-minded people aren't fans of the process. However, Roberts has shown himself to be hostile to taking on a big role for himself. I could see someone making a motion to dismiss of some kind. However, I think he'd punt the issue to the Senate. First, it would keep him from having to take a tough stance. Second, he knows the Senate would likely agree with him.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Most fair-minded people aren't fans of the process. However, Roberts has shown himself to be hostile to taking on a big role for himself. I could see someone making a motion to dismiss of some kind. However, I think he'd punt the issue to the Senate. First, it would keep him from having to take a tough stance. Second, he knows the Senate would likely agree with him.
Click to expand...
Still it lets Nancy say that Trump got off the hook on a technicality.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Most fair-minded people aren't fans of the process. However, Roberts has shown himself to be hostile to taking on a big role for himself. I could see someone making a motion to dismiss of some kind. However, I think he'd punt the issue to the Senate. First, it would keep him from having to take a tough stance. Second, he knows the Senate would likely agree with him.
Click to expand...

I agree that is Roberts' personalty. What I am adding is that he is also a keen student of judicial history, and the role of the Court. If he lets this go forward despite the long list of legal defects, he is effectively setting the rules for future impeachments.

For example, one of their charges here is that Trump fired an ambassador. Changing ambassadors in his his exclusive wheelhouse under the Constitution. So if Roberts lets this charge go forward, then we can impeach the next Dem Pres when he/she changes ambassadors. Democrats are so filled with emotion they cannot see this is what they are doing now. But Roberts isnt. He knows that if he lets this thing play out without intervening, it will become a central tenet of the "Roberts Rules" -- to wit, changing ambassadors = an impeachable abuse of power.

And if you can impeach a President for that, then you can also impeach them for replacing US Attorneys. The will become the second tenet of the Roberts Rules - changing USAs = an impeachable obstruction of justice.

John Roberts knows that all of this is going to be on him. History will blame him for the political unrest that is going to follow as each new President is impeached after one or two years. We are going to look no different than Italy, Taiwan or Namibia, changing leaders all the time. And it will all be John Roberts fault. He could have done something to stop it, but he just sat there picking his nose.

So, while you are correct that Roberts doesnt want to get mixed up in what is ultimately a political fight between the other two branches of government, he doesnt want to be a marked man in the history books either. As we sit here trying to psychoanalyze the Chief Justice, we must ask which idea does he hate the least? Does he care more about what the current swath of "progressives" will think of him if he stands up for truth and justice, or does he care more how history will judge him? I suggest it will be the latter.
 
Will Hurd is ex-FBI

"I would love to hear from Hunter Biden" and "other Americans that served on the board of Burisma."

"I'm curious to know how someone who doesn't have any experience in Ukraine" or natural gas gets "on the board of a natural gas company in Ukraine." ​

 
I am sure Senate Dems can expect the same level of comity House Dems gave - LOL

Bottom line, we have the votes. They don’t.
What was it Barack Obama said?
“I won. Deal with it.”

 
mchammer said:
Apparently Nikki Haley agrees with me regarding the cowardly scum within the foreign policy community. Yes, that includes Taylor.

Nikki Haley Book -- She's Right to Rebuke Rex Tillerson & John Kelly for Undermining Trump | National Review
Click to expand...

The President doesn't have absolute power over foreign policy. He has broad power over it, but Congress can still pass laws regarding foreign policy and can still fund or refuse to fund operations that are part of foreign policy.

What this means is that if the President is breaking the law within foreign policy, officials within the Adminstration don't and shouldn't have to go along. After all, the law is supreme, not the commander-in-chief. Should they pull some BS behind his back? No. They should tell him to his face and try to convince him to change his mind. If he refuses, they should report what happened to the Justice Department and to Congress.

If he's not breaking the law but is doing something they disagree with, they can privately state their disagreement and encourage him to change his mind. If he won't, then they suck it up. If they can't deal with that, then they should resign.
 
loll
(please note- intentional typo which will allow those who wish to ignore the substance to ignore the substance)
 
Joe Fan said:
Schiff has not listed Morrison yet as a witness, which probably tells you what they think of his account
Click to expand...

Likewise, Schiff has not allowed the release of the Morrison depo transcript, despite leaking/releasing favorable segments of other statements. They are hiding Morrison. And Schiff, so far, has indicated he may not even allow House Rs to call him as a witness.

Why?

Because Morrison blew up their narrative.

People who were there for every word say Morrison's under oath testimony made Dem's faces "look like they had just sucked on a lemon." "They kept shifting in their chairs."* The Dems kept giving him the chance to synch his testimony with their narrative ("You dont really mean that") but Morrison refused. And apparently they think they can get through this whole process without Morrison testifying.

If they stick with this, it will be the kind of defect in procedural due process that John Roberts will not be able to ignore.


*The quotes are from Mark Meadows who was in Schiff's SCIF
 
Last edited:
bystander said:
Beto made up his mind before the Mueller Report was released as did most of the Dem candidates.
Click to expand...

I think the majority of Dems voters made up their minds about impeachment too, back on Nov 10, 2016. And I dont think they care how its done, they just want him gone, by any means necessary -- illegal, unConstitutional, immoral, unconscionable - it doesnt matter.

The globalists see this sentiment among the Dem base and they are taking their best shot.
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
I think the majority of Dems voters made up their minds about impeachment too, back on Nov 10, 2016. And I dont think they care how its done, they just want him gone, by any means necessary -- illegal, unConstitutional, immoral, unconscionable - it doesnt matter.

The globalists see this sentiment among their base and they are taking their best shot.
Click to expand...

Which is why I'm so alarmed about Liberals. I am seriously 100% more afraid of them than anything Trump has done. It's not even close. When you have a power political component able to make laws and enforce them on the sole basis of their "judgment" combined with an emotionally impaired beneficiary of a patronage system ready to conduct "values testing" as an extension of the Liberal police state then it's game over.
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
Likewise, Schiff has not allowed the release of the Morrison depo transcript, despite leaking/releasing favorable segments of other statements. They are hiding Morrison. And Schiff, so far, has indicated he may not even allow House Rs to call him as a witness.

Why?

Because Morrison blew up their narrative.

People who were there for every word say Morrison's under oath testimony made Dem's faces "look like they had just sucked on a lemon." "They kept shifting in their chairs."* The Dems kept giving him the chance to synch his testimony with their narrative ("You dont really mean that") but Morrison refused. And apparently they think they can get through this whole process without Morrison testifying.

If they stick with this, it will be the kind of defect in procedural due process that John Roberts will not be able to ignore.


*The quotes are from Mark Meadows who was in Schiff's SCIF
Click to expand...
That's what a prosecutor does in the grand jury phase. Puts on witnesses supporting their case and not ones that don't. Morrison would be called in the Senate hearing. Am I wrong?
 
OUBubba said:
Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

IMO, you have the worst initial instincts of anyone on this board. At least with the kneejerks, we know they are kneejerking when they do what they do (and, presumably, they do too). But you try to put on a show that you are actually thinking your way through issues, which makes the product all the worse.

OUBubba said:
That's what a prosecutor does in the grand jury phase. Puts on witnesses supporting their case and not ones that don't. Morrison would be called in the Senate hearing.
Click to expand...

Is that what you think this is, a grand jury proceeding? If so, then all these leaks would have some serious criminal law consequences. The Pelosi Machine has had snippets of every favorable witness' testimony in the hands of the sympathetic media orgs (which is to say, most of them) as the witnesses were walking through the door. Every one of them. How is this possible?

Furthermore and more importantly, who is the grand jury in the private movie playing in your head?

That was not a rhetorical question. There is an answer. The answer is Schiff. He is the jury. Who anointed Schiff THE grand juror? Schiff did! And the prosecutor. And the judge/magistrate. He is all things, he is godlike. He is putting on evidence for himself. Which is why what he is doing is called at various times by various people -- kangaroo court, Soviet Trial, Star Chamber, Spanish Inquisition and Witch Trial.

Tim Morrison is a good example of Schiff has been doing. Schiff has been testing and prepped his own witnesses in secret so that they will be ready for TV. Only the ones who agree with his pre-ordained narrative are being allowed to go public. Unlike many of Schiff's witnesses, Morrison was actually on the call. He is a direct witness to the call. As even you should know, testimony of direct witnesses is considered more reliable. For good reason. So we are putting on Morrison right? I mean, if we want to know the truth about that phone call, then we put on the direct witness to it, right? Erh, no. Schiff does not want him. Instead, he will be soliciting testimony from people who were not on the call -- he wants the less reliable hearsay witnesses. Why is that?

Does it make sense? Is what Schiff aimed at determining the truth of the matter? Is it consistent with the demands of due process? Or, does it have the look and feel of a show trial, orchestrated purely for TV purposes?

And for what reason? If Schiff is not aimed at laying out the facts for the House, the Senate and the American people, then what is he doing? He already knows he will not win in the Senate. Instead, he is aiming at damaging Trump politically as much as possible. Seen correctly for what it is, this is a political trial produced for political purposes. Is this what the framers of the Constitution intended for impeachment to be allowed for? Again, not rhetorical. The answer is no. And allowing this to go forward is going to be setting a new standard for impeachment. One that will be used against your side in the future. And, I promise, you are not going to like that when it happens. Remember when Harry Reid replaced the 60-vote rule in the Senate for judicial appointments/cabinet posts? Remember how you cheered when he used it, but then later hated it when Reid's rule was used against you? It's going to be like that, but much worse!
 
OUBubba said:
Link me to this bigfoot-like creature.
Click to expand...

It's coming. The aggression on Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo bloggers and in general the values police are all over the place. You have a world-class blind-spot. Busting people and ruining their lives is happening. The leadership of AOC, Warren, Sanders et al are running on angry platforms demanding wealth redistribution while spewing the most ridiculous PC rhetoric ever.

That's my opinion. I think it's very real.
 
bystander said:
Which is why I'm so alarmed about Liberals. I am seriously 100% more afraid of them than anything Trump has done. It's not even close. When you have a power political component able to make laws and enforce them on the sole basis of their "judgment combined with an emotionally impaired beneficiary of a patronage system ready to conduct "values testing" as an extension of the Liberal police state then it's game over.
Click to expand...

If allowed to gain full political, legal and military control, they will send us all to the Gulag. Or worse. History repeats.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Watch out. Your little liberal troll boy is going to pedantically inform you the correct usage is "lulz".
Click to expand...

I dont mind, it's fun to have a fanboi. And lord knows i graciously hand out the typos. Ooof. But this too is somewhat liberating. When working, everything I did had to be letter perfect, at all times. Triple checked. So its a relief now to just be able to like it fly without any worries.
 
Joe Fan said:
who is the grand jury in the private movie playing in your head?
Click to expand...
The House.
He already knows he will not win in the Senate.
Click to expand...
Trump could steal from Veteran's charities, be fined millions and then days later lead the Veteran's parade. He could grab someone by the *****. He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not be impeached in the Senate.
Is this what the framers of the Constitution intended for impeachment to be allowed for?
Click to expand...
Two words: Ken Starr.
Remember when Harry Reid replaced the 60-vote rule in the Senate for judicial appointments/cabinet posts? Remember how you cheered when he used it
Click to expand...
I did not cheer, boo or hiss at this action.
 
OUBubba said:
That's what a prosecutor does in the grand jury phase. Puts on witnesses supporting their case and not ones that don't. Morrison would be called in the Senate hearing. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Except that a suspect in a criminal proceeding CAN seek to have favorable evidence and witnesses presented in the Grand Jury proceedings. That many elect NOT to given other procedural quirks does not alter the reality that Schiff is engaged in a railroading process...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top