Emerging from the shadows: the U.S. chief justice who will preside over Trump's trial

[webfact]

Emerging from the shadows: the U.S. chief justice who will preside over Trump's trial

By Lawrence Hurley

 

FILE PHOTO: Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts is seen during a group portrait session for the new full court at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., November 30, 2018. REUTERS/Jim Young

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts will be a central figure in the ongoing drama of the Donald Trump presidency in coming months. He is due to preside over a Senate impeachment trial, while the Supreme Court he leads will rule on a titanic clash over the president's attempts to keep his financial records secret.

 

The expected impeachment trial will focus on accusations that Trump abused his power by asking Ukraine to investigate former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden, who aspires to defeat Trump in a November election. The Democratic-led House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment on Dec. 18, paving the way for the trial in the Senate, led by Trump's fellow Republicans.

 

The normally reserved and mild-mannered Roberts, 64, will have the largely symbolic role of presiding officer, with senators casting the crucial votes.

In his end-of-year message on Tuesday, Roberts hinted at a past disagreement with Trump, saying an independent judiciary was a "key source of national unity and stability," and called on his judicial colleagues to promote public confidence and trust by reflecting on their duty to judge without fear or favor.

 

Trump has repeatedly criticized federal courts and judges who have blocked his policies, while some Democratic lawmakers have suggested that the Supreme Court's conservative majority is motivated mainly by politics instead of interpreting the law.

 

In his message Roberts also cautioned against disinformation amplified by the internet and social media - an accusation that Trump has faced when he uses his Twitter account to retweet unfounded rumor.

 

It is in the marble-lined corridors of the Supreme Court across the street from the Capitol Building, hidden from the TV cameras, where Roberts wields real power. Known for his cautious approach to major cases, he holds one of just nine votes that will decide by the end of June whether Trump's financial records can be disclosed to Democratic-led congressional committees and a New York prosecutor.

 

The court's rulings in those cases – on the power of Congress and local prosecutors to investigate a sitting president – will set precedents that may affect not just Trump but also future presidents.

 

The impeachment trial will be an unusual and potentially uncomfortable period for the low-key Roberts, who prefers to fly under the radar even while he has navigated the conservative-majority court in a rightward direction over the last decade and a half.

 

"My sense is that the chief doesn't want to make himself the story," said Sarah Binder, a scholar at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution.

 

Roberts declined to comment. During a rare public appearance in New York in September, Roberts appeared concerned about the hyperpartisan politics of Washington under Trump.

 

"When you live in a polarized political environment, people tend to see everything in those terms. That's not how we at the court function," he said.

 

Those who know Roberts, including former law clerks, say that he would take his role seriously. As a history buff, he is likely reading up on the previous impeachment trials of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, they said.

 

WASHINGTON INSIDER

Roberts, a conservative appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, has a reputation in Washington as a traditional conservative and a strong defender of the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government.

 

In a frictionless rise to prominence, he served in the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan. Bush appointed him to the federal appeals court in Washington in 2003 before tapping him for the chief justice post two years later.

 

Roberts is often viewed as an incrementalist in his judicial philosophy, conscious of the fact that the Supreme Court risks its legitimacy if its 5-4 conservative majority is characterized as being too aggressive in moving the law to the right.

 

He has nonetheless voted consistently with his conservative colleagues on such issues as gay rights, abortion, religious liberty and gun rights. But in 2012, he broke ranks and cast the deciding vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, Democratic President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement.

 

Earlier this year, he again sided with the court's liberals as the court ruled 5-4 against the Trump administration's attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

 

Roberts clashed with Trump more directly in November 2018 when he took the unusual step of issuing a statement defending the federal judiciary after Trump repeatedly criticized judges who had ruled against his administration.

 

The cases concerning Trump's financial records, with rulings due by the end of June, puts Roberts and Trump on another collision course.

 

Legal experts have said Trump, who unlike previous presidents has refused to release his tax returns, is making broad assertions of presidential power that could place new limits on the ability of Congress to enforce subpoenas seeking information about the president.

 

If it is a close call, Roberts could cast the deciding vote.

 

In the Senate trial set to take place in January, Roberts' role as presiding officer is limited mainly to keeping the process on track. Roberts could, however, be asked to rule on whether certain witnesses should be called.

 

If a majority of senators disagree with a ruling he makes, they can vote to overturn his decision.

 

In the Clinton impeachment trial in 1999, Chief Justice William Rehnquist had "relatively little to do," said Neil Richards, who was present as one of Rehnquist's law clerks and is now a professor at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis.

 

"I think Chief Justice Roberts is likely to approach his role... the way he has approached his judicial career to date: Doing his best to be impartial, doing his best to preserve the dignity of his judicial office," Richards added.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley. Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe and Andrew Chung, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien and Howard Goller)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-02

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

Let’s hope there is a real trial with witnesses not some rubber stamp white washed trial with no evidence as the republicans want

[TopDeadSenter]

32 minutes ago, Tug said:

Let’s hope there is a real trial with witnesses

What, like the panel of triggered leftist academics that they wheeled out as witnesses for the house trial? 

 

If team dem have any sense at all, they will drop this hilarious farce like a hot potato and start considering how best to find a half sane candidate to run against The Donald.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

accusations that Trump abused his power by asking Ukraine to investigate former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden

That is not entirely correct.

All the witnesses described that it was important for Trump that the Ukraine PM announces such an investigation in public. The announcement was what Trump wanted, the actual investigation seems to be not so important.

[rabas]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

That is not entirely correct.

All the witnesses described that it was important for Trump that the Ukraine PM announces such an investigation in public. The announcement was what Trump wanted, the actual investigation seems to be not so important.

So, Trump only asked someone to say something, not to do anything? Kind of like a nothing burger without the bun?

 

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, rabas said:

So, Trump only asked someone to say something, not to do anything? Kind of like a nothing burger without the bun?

 

Saying something is doing something.

Trump wanted that announcement so that he can use it in his presidential campaign against Biden in the USA.

Does Trump care about corruption in Ukraine? 555

[TopDeadSenter]

30 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Saying something is doing something.

Trump wanted that announcement so that he can use it in his presidential campaign against Biden in the USA.

The facts that a)no announcement was made by Ukrainian authorities about investigating Biden corruption and b)the aid money was paid and c)President Zelensky said there was no pressure to do anything blows your theory out of the water. 

 Anyone else have any conspiracy theories they want de-bunking?

 

[neeray]

2 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

c)President Zelensky said there was no pressure to do anything blows your theory out of the water. 

340 million dollars could cause me to utter lots of untrue words too !

[rabas]

48 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Saying something is doing something.

Trump wanted that announcement so that he can use it in his presidential campaign against Biden in the USA.

Does Trump care about corruption in Ukraine? 555

I personally don't know, but I imagine he wanted to generate awareness about Biden corruption in Ukraine. That would be his job.

 

Until Hunter Biden's millions for doing nothing are explained, there is no case other than a partisan political witch hunt. This is the one point all Democrats want locked up like Fort Knox. Why? Why the Steele dossier? Why an precedented Democratic led government surveillance of Trump's campaign? Why 3 years of relentless efforts to rip him out of office at any cost to the country?

 

It's not about liking or hating Trump. It's all about what my government has been up to. I want to know why, and I think John Roberts will help. He hates partisan politics.

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by rabas

[alanrchase]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

What, like the panel of triggered leftist academics that they wheeled out as witnesses for the house trial? 

 

If team dem have any sense at all, they will drop this hilarious farce like a hot potato and start considering how best to find a half sane candidate to run against The Donald.

There was no trial in the house, only an investigation. Please stop posting misleading information.

[Tug]

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

What, like the panel of triggered leftist academics that they wheeled out as witnesses for the house trial? 

 

If team dem have any sense at all, they will drop this hilarious farce like a hot potato and start considering how best to find a half sane candidate to run against The Donald.

Ahhhh no more like Bolton Pompey mulvany you know the ones that were in the inner circle those witnesses 

[TopDeadSenter]

10 minutes ago, Tug said:

Ahhhh no more like Bolton Pompey mulvany you know the ones that were in the inner circle those witnesses 

Or the 2 guys at the very heart and core of this fiasco. The 2 guys who's improper actions this whole witch hunt revolves around. And the 2 guys the MSM is frantically running cover for and making silly claims that there was no impropriety in their lucrative overseas adventures. Biden sr and jr?

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Until Hunter Biden's millions for doing nothing are explained

If there is any evidence then let the US and/or Ukraine investigators and courts work on that - just like any other alleged corruption case.

Trump wanted dirt against his opponent, not more and not less. And that has very little to do with the question if anybody in the Biden family is corrupt.

What Trump did is against the constitution of the USA. But somehow many people in the USA seem to care little about that little detail. Maybe you should amend the constitution: If POTUS is from our political party then he can do whatever he wants, we don't care.

[Tug]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Or the 2 guys at the very heart and core of this fiasco. The 2 guys who's improper actions this whole witch hunt revolves around. And the 2 guys the MSM is frantically running cover for and making silly claims that there was no impropriety in their lucrative overseas adventures. Biden sr and jr?

You do know that trump is in trouble for trying to pressure a foreign power to interfere in our election yes?anything to do with the Bidens is a separate issue so looks like trumps attempt to slander a rival kinda backfired imo 

[IAMHERE]

The senate action doesn't mean much in the court of public opinion.  The American public doesn't deserve or need to know about the Biden's in the Ukraine. Guilty or not he's been treated by the mass media as if he was Richard Jewell all over again. 

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

The facts that a)no announcement was made by Ukrainian authorities about investigating Biden corruption and b)the aid money was paid and c)President Zelensky said there was no pressure to do anything blows your theory out of the water. 

 Anyone else have any conspiracy theories they want de-bunking?

 

The money was only paid after Trump found out about the whisleblower complaint. It was also put on hold 91 minutes after his conversation with Zelensky. And you think Zelensky isn't aware of what the consequences would be if he said anything that upset Trump? There's a reason that coerced testimony is suspect.

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, rabas said:

So, Trump only asked someone to say something, not to do anything? Kind of like a nothing burger without the bun?

 

Actually, it's worse. It shows he wasn't motivated by a desire to clean up corruption in the Ukraine but only to attack a political rival.

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, rabas said:

I personally don't know, but I imagine he wanted to generate awareness about Biden corruption in Ukraine. That would be his job.

 

Until Hunter Biden's millions for doing nothing are explained, there is no case other than a partisan political witch hunt. This is the one point all Democrats want locked up like Fort Knox. Why? Why the Steele dossier? Why an precedented Democratic led government surveillance of Trump's campaign? Why 3 years of relentless efforts to rip him out of office at any cost to the country?

 

It's not about liking or hating Trump. It's all about what my government has been up to. I want to know why, and I think John Roberts will help. He hates partisan politics.

 

No. His job is not to generate allegations of corruption. If he sincerely wanted to get to the bottom of this, he would have pushed for a confidential investigation.

Whatever the reasons that Burisma paid Hunter Biden, there is already overwhelming evidence that his father was simply carrying out US policy in cooperation with the EU and the IMF amongst others. There is no evidence that he intervened to protect his son.

[Sujo]

42 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No. His job is not to generate allegations of corruption. If he sincerely wanted to get to the bottom of this, he would have pushed for a confidential investigation.

Whatever the reasons that Burisma paid Hunter Biden, there is already overwhelming evidence that his father was simply carrying out US policy in cooperation with the EU and the IMF amongst others. There is no evidence that he intervened to protect his son.

Those facts have been presented many times. Proving to me there are a few trolls on here.

[Monomial]

7 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What Trump did is against the constitution of the USA. But somehow many people in the USA seem to care little about that little detail.

 

In the interests of having a less partisan discussion, let's try and be a little more accurate in that statement. The more correct statement would be:

 

In a popular interpretation, what Trump did is against the Constitution of the USA. I want to try and convince everyone in the USA that this action really does rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" so that an impeachment would be justified.  Unfortunately, I am not sure that the majority of Americans share my value system and will see this the same way.

 

Do you see the difference between those 2 statements?  You are trying to raise your value system to the level of an objective fact. That simply isn't the case. I really wish people would try and be more honest with what is going on here. It would really help the country, unlike all this partisan rhetoric.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Monomial

[OneMoreFarang]

38 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

In the interests of having a less partisan discussion, let's try and be a little more accurate in that statement. The more correct statement would be:

 

In a popular interpretation, what Trump did is against the Constitution of the USA. I want to try and convince everyone in the USA that this action really does rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" so that an impeachment would be justified.  Unfortunately, I am not sure that the majority of Americans share my value system and will see this the same way.

 

Do you see the difference between those 2 statements?  You are trying to raise your value system to the level of an objective fact. That simply isn't the case. I really wish people would try and be more honest with what is going on here. It would really help the country, unlike all this partisan rhetoric.

Thanks for your detailed reply. In principle you are right.

However, let's not forget that this is not a lawyers' forum. It's an open forum where everybody can share their opinion.

I read many articles from different sources about what Trump did. And I watched a couple of videos.

IMHO it is clear that what he did was against the rules. (But please don't ask me to quote every paragraph). Further it was very obvious that Trump and many GOP politicians didn't want to hear the truth of people who work with Trump in the White House.

All this together adds for me up to something like 99% sure he is guilty.

The 1% is if all the people who work directly with him would testify that this was somehow something Trump didn't know about. And we all have a good idea how likely that is.

 

What I find most problematic is the fact that lots of GOP politicians openly say they will support Trump no matter what. That is like if my brother is accused of murder and I say he is innocent without knowing any details. He is not innocent just because he is my brother. It would be fair to listen to the evidence. And if the evidence is against him then there is little I could do. I could demand he should get a lite sentence because he is such a nice guy. But that does not change the facts if he is guilty.

[Thingamabob]

This farce has handed the 2020 election to Trump on a plate. Meanwhile, might we be told how the Bidens got so rich so quickly in Ukraine ?

[Brigand]

When politics was more civil (just recently really) and there wasn't so much hatred as there is now between the two main parties, Clinton was impeached by a Republican House but acquitted by a Republican Senate (I think like 5 flipped)... some chance of that now if both houses were in control by the Dems. I don't think the Senate will convict Trump because of more than just the contempt both parties now hold for each other... goes deeper than that, as fully impeaching a president (regardless of political hue) is not something the US establishment or people wants, probably due to the further erosion of the relationship between opposing political forces and the extra divisiveness it would cause. Getting 20 or so Senators to flip isn't going to happen for a super majority of 67%.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Brigand

[earlinclaifornia]

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

This farce has handed the 2020 election to Trump on a plate. Meanwhile, might we be told how the Bidens got so rich so quickly in Ukraine ?

This president is the only farce and will soon be removed or lose an election in November

Edited January 2, 2020 by earlinclaifornia
spelling

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Monomial said:

 

In the interests of having a less partisan discussion, let's try and be a little more accurate in that statement. The more correct statement would be:

 

In a popular interpretation, what Trump did is against the Constitution of the USA. I want to try and convince everyone in the USA that this action really does rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" so that an impeachment would be justified.  Unfortunately, I am not sure that the majority of Americans share my value system and will see this the same way.

 

Do you see the difference between those 2 statements?  You are trying to raise your value system to the level of an objective fact. That simply isn't the case. I really wish people would try and be more honest with what is going on here. It would really help the country, unlike all this partisan rhetoric.

Are you’re attempts to correct bias limited to comments made by people who oppose Trump or are you also going to lend a hand and offer ‘bias removal’ advice to Trump’s supporters?

[jimmybcool]

1 hour ago, Brigand said:

When politics was more civil (just recently really) and there wasn't so much hatred as there is now between the two main parties, Clinton was impeached by a Republican House but acquitted by a Republican Senate (I think like 5 flipped)... some chance of that now if both houses were in control by the Dems. I don't think the Senate will convict Trump because of more than just the contempt both parties now hold for each other... goes deeper than that, as fully impeaching a president (regardless of political hue) is not something the US establishment or people wants, probably due to the further erosion of the relationship between opposing political forces and the extra divisiveness it would cause. Getting 20 or so Senators to flip isn't going to happen for a super majority of 67%.

Minor correction.  Clinton was NOT acquitted.  He was in fact found guilty of the charges.  Just because they determined his crimes did not merit removal  doesn't mean he wasn't guilty.  

 

In Clintons case the outcome was correct in my view.  He committed perjury.  However it was perjury over cheating on his wife and that isn't of national interest.  So he was punished appropriately having his license to practice law revoked (as if he cares) and censure.  Over and done.

 

Oh, and he did all men a favor.  A BJ is no longer sex.  ????

[candide]

10 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Or the 2 guys at the very heart and core of this fiasco. The 2 guys who's improper actions this whole witch hunt revolves around. And the 2 guys the MSM is frantically running cover for and making silly claims that there was no impropriety in their lucrative overseas adventures. Biden sr and jr?

Do you mean the two guys that the Republicans don't want to officially investigate?

[candide]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, it's worse. It shows he wasn't motivated by a desire to clean up corruption in the Ukraine but only to attack a political rival.

And don't forget to mention he also tried to clear up the reputation of Russia, which tried to influence the US elections.  He also wanted a public annoucement about the ridiculous DNC conspiracy theory (you know, the one with the "server" which does not exist, the "Ukrainian" company which is indeed American and the "Ukrainian" owner who is an American born in Russia).

[Monomial]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Are you’re attempts to correct bias limited to comments made by people who oppose Trump or are you also going to lend a hand and offer ‘bias removal’ advice to Trump’s supporters?

 

I apologize if this is what you got from my comment. I don't have time to read through the whole thread, so I only tend to pick out responses that stand out.   I'm not trying to remove bias. Everyone is biased. I am trying to make the point that there is a difference between facts and personal values, and only once you recognize that can you have a genuine discussion with the other side.

 

I have stated before I have family members on both sides of this debate, and in fact I dislike Trump and tend secretly to lean towards those who want him gone. I hated Thaksin as well, and for the exact same reasons. Still, I learned during the red shirt riots no to condemn those who are drawn to demagoguery as the only way to regain control of a political system that they feel marginalizes their interests. They have their reasons, even if they are different from mine. So perhaps it is easier for me to recognize those denigrating Trump supporters, because I used to do that as well. And I also know the only way you will get rid of the pro Trump crowd at this stage is to do what Thailand did and stage a military coup. 

 

No bias removal here. Absolutely keep your biases. I will keep mine. But recognize the difference between facts and values. They are not the same thing, and everyone is entitled to their own values.