Posted on 01/31/2020 6:09:16 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
It’s not a trial when you start with the verdict already decided. That’s called a lynching.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
I have an idea...
Lets put her in the dunking chair and hold her under for 30 minutes.
If she doesn’t drown she is a witch....
If she does, we can just say you can’t be too careful!! she acted like and may have been a witch anyway.
I agree. Plus, Roberts knows that his every word could be scrutinized by people like Dershowitz.
All that's missing is Judge Freisler.
Yes, CJ (or his staff) had researched the issue. He read from prepared notes.
I think "knowing" lunacy.
LOL. Lindsey Graham on Hannity. He's drunk. Said "bullshit" on the air live.
Waiting for the constitutional law experts of FR who were claiming otherwise to come fall on their swords.
All scripted. This stuff is historical record. He knew the question was coming, and he more or less read his answer. Not that it wasn't his answer, just that the words were deliberately chosen, not taken on the fly.
It's the obviously corrrect constitutional interpretation. Article III court is not imported into impeachment. CJ sits in presidential cases for the pomp, because CJ likely has a firm hand in order, and to free an even number of senators, 100% of them, to sit as judge/jury/advocate and decide how to handle, and outcome.
Thanks for your earlier kind compliment.
He’s voted for our side a lot more than a few times.
Yeah he messed up BIG on obamacare
Let’s not get crazy though
Trust him to do or not do what?
I’M SO TIRED OF FREEPERS bitching even when a politician or Judge or whomever comes through for our side.
Ya’ll sound like annoying wives that are impossible to please.
To all of those people..here’s $5, go buy a smile.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Now that Epstein is dead and DOJ is investigation him... Trump has the dirt now baby!
They won’t.
You could argue that he presides over the trial and that might give him procedural authority. But only to a point. In the end, he is NOT a Senator and doesn’t get a vote, just like the judge in a trial does not get to vote with the jury. And just like the judge in a trial he does not call witnesses for the prosecution or the defense.
I think Justice Roberts had his eyes opened. Maybe he will give a second look to that Obama judge/Trump judge thing.
But it should be possible for him to make referrals to the DOJ if he is of a mind to. Hmmm.
“And the Roberts as a Democrat tool theory falls apart.”
Except why did the dems think he was? Assumed he was, actually.
Roberts surprised me. With the entire media and all of academia behind him, he had plenty of cover to throw in with the anti constitutional democrats. Had Murkowski fallen in Romney on witnesses, I’m not so sure it would have turned out this way.
Roberts made Schumer look like a complete dumbass.
Schuck has no smarts whatsoever to bring up Andrew Johnson.
To faithfully uphold the Constitution so help him God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.