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

[riclag]

On 1/2/2020 at 6:35 AM, 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.

Justice Roberts sits while the jury the senate will decide how to proceed in the process. Politics being denominated and one sided by the partisan party (radical dem) vote was mentioned by Hamilton centuries ago in the federalist papers and for that reason the founders designed in the constitution to have the senate as jury decide the outcome of a partisan  people's house of representatives impeachment.

 

Its obvious the dems neglected due diligence imop by not going to court,the natural process by which to dispute executive privilege decisions ,a Presidential right! Imop how dare they try to impose and dictate  upon the senate how to proceed.

 

You got a point,Topdeadsenter, the founders envisioned this happening that ,politicians from a party  acting ,friendly (gop) or inimical(obstructing and hating) radical dems,towards the accused.The obstructing and hatred has been well reported and demonstrated during and proceeding  Mr. Trump taking office imop.

 

Hamilton wrote"They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partiality, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt".

Edited January 3, 2020 by riclag

[riclag]

 "The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny".

 

"The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it" Hamilton wrote.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

 

Robert's has no choice but to preside on a trial by the senate,to follow the constitution  and not have the party of the opposition rule again on the impeachment process which was already decided in haste. imop

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by riclag

[JCauto]

On 1/1/2020 at 5:35 PM, 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.

So you're discounting all the other witnesses except for that one single day where they wheeled out three academics (one of whom you may recall was chosen by the Republicans - why did they choose a Leftist academic, bit stupid of them, no?).

So how about all the State Department employees, Ambassador Sondland (appointed by Trump), etc.? 

Seriously, you must be hungover today to post such a poor attempt at obfuscation, I've come to expect better of you. Disappointing.

[riclag]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

So you're discounting all the other witnesses except for that one single day where they wheeled out three academics (one of whom you may recall was chosen by the Republicans - why did they choose a Leftist academic, bit stupid of them, no?).

So how about all the State Department employees, Ambassador Sondland (appointed by Trump), etc.? 

Seriously, you must be hungover today to post such a poor attempt at obfuscation, I've come to expect better of you. Disappointing.

What  about Sondland? He presumed to much ! Why can't people accept that he serves at the will of the POTUS,who by the way told him after asking the POTUS what do you want me to do . Reply "I want no QPQ".

Edited January 3, 2020 by riclag

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, riclag said:

What  about Sondland? He presumed to much ! Why can't people accept that he serves at the will of the POTUS,who by the way told him after asking the POTUS what do you want me to do . Reply "I want no QPQ".

Right. 91 minutes after Trump's conversation with Zelensky, a hold was put on the aid. And Trump's no QPQ only came after he learned that his conversation was the subject of a whistleblower's complaint.

[riclag]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Right. 91 minutes after Trump's conversation with Zelensky, a hold was put on the aid. And Trump's no QPQ only came after he learned that his conversation was the subject of a whistleblower's complaint.

That's right no QPQ and the hold is normal despite congress initial appropriations. Corruption took on a whole new meaning in Ukraine ! 

 

Thanks to the opposition party anything done in the future by a POTUS to safe guard American's tax dollars  and  a future POTUS  foreign policy agenda will be in impeachment proceedings imop

Edited January 3, 2020 by riclag

[rabas]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Right. 91 minutes after Trump's conversation with Zelensky, a hold was put on the aid. And Trump's no QPQ only came after he learned that his conversation was the subject of a whistleblower's complaint.

And Trump's no QPQ only came after he learned that his conversation was the subject of a whistleblower's complaint.

 

Is that not the best time to clarify there was no QPQ, after learning his political enemies were trying to twist events against him, again?  So, he explains there was no QPQ intended.  If you wear orange colored glasses, you will see orange.

 

[bristolboy]

25 minutes ago, rabas said:

And Trump's no QPQ only came after he learned that his conversation was the subject of a whistleblower's complaint.

 

Is that not the best time to clarify there was no QPQ, after learning his political enemies were trying to twist events against him, again?  So, he explains there was no QPQ intended.  If you wear orange colored glasses, you will see orange.

 

What? Really? You mean when saying something that would serve his self interest as opposed to a time when there was no such motive is the best time? And by the way, there's no evidence that the second phone call which Sondland cited for no QPQ ever really happened. There was a first phone call but even though Trump said no QPQ he then stipulated certain conditions for the release of the monies. In other words a QPQ.

"At the heart of the impeachment inquiry, members of Congress may have been mistakenly led to believe that there were two phone calls between President Donald Trump and Ambassador Gordon Sondland in early September—with the second call having the possibility of helping the President’s case. That’s not what happened. There was only one call, and it was highly incriminating."

https://www.justsecurity.org/67536/heres-the-proof-that-trumps-no-quid-pro-quo-call-never-happened/

 

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

That's right no QPQ and the hold is normal despite congress initial appropriations. Corruption took on a whole new meaning in Ukraine ! 

 

Thanks to the opposition party anything done in the future by a POTUS to safe guard American's tax dollars  and  a future POTUS  foreign policy agenda will be in impeachment proceedings imop

This hold was normal? Really?

"The decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine came directly from Donald Trump, despite warnings that doing so could be illegal, according to unredacted documents quoting a senior White House official.

Redacted portions of internal Trump administration emails reportedly show how officials' efforts to carry out presidential orders to withhold $391 million in assistance to Ukraine continued despite warnings from Defence Department staff that such a hold violated US law.

The decision to hold the funds came at the "clear direction" of Mr Trump, said associate director of national security programs Michael Duffey in a 30 August email, which was reported on by experts at New York University Law School's Just Security forum."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-emails-ukraine-aid-schumer-leak-pentagon-a9268391.html

 

 

 

[riclag]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

This hold was normal? Really?

"The decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine came directly from Donald Trump, despite warnings that doing so could be illegal, according to unredacted documents quoting a senior White House official.

Redacted portions of internal Trump administration emails reportedly show how officials' efforts to carry out presidential orders to withhold $391 million in assistance to Ukraine continued despite warnings from Defence Department staff that such a hold violated US law.

The decision to hold the funds came at the "clear direction" of Mr Trump, said associate director of national security programs Michael Duffey in a 30 August email, which was reported on by experts at New York University Law School's Just Security forum."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-emails-ukraine-aid-schumer-leak-pentagon-a9268391.html

 

 

 

 Yes normal,  in fact Military aid was not with held,it was on hold while determining if that corruption was still continuing,. Mr. Trump and Mr. Z were eager to work together to accomplish this according to the phone conversation which by the way Prez Z confirmed 3 times no pressure,no blackmail despite diplomats and  staff displeasure of continuing the status quo imop 

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

 Yes normal,  in fact Military aid was not with held,it was on hold while determining if that corruption was still continuing,. Mr. Trump and Mr. Z were eager to work together to accomplish this according to the phone conversation which by the way Prez Z confirmed 3 times no pressure,no blackmail despite diplomats and  staff displeasure of continuing the status quo imop 

The Pentagon had already ascertained as was stipulated by law that the corruption issue had been satisfactorily addressed by Ukraine.

 

"Earlier this week, President Trump cited concerns about corruption as his rationale for blocking security assistance to Ukraine. But in a letter sent to four congressional committees in May of this year and obtained by NPR, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood informed lawmakers that he "certified that the Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability."

The certification was required by law for the release of $250 million in security assistance for Ukraine."

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/764453663/pentagon-letter-undercuts-trump-assertion-on-delaying-aid-to-ukraine-over-corrup

Edited January 3, 2020 by Scott

[candide]

7 hours ago, riclag said:

 Yes normal,  in fact Military aid was not with held,it was on hold while determining if that corruption was still continuing,. Mr. Trump and Mr. Z were eager to work together to accomplish this according to the phone conversation which by the way Prez Z confirmed 3 times no pressure,no blackmail despite diplomats and  staff displeasure of continuing the status quo imop 

He never said no pressure, it's Trump who said that.

Z is a smart guy.

[riclag]

21 hours ago, bristolboy said:

The Pentagon had already ascertained as was stipulated by law that the corruption issue had been satisfactorily addressed by Ukraine.

 

"Earlier this week, President Trump cited concerns about corruption as his rationale for blocking security assistance to Ukraine. But in a letter sent to four congressional committees in May of this year and obtained by NPR, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood informed lawmakers that he "certified that the Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability."

The certification was required by law for the release of $250 million in security assistance for Ukraine."

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/764453663/pentagon-letter-undercuts-trump-assertion-on-delaying-aid-to-ukraine-over-corrup

You need to brush up on the office of the President powers, for almost 250 years that office does not answer to the Pentagon, it answers to the President as the commander and chief.They don't dictate to the President,which "ultimately"has the final decision. I don't know about your countries foreign polices but the office of the President, sets the tone for  foreign policy, not bureaucrats .    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States

 

imop the partisan house impeachment was ridiculous and it is another attempt to take this POTUS out of office.

Edited January 4, 2020 by riclag

[candide]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

You need to brush up on the office of the President powers, for almost 250 years that office does not answer to the Pentagon, it answers to the President as the commander and chief.They don't dictate to the President,which "ultimately"has the final decision. I don't know about your countries foreign polices but the office of the President, sets the tone for  foreign policy, not bureaucrats .    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States

 

imop the partisan house impeachment was ridiculous and it is another attempt to take this POTUS out of office.

Anyway, we know the President was trying to discredit the Bidens and whitewash the Russians, not going after corruption.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

You need to brush up on the office of the President powers, for almost 250 years that office does not answer to the Pentagon, it answers to the President as the commander and chief.They don't dictate to the President,which "ultimately"has the final decision. I don't know about your countries foreign polices but the office of the President, sets the tone for  foreign policy, not bureaucrats .    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States

 

imop the partisan house impeachment was ridiculous and it is another attempt to take this POTUS out of office.

That is wrong. The president cannot unilaterally withhold aid approved by congress and certified by the pentagon that its good to go.

 

Thats why the whitehouse lawyers illegally redacted the emails we now can see. They said he has no basis for withholding aid and were very concerned. Even repubs complained.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

That is wrong. The president cannot unilaterally withhold aid approved by congress and certified by the pentagon that its good to go.

 

Thats why the whitehouse lawyers illegally redacted the emails we now can see. They said he has no basis for withholding aid and were very concerned. Even repubs complained.

Do you know that the president must sign laws before they take effect? He can also veto them or just sit on them. His choice. The president can also veto appropriations bills. The only thing he can't do is pick and choose which items in the bill be wants to implement. (all this is in wiki)

 

If you really want to get rid of Trump, don't help the prosecution team.

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by rabas

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

That is wrong. The president cannot unilaterally withhold aid approved by congress and certified by the pentagon that its good to go.

 

That's why the whitehouse lawyers illegally redacted the emails we now can see. They said he has no basis for withholding aid and were very concerned. Even repubs complained.

He put it on hold ,he didn't withhold it.The office oversees how the money gets distributed just by the fact of its foreign policy powers,apparently the people who were serving at the pleasure of the office weren't or didn't understand the decision making and chain  of command imop.

How many times do you people have to be told! The President is the commander and chief,certifications ,stamps of approval,experts opinions ,intel,5 star generals all with some knowledge  are taken under consideration,ultimately its the Presidents decision to set the tone in planning and policy making

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States

Edited January 4, 2020 by riclag

[bristolboy]

8 hours ago, riclag said:

He put it on hold ,he didn't withhold it.The office oversees how the money gets distributed just by the fact of its foreign policy powers,apparently the people who were serving at the pleasure of the office weren't or didn't understand the decision making and chain  of command imop.

How many times do you people have to be told! The President is the commander and chief,certifications ,stamps of approval,experts opinions ,intel,5 star generals all with some knowledge  are taken under consideration,ultimately its the Presidents decision to set the tone in planning and policy making

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States

How many times do right wingers have to be told that the President is Commander-in-Chief only of members of the armed forces? It has no bearing at all on disbursements of funding authorized by Congress.