Must a tie be broken? No. Under the Senate's rules, nothing happens if there is no vote in favor of it. The Republicans win if the Democrats fail to amass 51 votes.
For weeks, Republicans and Democrats alike have been confident that Roberts would not break a tie vote during Trump’s impeachment trial, citing past precedent, the Constitution and their own gut feelings about how it would play in a polarized nation....That is, if Roberts wants the Democratic side to win, he could activate himself and vote. But if he wants to remain neutral OR if he wants the GOP side to win, he can can maintain the posture of restraint.
Some Democrats are beginning to opine that Roberts could save the Senate from itself and force consideration of witnesses if there's a tie. As Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) put it: “If he wants a fair, impartial trial and get the evidence out, I think there’s a fair shot he would vote for witnesses.”...
Yet the smart money is still on Roberts staying out of it, or GOP leaders muscling through a 51-49 vote that avoids placing responsibility for the course of the trial on Roberts....What's the motivation to help Roberts? Consider this question from the perspective of the 3 GOP Senators who are still considering voting with the Democrats.
I don't think a tie will happen. The Democrats need all 3 — Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski — just to get to the tie. Cory Gardner, the Colorado Republican, who's up for reelection this year, has already joined forces with his fellow Republicans. There's also Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican who is leaving the Senate when his term expires after the 2020 elections. There's some talk of Rob Portman (who is not up for reelection this year).
I wonder if any of those Senators would vote based on a desire to keep Roberts out of the decision. One Democrat — Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) — said it "would be a pretty daring and brave thing" for Roberts to break the tie in favor of the Democrats. Blumenthal opines that "history would judge him well." That kind of enthusiasm makes it harder for Roberts to vote with them, so I infer that they all know, that's not going to happen.
Meanwhile, there are some Democrats who might vote with the Republicans on acquittal, Politico reports:
Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are undecided on whether to vote to remove the president from office and are “struggling” over where to land, said Manchin....Some of that feels a bit like The Theater of the Open Mind. The rest of it seems like practical awareness of the state they are representing.
“I know it’s hard to believe that. But I really am [undecided]. But I have not made a final decision. Every day, I hear something, I think ‘this is compelling, that’s compelling,’” Manchin said in an interview. “Everyone’s struggling a little bit.”...
Sen. Jon Tester of Montana is one and said he’s “absolutely open to being swayed.” Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, the only other Democrat up in a Trump-held state this year other than Jones, also said he is undecided.
Breaking with party leaders is becoming increasingly rare on big questions like impeachment and critical confirmation fights. In the House, there were three divergent Democratic votes on impeachment: Golden’s split, a “present” vote from presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) and Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson’s rejection of both articles....Yeah, why doesn't Amy Klobuchar make a big move and become the Tulsi Gabbard of the Senate?
पोस्ट्स
१२८ टिप्पण्या:
Althouse asked: Yeah, why doesn't Amy Klobuchar make a big move and become the Tulsi Gabbard of the Senate?
Because Gabbard has no support among her own party because she has bucked the party base's positions in the past. Klobuchar already has low support, and going against the party base's positions will not increase her chances of getting the Democrat nomination.
It's hard to imagine anybody with brains voting to continue this thing, unless it's a woman. For women, the principle isn't important but details always are.
Clyde said...
Klobuchar already has low support, and going against the party base's positions will not increase her chances of getting the Democrat nomination.
Klobuchar already has NO CHANCE, so staying with the party base's positions will not decrease her chances of getting the Democrat nomination.
i think i fixed it for you, you might disagree
Clyde said...
Klobuchar already has low support, and going against the party base's positions will not increase her chances of getting the Democrat nomination.
With low support now, a contrary vote would not hurt her. It's like throwing a Hail Mary at the end of the game.
I am not unmindful that it would remove her from VP consideration on the eventual Democrat ticket, nor of the death threats she would bring upon herself and her family from our Leftist friends.
Some doubters are mentioning that there's an election right around the corner, why not let the people decide. True but that's not the principle. It's a government of idiots.
The WSJ editorializes (in what you can see in the editorial page without paying) that politicians often have self interest that coincides with national interest, just from wanting to be reelected.
This apparently is so mysterious that it required an editorial. Or maybe it's a detail added to enlighten women. Everything apparently would have to be explained as a detail.
Blogger is fucking up early today.
Roberts has the chance to be the David Souter of the 21st century. Maybe History will tell us someday what the Democrats have on him.
We need something else to talk about.
12 days until spring training.
Cubs bailing on this year. Third place last year. Might be fourth or fifth this year.
It is interesting that I hear about how it is close to an election and we should let voters decide, as when Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health is raised there is plenty of time to replace her pre-election.
Pick a lane, Trumpkins
Manchin, who voted with Kavanaugh *during* Susan Collins’s speech, as soon as it was clear she was going to vote yes and his vote was meaningless, so he was free to vote what the people of West Virginia wanted, will vote to impeach if Schumer demands it, but he has to be hearing from constituents and would prefer to mollify them if he can’t remove Trump.
"Pick a lane, Trumpkins”
Have you ever looked into whether you might be at the effect of motivated reasoning?
Motivated reasoning is phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology that uses emotionally-biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that are most logical, while still reducing cognitive dissonance. In other words, motivated reasoning is the "tendency to find arguments in favor of conclusions we want to believe to be stronger than arguments for conclusions we do not want to believe" [1]. It can lead to forming and clinging to false beliefs despite substantial evidence to the contrary. The desired outcome acts as a filter that affects evaluation of scientific evidence and of other people.[2]. - Wikipedia
Or maybe you could explain your comment in clear terms.
The buying Greenland plot line was a pretty good one, maybe we can do something with making up evidence that Trump tried to sell Alaska to Putin for thirty pieces of silver? Too obviously a hoax? When has that stopped the writers of this show before?
"Manchin, he’s always there when you don’t need him.” - Howie Carr
In order for the measure or question to carry it must receive a majority of the votes, in this case 51 senators. If it does not get 51 votes, if fails. There is no tie. Democrats arguing that Roberts must rule or vote to "break the tie" are doing what they always do when the result isn't what they want: change the rules.
Roberts job is to preside. Casting a vote is out of scope. Ruling that a vote that is 50-50 has failed to carry, i.e.; stating the obvious, would be appropriate.
The democrats have said time and tiem again that Roberts can settle any legal issues instantly, on the spot.
Patrick Philbin, or "Ace" as I call him, did a very good job of laying out how the process would work last night, and everything pretty much circles back to a majority vote in the Senate as to how to proceed.
Yesterday: Bolton! Bolton! Bolton!
Today: Roberts! Roberts! Roberts!
At a certain point everyone and every institution will be involved in their “coverup”.
Until then they keep printing out articles, taping them to the wall, and connecting them with push pins and yarn.
"Manchin, he’s always there when you don’t need him.” - Howie Carr
Manchin: There isn't a fence he can't sit on.
The democrats have said time and tiem again that Roberts can settle any legal issues instantly, on the spot.
Did they click their heels three times when they said it?
Because that’s how they make their wish come true.
"There is no tie, there is only do or not do” - Yoda
The democrats have said time and tiem again that Roberts can settle any legal issues instantly, on the spot.
I doubt Roberts is interested in undermining the entire Judicial System for the convenience of Pelosi, Schumer, and Maxine Waters.
There is a way for Dems to get judicial review, and it’s not by calling Roberts into the Senate and demanding he circumvent the entire third branch of government.
Why wouldn't Pence be the tie-breaker, if needed?
https://twitter.com/PunchingBackPod/status/1222680371755536390
Why the Democrats don’t really want witnesses.
Hans Mahncke@HansMahncke
Replying to @ClimateAudit
The person treated most unfairly is probably Shokin. I don't know if he was all clean but the more I look into this, the more it becomes clear that he wasn't some universally recognized pariah. Yet Biden's self-serving lies, universally parroted by media, have made him that.
Does anyone give a shit at this point in time?
The "tie" issue was already addressed when the Senate adopted it's rules of Impeachment.
There is no tie. A motion passes or fails on a majority vote. 51 votes.
Roberts isn't there as a judge. He's there because Pence has a structural conflict of interest.
The dems and doing stuff in both the national interest and self-interest say it's impeachable because only Republicans do it. Dems always act against national interest and for self-interest.
Roberts already inserted himself into the trial by blocking any question that contained the name Eric Ciaramella.
Explain that, when "nobody knows who the whistle blower is".
I will personally be disappointed if there are no witnesses.
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1220209124635443200
The longer this trial goes, the higher Trump’s numbers go, for one thing. And there is a lot of evidence of Democrat corruption. I think that a 50-50 tie and no witnesses is as close to a win for Democrats as they are going to get out of this.
On the other hand, it’s a huge waste of time.
A) The Whistleblower statute does not apply to POTUS.
B) Anonymity is not guaranteed when the issue reaches a legal stage.
Roberts is the hack we always said he was.
Roberts has shut down a line of questioning that is extremely relvant to Trump’s defense. Eric Ciaramella was intimately involved in soliciting election interference from Ukraine.
Washington (CNN)Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky expressed frustration with Republican leadership during the Senate impeachment trial Wednesday night after it was made clear Chief Justice John Roberts would not read his question that named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, sources with knowledge of the situation said.
The development brought Roberts into an unusual position in the trial, where he has served in large part to guide the proceedings, not to decide or make any rulings on how they proceed.
But prior to the 16-hour question-and-answer period for the trial, Roberts made clear that he would not read the name of the alleged whistleblower, nor would he consider questions that would move to clearly identify the individual, the sources said. Roberts, in his role, reads each question submitted by senators.
He was able to review questions from senators who submitted them prior to the start of Wednesday's proceedings, according to two sources. Paul's question, which sources said was revised several times but explicitly would have named the alleged whistleblower, ran afoul of the line Roberts drew on the matter.
Roberts and Romney evidently both suffered Breast Feeding Trauma when young.
Their fellow fourth-graders teased them mercilessly when their mothers came in to feed them.
I am Laslo.
It’s a shame that Roberts doesn’t have to write an opinion on why he has made this arbitrary move to help the Democrats.
I think Republicans should take him to court but apparently had can just do stuff without any need to explain. More critical theory, I guess.
on Jan 19, 2016 meeting with Ukrainians hosted by Ciaramella, at which Ukrainians were told of linkage of IMF $1 billion to demand that Shokin be fired. Ukrainians at meeting also released Black Ledger against Manafort to aid Hillary. - Steve McIntyre
Seems like of relevant that the accuser is very likely covering for his own crimes.
Where in Article 1, Section 3 does the Chief Justice get a tie breaking vote when presiding over Impeachment? Is it a living Constitution thing?
"Is it a living Constitution thing?"
It is in the Penumbra of the Invisible Amendment.
The Founding Fathers thought of everything.
I am Laslo.
I think that Senators need to demand an explanation founded in either the Constitution or law for Roberts to deny this very relevant line of defense. People have speculated that the Democrats have something on Roberts, in the past.
I would bet big money that Roberts will not cast a tie-breaking vote on anything.
Unlike the VP, who is the President of the Senate and explicitly gets tie-breaking vote authority in the Constitution, the CJ shall “preside” (small p) over impeachment trials, with no reference to casting tie-breaking votes.
If something can’t carry with 51 votes, it’s not happening.
(Or if anyone gets tie-breaker power, it would be Pence.)
This one's pretty easy to answer. The Constitution states, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." "The Senate" consists of the 100 Senators. If the vote of 51 Senators votes isn't t obtained, say because the vote tally is 50-50, then the proposal fails to carry. Roberts simply presides; he isn't a Senator.
In the case of a tie on a bill, the VP is permitted to cast a vote to break the tie solely because the Constitution expressly permits that.
Adam Schiff, D-Calif. misquoted President Trump’s phone call transcript with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — AGAIN. According to Schiff, the president told Zelensky to “do ME a favor.” There’s only one little problem. Schiff lies again.
That’s NOT what Trump said.
Is this more of the brilliance of which the trolls here yesterday were in unanimous acclaim?
"Blogger is fucking up early today."
Have you tried clearing your cookies? History? Also — ignore the captcha robot test.
Have you tried clearing your cookies? History? Also — ignore the captcha robot test.
I ignore captcha. Chrome does not lose the comment but Firefox does. It's odd. This is the only blog where it happens although Ricochet has gotten odd this week.
What the hell is Roberts doing censoring Senator questions? Cocaine Mitch needs to slap Roberts around a little, then Mitch for good measure.
"Some Democrats are beginning to opine that Roberts could save the Senate from itself"
At least some Democrats seem to have retained their senses of humor.
The stories today will be like the end of a broadcast sports events. Everybody will know the outcome, but the play-by-play and color analyst need to keep people watching. So you hear all the imaginative ways the losing team might pull off an upset or at least a tie. It's all part of keeping the audience in their seats to watch the theater.
As for Roberts, I heard last night he was censoring Senators questions the had the name of Eric Ciaramella. If true, then I have a few questions:
Who is Eric Ciaramella that nobody can ask questions about him? If he is the whistleblower and gets protection, then why isn't that stated? Why can't the Senators even ask that question? Type in "whistleblower eric" in a search engine and it autocompletes Eric Ciaramella and notes him as the whistleblower. Wouldn't it be reasonable to at least ask about this person when leading up to a discussion of witnesses to call? Wouldn't the whistleblower be an appropriate witness for the Senate to call? Finally, again if true, this suggests Roberts would over reach, inject himself in trial, and vote as Senator to break the tie.
I mean “and then Mitt for good measure!”
I regret the error.
As I said before, Eric Ciaramello is a central figure in Ukraine dealings going back to the Obama administration, and continues to this day.
He's an important witness aside from anything to do with being the whistle blower.
Here's what I can't understand, not being versed in law: If a defendant has the right to face his accuser[s] via the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, why should the 'whistleblower' not be forced to testify under oath and cross-examined?
I've had a helluva time all morning trying to post a comment. I use Firefox, and rarely have trouble.
I've had a helluva time all morning trying to post a comment. I use Firefox, and rarely have trouble.
Et moi, Browndog.
Et moi. And I've never used the robot thing on this site. I've always been able to post without using it.
Not just any tie, an epic one.
An epic tie on a vote for procedure.
The Senate creates and modifies the rules of the proceeding. If there’s a question about a tie the Senate can clarify the rule. Democrats are always about emotion. They use that to play hardball.
"Every day, I hear something, I think ‘this is compelling, that’s compelling,’”
Hey, Joe, what's "compelling"? At most, we're still talking thought crime, right? Even if you accept Dem BS: anything compelling about that?
"Some Democrats are beginning to opine that Roberts could save them from themselves.”
Fixed it.
ios safari is occasionally giving only one or two retries...
"Chrome does not lose the comment but Firefox does. It's odd."
Sorry folks are having trouble. Safari has been a little wonky for me this morning. I seem to be having better luck when I use a slow click rather than my usual quick click on "Publish Your Comment."
I've heard a lot of this "fair trial" verbiage from Democrats. To me, the expression always meant, fair to the defendant. What the Democrats mean is, fair to the prosecution. I don't think that is going to sell outside of tight partisan circles.
It does not compliment Roberts that Dems openly disrespectful to the Constitution are counting on him to make them right.
The narrative that "vote for witnesses is a Trump/GOP defeat" is silly. If we have witnesses called it isn't going to be just witnesses that the Dems want. No way does the Murder Turtle allow that.
The mediasphere is a such a rancid, farcical embarrassment to the nation.
If Roberts has really prohibited the name Ciaramella from being used in a question he is way, way, way out of line. I had such hopes for the man. Now he's in the running for biggest disappointment in judicial history along with David Souter.
Blogger is functioning properly for me now.
This whole thing developed because Ciaramella freaked when he saw that Trump wanted to look into the stuff he did with Ukraine re the 2016 elections. This idea among Republicans that if they bring up his name, Dems will throw a hissy fit is bullshit. It’s right out of the book “The Appeasement of the Shrew: A Beta’s Rules for Getting Along With a Controlling Wife"
If we have witnesses called it isn't going to be just witnesses that the Dems want.
Oh no, that's what I heard on CNN.
Dems want Roberts to rule on whether a witness is relevant to the proceedings, and he will magically block all the ones the Dems don't want on such grounds.
Truly. People said this.
"Blogger is functioning properly for me now."
Good to hear. She had to turn on moderation temporarily this morning but that's off now. Hope that helps.
We discuss the bombshell medical reports that prove there was an attempt to murder Viktor Shokin in the Biden-Poroshenko double bribery case.
https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1222895727577161728
"Dems want Roberts to rule on whether a witness is relevant to the proceedings, and he will magically block all the ones the Dems don't want on such grounds.”
It’s almost as if they are hiding something.
Pence should get to vote first, to break all ties.
Or are we just making it up as we go along now?
What most people seem to miss is that even with every Dem-desired witness possible, Trump still did nothing wrong in seeking evidence of corruption in US dealings with Ukraine. In what bizarro alternate universe is the one seeking to expose corruption supposed to be punished for doing so? And had Trump found none, he'd have been destroyed by the Bidens.
Mark said...
It is interesting that I hear about how it is close to an election and we should let voters decide, as when Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health is raised there is plenty of time to replace her pre-election.
Pick a lane, Trumpkins
Are you really that stupid, Mark?
The voters pick the President, and the Senate. In 2016 they had picked a Dem President, and a GOP Senate. So, when a Supreme Court seat came vacant, the GOP Senate followed the will of the voters, and didn't let the Democrat fill the seat (see, "Biden rule", "Schumer rule", Bork).
In 2020, the voters have picked a GOP President and a GOP Senate. So, if RGB kicks the bucket, they will team up, and replace her. Just like the voters chose.
In Nov 2020, the voters will have a chance to pick a new President, and new control of the Senate. When the entirety of your problem with the President is "I don't like the choices he makes", that's a political question. And the proper answer to that political question is to let the voters decide.
There is no saving the Senate from itself, only from Democrats. If a significant number of Democrats don’t vote against this sham impeachment, the Senate’s reputation may take years to recover as they are immersed into Democrat sedition while muttering about Republican partisanship upon acquittal.
Looking at the Democrats there appears to be no point at which “enough is enough.” I see only two Democrat Senators who may have the courage and/or character to vote for acquittal, Manchin and Sinema. I voted against Sinema and I have been surprised to see that she does not hold to a partisan line.
Roberts is head of the FISA Court. He should recuse himself.
And the senators running for office have a conflict of interest. They should also recuse themselves.
Can’t the GOP vote to change the rule to force the reading of the questions? This is BS?
We need to get the bottom of aid money flowing to corrupt countries to corrupt businesses and then back to the children of the US approves of said aid. We need to get to the bottom of this now.
Under what provision does Roberts become a tie breaker? He isn't the Vice President.
"As I said before, Eric Ciaramello is a central figure in Ukraine dealings going back to the Obama administration, and continues to this day."
Can anyone tell me why the senate intelligence committee is not looking into this or not making any fucking effort to look into Ciaramello's role in the Ukraine? Is impeachment the only possible mechanism for looking into manipulation of the Ukrainian government by the previous administration? Is Trump all alone in this world?
The DOJ should launch an investigation into Ciaramella in a jurisdiction with responsible federal judges. The subject matter should include disclosure of classified material and consorting with a foreign power to affect an election. He is not a whistleblower and Atkinson can be turned inside out.
"The WSJ editorializes (in what you can see in the editorial page without paying) that politicians often have self interest that coincides with national interest, just from wanting to be reelected. "
I read that as a riff on Dershowitz's answer yesterday.
Trying to decide what message to send Senator Alexander. Don't want to sound like a bot, but do want to be counted. Do you figure pols discount short declarative statements? Would you assume easily cut and pasted messages reflect voter consensus?
Via Lucianne:
Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page filed a lawsuit Thursday in federal court against the Democratic National Committee, law firm Perkins Coie and its partners tied to the funding of the unverified dossier that served as the basis for highly controversial surveillance warrants against him. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois’ Eastern Division Thursday morning, and was described by his attorneys as the “first of multiple actions in the wake of historic” Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuse. “This is a first step to ensure that the full extent of the FISA abuse that has occurred
IDK if there will be enough popcorn. He’s suing, Flynn should be exhoniratef, and the Ukraine guy is alsonsuing.
Who’s next?
Rush today leads with Roberts being a long-time never-Trumper. That's why he's giving biased rulings.
Look, kids, let's be real here:
The vast majority of Senators and House members have family members who are just as much on the take as Hunter Biden was.
And you can be absolutely sure that chunks of that "take" make their way back to the Senator / representative
Why isn't the Senate Intelligence Committee looking in to this?
Because they know what they will find, and don't want to find it
Gk1: "Can anyone tell me why the senate intelligence committee is not looking into this or not making any fucking effort to look into Ciaramello's role in the Ukraine?"
The Senate Intelligence Committee is completely controlled by Mark Warner and the democrats thru their already bought and paid for republican stooge Richard Burr.
I would bet that within weeks of Burr leaving the Senate he will be hired as counsel to one of many democrat/lefty billionaire's businesses for big big bucks.
'The narrative that "vote for witnesses is a Trump/GOP defeat" is silly. If we have witnesses called it isn't going to be just witnesses that the Dems want. No way does the Murder Turtle allow that.'
The same people declare victory at half-time of the Superbowl, or the top of the 6th inning of a baseball game.
"Why isn't the Senate Intelligence Committee looking in to this?
Because they know what they will find, and don't want to find it" Appreciate the response and confirmation.
Obviously Trump knows this as well and hasn't complained loudly on twitter about it. This must be his scorched earth policy to fall back on. But at what point will Trump decide to say "fuck it" and start declassifying what is going on? It's not like the republican party has his back. Is Giulanni his only allie in this? The republicans in the swamp are just waiting for him to get weak enough before plunging a dagger into his back. How many more failed coup attempts can he weather without succumbing?
Roberts, even if he is a NeverTrumper, won't break any ties- the Democrats are delusional. The rules of the Senate are quite clear- there is no provision for Roberts to break any ties- it isn't in the Senate rules, nor is it in the Constitution. For trials of judges and other lesser officials, it is presumed that the VP is still the presiding officer, and can break ties since the VP's voting rights are explicitly written in the Constitution.
The could, by majority vote, give the Chief Justice a vote on the procedural matter I suppose, but they haven't done that yet- but that is a Catch 22, isn't it?
I have written it before- if the procedural vote to call witnesses is won, McConnell is going to make the Democrats vote on a list of witnesses for both sides, not each witness individually. The Democrats can try to foil this list by filibustering the procedural vote to bring it to the floor for debate and a vote, but that would be the same as admitting that they don't really want witnesses. Of course, you see the delusion again arise in this regard that Roberts will declare witnesses relevant or irrelevant- again, Roberts isn't going to do this- the Senate majority would slap him down if he tried.
This whole mess should have been handled thusly: As soon as Nervous Nancy solemnly handed over the Articles of Impeachment, the Senate should have voted to dismiss them for failing to allege impeachable offenses.
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
The Chief Justice again refused to read Paul's question. This is relatively uncharted because the reading of the name does not directly violate federal law. It is a matter of decorum and restraint claimed by Roberts
inherent authority.
Senator Rand Paul
Verified account @RandPaul
6m6 minutes ago
My exact question was:
Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together 1/2
and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. 2/2
What makes the Eric Ciaramella thing so ridiculous is this- by refusing to read the question, Roberts confirms the identity of the whistleblower. You can't not read the question unless you know the whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella.
Thank you for pointing out the bloody obvious that nobody would say--if there is no special provision for breaking a tie, the motion fails for lack of a majority. And the world goes on.
These are people bereft of elementary reasoning skills.
I don't see why Pelosi doesn't also call for letting Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor cast deciding votes in the Senate trial. No half measures, say I.
What authority does Roberts claim he has?
The same authority that allowed him to rewrite ObamaCare?
This man is not a judge. He acts like a god priest.
Roberts should be removed from the bench.
Remember, John Roberts runs the FISA Court.
Doesn't this whole spectacle remind anyone of the whole 2000 election mess where the democrats went dumpster diving for hanging chads, special pleading, judge shopping, until the Supreme Court finally shut it all down?
I don't remember the democrats ever paying any sort of political price of tossing aside tradition and political norms. Same with this impeachment. They will not pay any identifiable price for pulling this tantrum.
What makes the Eric Ciaramella thing so ridiculous is this- by refusing to read the question, Roberts confirms the identity of the whistleblower. You can't not read the question unless you know the whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella.
Indeed, here is Sen. Paul's question:
"Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together now and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. "
I think the GOP is ready to overrule Roberts and they can do it with a simple majority.
Chief Justice Roberts often acts like he has a Klingon pain stick shoved two feet up the stinky sphincter. My question would be just who has their finger on the trigger.
Doesn't this whole spectacle remind anyone of the whole 2000 election mess where the democrats went dumpster diving for hanging chads, special pleading, judge shopping, until the Supreme Court finally shut it all down?
I don't remember the democrats ever paying any sort of political price of tossing aside tradition and political norms. Same with this impeachment. They will not pay any identifiable price for pulling this tantrum.
Slime bag David Boise lying the FLSC about chads using the Illinois case which ruled against hanging chads.
warner who made his fortune through Yandex ru, (that's a Russian website) who had contact with steele, through deripasha consiglieri, waldman,
CNN calling FLA early while the polls were still open in the Panhandle where Bush would have gotten more votes?
yes that was the first iteration, of a spoiling action, it began with Robert Wexler's amplified 'Buchanan vote' via public relations campaign,
Democratics' fall back position is not inside the keep.
The city walls were long since breached.
Sean Davis Tweet via Insty:
John Roberts did nothing while the FISA court which he personally oversees illegally spied on an American citizen. He did nothing when DOJ determined the court was defrauded.
But when a senator asked a question? Roberts shut that down. Twice. What a disgraceful coward.
What little attention I've paid to this, I can't help but wonder why the Democrats expect the Senate to clean up the House's mess.
Seeing Red said...
CNN calling FLA early while the polls were still open in the Panhandle where Bush would have gotten more votes?
Not just CNN, and not correcting it immediately BEFORE the polls closed, which they had a chance to do.
If there's conduct that's impeachable, it's John Roberts oversight of the FISA court. He nominated 11 of the most gullible legal minds in the country which in my mind is criminally negligent.
Here's to hoping R's win the House in November and impeach that MF'r.
So much for Roberts being an honest agent.
I think the Senate should overrule Roberts on his refusal to read questions.
Shiff now says he has the right to call witnesses in the Senate. Implies he's never had any.
We've gone a long way from the statute that says an IG may choose not to reveal the identity of a whistle blower to "he shall no longer exist, and his name may never cross the lips of anyone in the public square for all eternity."
"I think the Senate should overrule Roberts on his refusal to read questions. "
Sounds coercive.
Why don't the President's lawyers simply read Sen. Paul's questions as part of one of their answers?
Shiff now says he has the right to call witnesses in the Senate. Implies he's never had any.
A member of the House has the right to call witnesses in the Senate?
Why didn’t he just call them in the House?
Good idea, Meade. Boy, would there be a major explosion.
The pattern is pretty obvious. We had the verb "Bork" introduced to us in the 90s. Shouldn't we now have "Kavanaugh" as a new verb? It's happening again right now.
So what will be the last minute "bombshell" that will come out tonight?
This is interesting:
Sean Davis
Verified account @seanmdav
18 hours ago
Earlier today, Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read a question from Sen. Rand Paul that named the anti-Trump whistleblower. Sources say Roberts, at Democrats' urging, had previously vowed to ban any questions about the whistleblower whatsoever, named or not. Developing...
Sources say Roberts was told an attempt to censor any questions about the whistleblower in general would be rebuked by recorded Senate vote, at which point Roberts retreated and communicated that he would instead censor any mention of the whistleblower's name.
Roberts' arbitrary and unilateral censorship of senators and Senate business raises serious questions about whether he would similarly ban any and all motions to subpoena by name the whistleblower, whom @RCI has identified as Eric Ciaramella, to compel his testimony.
So, after Roberts was told not to do it, said he wouldn't do it, did it again today anyway.
I can censor questions because it's not censorship, It's a tax.
-Roberts
"it's not censorship, It's a tax."
Good one.
Why don't the President's lawyers simply read Sen. Paul's questions as part of one of their answers?
Because it condones a precedent that the Chief Justice can rewrite the rules for the Senate.
"Why didn’t he just call them in the House?”
The whole exercise, probably cooked up by Tribe, is to hijack the Senate’s power to compel testimony despite not having the votes in that body without going through the courts.
It's a good thing that the chief justice DOES NOT GET A VOTE.
The chief justice has a conflict of interest.
He "oversees" the FISA court.
The FISA court has admitted it allowed Trump's campaign to be spied upon and that the applications used to get those warrants were fraudulent.
They were obviously fraudulent. Anyone who wasn't part of the conspiracy to remove Trump would have rejected them.
And that is where we are.
Roberts has culpability here and he should damn well "recuse" himself.
He should have committed ritual seppuku long ago.
I think the GOP is ready to overrule Roberts and they can do it with a simple majority
_____________
Can they at the same time remove him from presiding for prejudicial? conduct?
Blogger Mark said...
It's a good thing that the chief justice DOES NOT GET A VOTE.
_________________
do you need a vote if you can put simply tilt the balance?
I find it interesting Kristen Sinema asked a question on behalf of herself, Manchin, Collins, and Murkowski.
The question sucked (Logan Act/implied Guliani without naming), but interesting nonetheless.
Here goes Schiff reading his fairy tale of his version of the phone call into the record again,
"if Roberts wants the Democratic side to win, he could activate himself and vote."
I'm imagining a robot booting up.
"Roberts activated!"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा