As I understand it, and I could be wrong on this, he can compel witness testimony and demand evidence be presented even if the Senate votes not to. Maybe you can clarify this cyclone as you're an attorney?

Yes, I'm an attorney but not an impeachment scholar and you may have already gotten the answer to this. Impeachment is a legislative process w/rules made by the Senate. The blueprint of 26 rules was first drafted for Johnson's impeachment in 1868 & tweaked for Clinton's trial. Every single rule has to be approved by the majority of the Senate. My understanding is that the Trump trial was using the Clinton rules as a blueprint and Clinton DID have 3 witnesses who testified under oath in closed sessions.

CJ Roberts' role is to preside - basically keep order (all the Senators have to remain seated & silent & show up at the appointed time), make limited evidentiary rulings, and generally make sure that the rules and the constitution are followed. He can be over-ruled by the Senate.

So, the short answer is no. His mentor was CJRehnquist who presided over Clinton's trial and by his own account "did very little very well." Although Roberts is likely to follow Rehnquist's example in most instances, he may mediate negotiations re the rules or at least move them in a "fair" direction so that the trial isn't a travesty.

The assassination of Soleimani may change the timing, approach to rule-making, & outcome of the trial. Some senators may use the opportunity to show that they will NOT be dismissed when it comes to the Exec notifying them of such actions.

The RatherBeRussians know what democracy is. They are revolting, a passive revolution, but revolting nonetheless.

You certainly have the ability to take any position on any topic. Again, I disagree w/you that the RBRs know what democracy is in practical terms - like 3 branches of government. But the real question is WTH is a passive revolution? They eat more fast food? Pay off their mistresses? Hang posters of Putin in their children's bedrooms? Cheat on their taxes?

And now back to impeachment...

I actually pride myself in knowing my position and being happy to state it without deflection or obfuscation. I do tend towards the big picture however, which can be irritating when trying to nail down specifics, I will grant that. If you are going to call me a chameleon you will allow me the chance to defend myself, as that is a serious accusation in my book.
It seems to me that the ignorance of democracy is willful, and it is naive to think that it is from lack of education. Every Redhat on this board is aware of the mechanics of democracy.

Oh, pull yourself together silly Rabbit. That was a compliment - to be able to see not only both sides of a question but the short & long term consequences. It requires both knowledge & critical thinking.

I'm not saying a lack of civic education is the problem - CJRoberts alluded to it in his annual report. His remarks were for generations NOT represented on this forum who seem to be clueless as well as disinterested in anything beyond their favorite IG influencers.

As I understand it, and I could be wrong on this, he can compel witness testimony and demand evidence be presented even if the Senate votes not to. Maybe you can clarify this cyclone as you're an attorney?

Yes, I'm an attorney but not an impeachment scholar and you may have already gotten the answer to this. Impeachment is a legislative process w/rules made by the Senate. The blueprint of 26 rules was first drafted for Johnson's impeachment in 1868 & tweaked for Clinton's trial. Every single rule has to be approved by the majority of the Senate. My understanding is that the Trump trial was using the Clinton rules as a blueprint and Clinton DID have 3 witnesses who testified under oath in closed sessions.

CJ Roberts' role is to preside - basically keep order (all the Senators have to remain seated & silent & show up at the appointed time), make limited evidentiary rulings, and generally make sure that the rules and the constitution are followed. He can be over-ruled by the Senate.

So, the short answer is no. His mentor was CJRehnquist who presided over Clinton's trial and by his own account "did very little very well." Although Roberts is likely to follow Rehnquist's example in most instances, he may mediate negotiations re the rules or at least move them in a "fair" direction so that the trial isn't a travesty.

The assassination of Soleimani may change the timing, approach to rule-making, & outcome of the trial. Some senators may use the opportunity to show that they will NOT be dismissed when it comes to the Exec notifying them of such actions.

Thanks for the clarification Cyclone....And for the very interesting and informative discussion between you and Rabbit....Thanks to both of you.

Thanks for the clarification Cyclone....And for the very interesting and informative discussion between you and Rabbit....Thanks to both of you.

The clarification may change, of course, as Trump rips up the constitution to suit himself. I don't think the Founders had a post-hoc explanation via twitter in mind when war powers were addressed. Re impeachment, things like Bolton's public announcement today that he's willing to testify should he be called could put pressure on McConnell to actually have a trial w/witnesses & evidence. What a concept!

The constitution is consistent in the complete division of powers w/checks & balances. A trial in the legislature is run by the legislature. The SCOTUS chief justice presides to make sure the wheels don't totally come off & to protect the Exec office if not its occupant.

Rabbit is always up for a good exchange. I fully expected Trump to do something to get impeachment off the front page while Congress was in recess but I certainly didn't expect an assassination!

I'm still amazed that 40% of people still support a rich guy who was born into money and cheated his way through school and life.

While they're living pay to pay and barely scratching by.

Gaslighting works on the uninformed.

Sad but true.

I'm still amazed that 40% of people still support a rich guy who was born into money and cheated his way through school and life.

While they're living pay to pay and barely scratching by.

Gaslighting works on the uninformed.

Sad but true.

Thanks for pointing out that many of his supporters are living pay to pay & barely scratching by despite this highly touted 3.9% unemployment number ( I'd really like to see that broken down. Are we talking "healthcare" jobs that are actually $8/hr home health aides?)

I'm amazed that senators who are NOT uninformed continue to support a reckless, impulsive, mercurial, unstable man who can be baited w/a tweet are standing behind him, especially in the context of this escalation of tensions (I'm not saying war) w/Iran of which Congress wasn't informed beforehand. They have a chance to get him out of office through impeachment before he does further damage, but they're marching in lock-step behind McConnell who apparently is either 1) ignorant of the constitution or 2) blithely choosing to ignore it for which he should be expelled from Congress.

The answer can't be that ALL of them fear losing their senate seat (some aren't even running for re-election) & their constituents got what they wanted w/"pro-life" justices appointed. Does Pence scare them? WTH are they afraid of? If the choice is Trump or nuclear war, isn't nuclear war scarier?

I'm still amazed that 40% of people still support a rich guy who was born into money and cheated his way through school and life.

While they're living pay to pay and barely scratching by.

Gaslighting works on the uninformed.

Sad but true.

Thanks for pointing out that many of his supporters are living pay to pay & barely scratching by despite this highly touted 3.9% unemployment number ( I'd really like to see that broken down. Are we talking "healthcare" jobs that are actually $8/hr home health aides?)

I'm amazed that senators who are NOT uninformed continue to support a reckless, impulsive, mercurial, unstable man who can be baited w/a tweet are standing behind him, especially in the context of this escalation of tensions (I'm not saying war) w/Iran of which Congress wasn't informed beforehand. They have a chance to get him out of office through impeachment before he does further damage, but they're marching in lock-step behind McConnell who apparently is either 1) ignorant of the constitution or 2) blithely choosing to ignore it for which he should be expelled from Congress.

The answer can't be that ALL of them fear losing their senate seat (some aren't even running for re-election) & their constituents got what they wanted w/"pro-life" justices appointed. Does Pence scare them? WTH are they afraid of? If the choice is Trump or nuclear war, isn't nuclear war scarier?

My opinion is that all of the enablers have gone along with and defended Trump through so many objectively ridiculous situations that there is no way to stop now. They are "all-in' whether they want to be or not because they have given him so many passes already. How do you say "y" is inexcusable behavior from a president when you already let "x" slide? They knew it was wrong before the 2016 RNC convention, but he was popular with the base. It has to be a bad feeling to know that if you lose the racist vote you don't have a chance in elections.

The answer can't be that ALL of them fear losing their senate seat (some aren't even running for re-election) & their constituents got what they wanted w/"pro-life" justices appointed. Does Pence scare them? WTH are they afraid of?

Among his supporters: unrest, threats of domestic terrorism towards other civilian Americans, loss of public trust and loyalty to the United States. They are rabid and radicalized. The Republicans in the Senate recognize the instability of his base, recognize the threat they pose, and are trying to prevent mass violence. They are backing him to create the perception that “they are trying” for them.

Because there are millions of brainwashed ticking time bombs ready to retaliate and destroy America even more than they have already, we have to let him leave office in the most natural way possible so as not to set them off.

Is it possible that so many like the President solely because of the alternatives (or lack thereof) ?

What other choices do voters have?

People don’t even know why they hate Hillary.

Personally, I believe voters should be given more credit than that. One voter's reasoning is judged to be ridiculous by the next and yes, it goes both ways.

Because the other impeachment thread has been derailed by posters into name-calling about something other than impeachment, I wanted a place to talk about impeachment.

Today is Impeachment Tuesday. More than 550 demonstrations (at least one in each state) are being held (w/sponsors from the Sierra Club to unions) to remind Congress that several polls indicate Americans are IN FAVOR of impeachment (the process). I'm not a big believer in polls but the point is that we're fine w/Congress proceeding w/the constitutional blueprint to examine a president's behavior as opposed to watching a bunch of old white men screeching at each other on TV until the election.

Four GOP politicos (campaign strategists) announced the formation of the Lincoln Project with an aim of defeating DJT because he doesn't represent what the GOP stands for (or did before 2016).

I'd like to make the assumption that the HR has proceeded according to the constitution & that Articles of Impeachment were drafted & voted on & will go to the Senate.

If you want to rant about liberals v. yourself, the Dem plan to do this since 2016, or Nancy Pelosi's cosmetic surgery, the other thread is still available. This may be the 1st & last post of the thread because maybe no one else cares, but I thought I'd give it a shot keeping in mind that we're here for the music & this is just an aside.

cyclone88, I would say that this thread is about to fall victim to the same diversions the other thread did...

People don’t even know why they hate Hillary.

That "Why do you hate Hilary" thread I started a while back was page after page of not one actual reason why. Even when given the floor to cut her to pieces her worst detractors had nothing to offer.

The "Hate Hilary" movement began long before Trump ever considered running for the presidency. The movement began literally decades ago as a way for many on the right to foment a lucrative living bashing the Clinton's.

Roger Ailes, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Kelly Ann Conway, that other skinny, pale white women (her name escapes me at the moment) have made a boatload of money basically creating the "Hate Hilary" campaign. To their credit, they've milked it for money, power, ratings, and ultimately getting a buffoon reality tv star elected to the presidency.

But yeah, actually ask for specifics as to why they hate Hilary and many can't answer the question as they've simply been spoon fed conspiracy theories and outright lies so much for so long they can't remember what it is they actually hate about her.

I do agree with Big V however in that there are enough that can articulate their hate and it's those that convince the others. They're the herd leaders, the alpha males and females so to speak.

People don’t even know why they hate Hillary.

That "Why do you hate Hilary" thread I started a while back was page after page of not one actual reason why. Even when given the floor to cut her to pieces her worst detractors had nothing to offer.

99% of the people chanting "Lock Her Up" couldn't even name a crime she should have been charged with. It was all hate. So, no, I don't give them much credit.

Is it possible that so many like the President solely because of the alternatives (or lack thereof) ? What other choices do voters have?

Liking someone isn't the same as having no alternatives. Accepting, putting up with, bearing up, waiting him out, or hoping there are grown-ups in the room while he's still around isn't "liking."

There is no "choice" during his term except impeachment which is underway or invoking the 25th amendment which was my choice early on. Voters can only pressure their senators to vote for rules for a fair trial & to vote according to what evidence is presented at trial.

cyclone88, I would say that this thread is about to fall victim to the same diversions the other thread did...

I hope not. I plan to stick to impeachment in part because it is such a rare occurrence - only 3 in the entire history of the US and one that was being considered when Nixon had the good grace and humility to resign rather than distract Congress from its duties for a trial when he knew he was guilty & his trusted advisers told him they could no longer stand behind him in good conscience. I believe the current defendant fears criminal trials awaiting him in several states as well as any federal indictments under seal or he might have resigned instead of having that permanent asterisk by his name.

I couldn't care less about any 2016 candidates from either party. Knock yourselves out elsewhere if you want to beat that old news to death. If people wander off impeachment, then I'll move on.

cyclone88, I would say that this thread is about to fall victim to the same diversions the other thread did...

I hope not. I plan to stick to impeachment in part because it is such a rare occurrence - only 3 in the entire history of the US and one that was being considered when Nixon had the good grace and humility to resign rather than distract Congress from its duties for a trial when he knew he was guilty & his trusted advisers told him they could no longer stand behind him in good conscience. I believe the current defendant fears criminal trials awaiting him in several states as well as any federal indictments under seal or he might have resigned instead of having that permanent asterisk by his name.

I couldn't care less about any 2016 candidates from either party. Knock yourselves out elsewhere if you want to beat that old news to death. If people wander off impeachment, then I'll move on.

There's no doubt he's going to be indicted when he leaves and he knows it and so does Nancy Pelosi...

I hope you can avoid running down the rabbit hole with the sites chicken little/boy who cries wolf...

And I enjoy your educated perspective on the subject...

Is it possible that so many like the President solely because of the alternatives (or lack thereof) ? What other choices do voters have?

Liking someone isn't the same as having no alternatives. Accepting, putting up with, bearing up, waiting him out, or hoping there are grown-ups in the room while he's still around isn't "liking."

There is no "choice" during his term except impeachment which is underway or invoking the 25th amendment which was my choice early on. Voters can only pressure their senators to vote for rules for a fair trial & to vote according to what evidence is presented at trial.

No, these helpless victims have no choice but to cover their trucks in red flags and foam at the mouth at rallies, rather than support one of the many candidates who understand the process of law.

There's no doubt he's going to be indicted when he leaves and he knows it and so does Nancy Pelosi...

I hope you can avoid running down the rabbit hole with the sites chicken little/boy who cries wolf...

And I enjoy your educated perspective on the subject...

Like Ford, Pence can pardon federal offenses but not those pesky state offenses that await him.

Appreciate your comments; we all have a vested interest in the process. I'm interested in watching how things unfold and the machinations behind them (like Pelosi's calculations that include indictments awaiting him.) As of this second, we're to believe Iran has finished its retaliation for the distracting assassination. (I don't think the Ukrainian Boeing 737 crash in Iran was Trump's doing but no doubt conspiracy theorists are at work.) My perspective on impeachment is that he should've been impeached & there should be a trial w/witnesses (somewhere between the 3 of Clinton and 41 of Johnson) before a decision is made. Although neither Johnson's nor Clinton's impeachment resulted in removal of office, the gravity of the process was respected and the decision was considered legitimate by history. I'd like to see 3-4 GOP Senators vote on the evidence & abide by their oath to be impartial rather than deciding weeks ahead.

This is Rowland's province. I just wanted a place to talk about impeachment w/o all the other noise.

cyclone, I apologize for derailing the thread, but I do think it all ties together. This entire impeachment is about going on record for the history books, so it's as plain as day who stood up for good, and who succumbed to evil and temptation. Isn't it obvious that the Senate will acquit him in the fastest manner possible, based on Mitch's promise to align with the White House counsel? When I hear about the impeachment, I think of what the Democrats' long term plan is, because we know he's getting acquitted in the short term. I'm glad it's going on record. Backing down would've been a bad idea. But I think it's mostly symbolic.

Hey, it's not my thread. I was gone for 2 weeks and it seemed to have existed w/o me.

It's not symbolic to follow the constitution. It's government by the people. Neither previous trial ended in removal from office, but the articles outlined in the constitution were followed - something McConnell wants to avoid. He's getting pushback from potential witnesses like Bolton, senators who were dissed by not being informed of the planned assassination unless they were dancing at Mar-a-Lago, and senators who don't want to have their votes counted prior to the start of the trial.

For the 1st time in over 40 years, the senate is NOT made up of a majority of lawyers. There are still a lot, but they're not the majority whereas at one point, 75% were lawyers. That could mean some current senators are not as careful about constitutional considerations as their lawyer colleagues. McConnell, a lawyer himself, was targeted by 300 law professors, judges, & lawyers in private practice yesterday urging him to follow the constitution not a Man on Trial.

There's no doubt he's going to be indicted when he leaves and he knows it and so does Nancy Pelosi...

I hope you can avoid running down the rabbit hole with the sites chicken little/boy who cries wolf...

And I enjoy your educated perspective on the subject...

Like Ford, Pence can pardon federal offenses but not those pesky state offenses that await him.

Appreciate your comments; we all have a vested interest in the process. I'm interested in watching how things unfold and the machinations behind them (like Pelosi's calculations that include indictments awaiting him.) As of this second, we're to believe Iran has finished its retaliation for the distracting assassination. (I don't think the Ukrainian Boeing 737 crash in Iran was Trump's doing but no doubt conspiracy theorists are at work.) My perspective on impeachment is that he should've been impeached & there should be a trial w/witnesses (somewhere between the 3 of Clinton and 41 of Johnson) before a decision is made. Although neither Johnson's nor Clinton's impeachment resulted in removal of office, the gravity of the process was respected and the decision was considered legitimate by history. I'd like to see 3-4 GOP Senators vote on the evidence & abide by their oath to be impartial rather than deciding weeks ahead.

This is Rowland's province. I just wanted a place to talk about impeachment w/o all the other noise.

People are standing around wonder what's different...they're not going to remove him...nope but when he's out of office he can't be pardoned for his crimes and that is going to be the difference for him and Nancy Pelosi knows that. So it is just a matter of time. That is what is different about him being impeached if he's removed or not. Lovely isn't it. That sick bastard is going to go to jail where he belongs with all his friends. Nancy knew all along once she slammed the gavel he's fate was sealed.

*Donald J Trump Impeached 12/19/2019 now can't be pardoned for his crimes

they're not going to remove him...nope but when he's out of office he can't be pardoned for his crimes and that is going to be the difference for him

You raise an interesting question. Trump can't be pardoned for the crimes for which he was impeached but as far as I know (& the few law journal articles I've read & scholars I've talked to casually) whether he can be pardoned for federal crimes for which he wasn't impeached is questionable. Some of the crimes - like obstruction - that Mueller passed on to federal prosecutors have the same elements as his impeachment crimes, but the HR concentrated on charging him only re Ukraine because they wanted a focused event for which they had evidence.

Nixon is looking more brilliant by the day. [These are words I'd never though I'd write back in high school.] Ford gave him a blanket pardon for ANY federal crime that might've been led to impeachment so Nixon got a complete pass because he was never impeached.

The question is if Trump is impeached & can't be pardoned for X & Y, can he be pardoned for Z? I don't know. You may be 100% correct that he can't be pardoned for ANY federal crime. I'm sure Pelosi's advisers are experts, but I think anyone thinking of DJT in prison is picturing a tough state prison rather than a federal country club.

they're not going to remove him...nope but when he's out of office he can't be pardoned for his crimes and that is going to be the difference for him

You raise an interesting question. Trump can't be pardoned for the crimes for which he was impeached but as far as I know (& the few law journal articles I've read & scholars I've talked to casually) whether he can be pardoned for federal crimes for which he wasn't impeached is questionable. Some of the crimes - like obstruction - that Mueller passed on to federal prosecutors have the same elements as his impeachment crimes, but the HR concentrated on charging him only re Ukraine because they wanted a focused event for which they had evidence.

Nixon is looking more brilliant by the day. [These are words I'd never though I'd write back in high school.] Ford gave him a blanket pardon for ANY federal crime that might've been led to impeachment so Nixon got a complete pass because he was never impeached.

The question is if Trump is impeached & can't be pardoned for X & Y, can he be pardoned for Z? I don't know. You may be 100% correct that he can't be pardoned for ANY federal crime. I'm sure Pelosi's advisers are experts, but I think anyone thinking of DJT in prison is picturing a tough state prison rather than a federal country club.

From my understanding is he can't be pardon for any state crimes. I'm not sure about federal. NY state will indict him and those will stick.

I'm not sure about federal.

Definitely, he can't be pardoned for state crimes and NY, NJ, and FL are 3 of who knows how many who are at least investigating him or have indicted him under seal. I think he'll be spending more time in courtrooms than golf courses after he leaves office.

I'm not sure about federal.

Definitely, he can't be pardoned for state crimes and NY, NJ, and FL are 3 of who knows how many who are at least investigating him or have indicted him under seal. I think he'll be spending more time in courtrooms than golf courses after he leaves office.

Not to sideline the thread, but along the lines of time spent on golf courses, specifically his golf courses, I heard yesterday that the Trump administration is dragging their feet about the required secret service reporting of annual expenditures. Apparently they don't like the optics of the rumored number being larger in three years (3) than what was spent on Obama security in eight (8)....

Not to sideline the thread, but along the lines of time spent on golf courses, specifically his golf courses, I heard yesterday that the Trump administration is dragging their feet about the required secret service reporting of annual expenditures. Apparently they don't like the optics of the rumored number being larger in three years (3) than what was spent on Obama security in eight (8)....

LOL. We know DJT is obsessed w/optics. When seeing photos/vid of the crowds of Soleimani mourners I wondered whether DJT was comparing the size to to the imaginary hordes at his Inauguration.

Not to sideline the thread, but along the lines of time spent on golf courses, specifically his golf courses, I heard yesterday that the Trump administration is dragging their feet about the required secret service reporting of annual expenditures. Apparently they don't like the optics of the rumored number being larger in three years (3) than what was spent on Obama security in eight (8)....

LOL. We know DJT is obsessed w/optics. When seeing photos/vid of the crowds of Soleimani mourners I wondered whether DJT was comparing the size to to the imaginary hordes at his Inauguration.

Ha, ha...He probably was doing exactly that as he watched it on Fox News. Deep down in that twisted brain of his he was probably burning with envy as his gatherings/rallies don't come close to what we saw at Soleimani's funeral.

I'm not sure about federal.

Definitely, he can't be pardoned for state crimes and NY, NJ, and FL are 3 of who knows how many who are at least investigating him or have indicted him under seal. I think he'll be spending more time in courtrooms than golf courses after he leaves office.

Not to sideline the thread, but along the lines of time spent on golf courses, specifically his golf courses, I heard yesterday that the Trump administration is dragging their feet about the required secret service reporting of annual expenditures. Apparently they don't like the optics of the rumored number being larger in three years (3) than what was spent on Obama security in eight (8)....

Yes, I saw that too. If I was a Dem candidate, I'd run ads running up to the election reinforcing / exposing this. Further during the prez debates, whoever the Dem candidate is should repeatedly bring this up on stage vs Trump hammering him over & over for details exposing his unwillingness for transparency. This and also bring to national attention buckets full of emoluments violations by Trump = using his office to make money off the American taxpayers. Tell it to the public in ads and in debates & watch him turn orange.

Sorry for going off topic.

exposing Trump's unwillingness for transparency.

No one expects transparency from Trump. If he hadn't "ordered" the 4 key witnesses to defy HR subpoenas to testify in their impeachment hearings, there wouldn't be a delay now in determining trial rules for witnesses. They would've testified & that evidence would've been on the record for the Articles of Impeachment. They would've been transmitted & the managers selected by now.

exposing Trump's unwillingness for transparency.

No one expects transparency from Trump. If he hadn't "ordered" the 4 key witnesses to defy HR subpoenas to testify in their impeachment hearings, there wouldn't be a delay now in determining trial rules for witnesses. They would've testified & that evidence would've been on the record for the Articles of Impeachment. They would've been transmitted & the managers selected by now.

True but I think a working strategy running up to the election would be to put Trump on the defensive especially on the debate stage. He likes to own the stage. So take it away from him and call him out on things that will anger him and let him dance around transparency. He doesn't get a pass just because he's Trump and no one expects that of him. Show him for who he is. If any votes are flipped then good enough.

True but I think a working strategy running up to the election would be to put Trump on the defensive especially on the debate stage. He likes to own the stage. So take it away from him and call him out on things that will anger him and let him dance around transparency. He doesn't get a pass just because he's Trump and no one expects that of him. Show him for who he is. If any votes are flipped then good enough.

Having Bolton under oath likening the hold on Congressionally allocated money until Ukraine announced an investigation into a Trump political rival to a drug deal might've gotten some attention during the trial & maybe swung some senatorial votes so that the outcome wouldn't be unanimous on the GOP side. Voters [and the historical record] would've had sworn testimony to that effect in the Senate chamber. To me, it carries more weight than whatever is said by politicians on the debate stage.

Caveat: I haven't watched a political debate since my family crowded around to watch JFK/Nixon in black/white so I'm not the person to comment on debate strategy. No question Trump wants to own every stage, room, and photo op he wanders into.