Posted on 12/17/2019 11:27:16 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
Lil buzzard still chirping partisan nonsense
I think it would be well within the authority of the Chief Justice to inquire of the Senate whether or not hearsay shall be accepted as evidence. This would shorten the proceedings considerably.
Along the same lines, I think he could inquire as to whether it shall be permissible to dismiss the charges against Trump for failure to state a specific impeachable offense. A vote by 51 Senators to allow such a dismissal would grant the Chief Justice that authority.
I don't think that the Chief Justice would be bound by what any single Senator decides. I am quite convinced the vote of 99 Senators to reject the impeachment would suffice to accomplish just that.
A vote by 51 Senators to dismiss an impeachment should be a valid action in light of the fact that the Constitution requires 2/3 to remove from office.
“He’s not law trained.”
In other words, He doesn’t LIE for a Living
Says who? The Senate. What else would you expect the Senate to say? The model the Framers described is judge and jury. Juries don't make up the rules.
ML/NJ
I don't disagree.
However, the devil is in the details.
It does appear as if the Founders intended more than just a debate and vote by the Senate. Having the Chief Justice preside must have a purpose. The Founders expected a trial. From the Constitution, "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, ...".
The implication of that quote would seem to be that an impeachment MUST be a criminal trial. That has incredible consequences for Trump. He is to be afforded every right that any defendant has (except the Senate is the jury). That would include a presumption of innocence and the right not to be a witness against himself. Does Executive Privilege apply to such an impeachment trial? Hmmm...
I think this creates a strong presumption that the presiding judge, the Chief Justice, CAN dismiss for lack of a specific crime. "Gross Unpopularity" won't cut it.
I think it unlikely that Chief Justice Roberts will create a new exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay. I think it unlikely that the Chief Justice will allow a witness to "presume" something which he didn't witness. I think it unlikely that he would accept a charge of "Contempt of Congress" for Trump suggesting that the Supreme Court should rule on the applicability of Congressional subpoenas. Otherwise we would have to believe that the power to issue subpoenas by Congress is unlimited.
What a knucklehead. Do you suppose that there is even one "unbiased" Senator? Who would that be?
Furthermore, the verdict to convict must consist of 2/3 of the Senators "present". It appears that the Founders already outlined the qualifications to sit as a juror. What power on earth could stop even a biased Senator from being "present" during a Presidential impeachment trial?
HALLMARK CARDS???
I would avoid anything Hallmark today, tomorrow, and forever from now on....
...
If the best Billy Boy could do in his own defense was to hector Americans about the definition of ‘is’... then NO!!! Absolutely not! Being a ‘lawyer’ is more of a dis-qualifier than anything else in a nominee OR a President!
Thanks Billy Boy!
I have nothing but contempt for Congress. Didn’t know that was a crime!
RBG is getting nastier as the time winds down.
[url=https://imgbb.com/][img]https://i.ibb.co/cYMK0dK/reaper.jpg[/img][/url]
hey, ruthie..
this guy is lurking.......
It’s time for Trump to Declare Ruth in Contempt of President.
High crimes and misdemeanors?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
![https://imgbb.com/][img]https://i.ibb.co/cYMK0dK/reaper.jpg[/img][/url](https://imgbb.com/][img]https://i.ibb.co/cYMK0dK/reaper.jpg[/img][/url){kind=link}