4 ms·

Would you characterize the Clinton impeachment trial in the same way? What do you believe the Chief Justice should have done but didn't in either or both trial

by wl 6y ago

Would you characterize the Clinton impeachment trial in the same way? What do you believe the Chief Justice should have done but didn't in either or both trials?

pstuart 6y ago
The Clinton trial was about lying about a blowjob. He did lie, and he was a sexual predator, but I fail to see how it had anything to do with his official conduct (it was poor personal conduct but that's a different story). Trump engaged in a shakedown of another country for personal gain (including blocking money that Congress had appropriated) and then engaged in a massive coverup. I'd consider that to be a collection of crimes. Roberts did not allow witnesses to be called, and did not allow the hearings to be recorded. The GOP refused to participate in the trial at all and declared before it started that they would not even consider a guilty vote.
- wl 6y ago
  Rehnquist characterized his role as presiding over the Clinton impeachment trial by quoting from Iolanthe (A comic opera): "I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well." My impression of Roberts presiding over the Trump impeachment trial is that he tried to emulate Rehnquist. There's plenty to criticize about the Trump trial, but I don't see how you can pin it on Roberts. It was the Senate that voted to not call witnesses, not Roberts deciding that. Since the Senate has "the sole power to try all impeachments" (US Const. Art. I, § 3, cl. 6), it's not even clear Roberts had the ability to override that decision. I'm not sure what you're talking about with things not being recorded. You can find the entire trial on YouTube.
  - pstuart 6y ago
    I don't blame Roberts specifically for the outcome, but I was not impressed. "Doing nothing" is often doing something in absentia. I writing in haste and have already been too political in this thread (hopefully in a respectful manner). We could dissect the flaws (which I would enjoy in the proper forum with time to carve out for it), but as an independent (but "progressive") voter I found both trials to be shams. My original comment was snarky (but true), but in the end I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of "my team" or "being right", but to pursue truth wherever it may lead me.

by wl 6y ago

Would you characterize the Clinton impeachment trial in the same way? What do you believe the Chief Justice should have done but didn't in either or both trials?

pstuart 6y ago

The Clinton trial was about lying about a blowjob. He did lie, and he was a sexual predator, but I fail to see how it had anything to do with his official conduct (it was poor personal conduct but that's a different story). Trump engaged in a shakedown of another country for personal gain (including blocking money that Congress had appropriated) and then engaged in a massive coverup. I'd consider that to be a collection of crimes. Roberts did not allow witnesses to be called, and did not allow the hearings to be recorded. The GOP refused to participate in the trial at all and declared before it started that they would not even consider a guilty vote.

wl 6y ago
Rehnquist characterized his role as presiding over the Clinton impeachment trial by quoting from Iolanthe (A comic opera): "I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well." My impression of Roberts presiding over the Trump impeachment trial is that he tried to emulate Rehnquist. There's plenty to criticize about the Trump trial, but I don't see how you can pin it on Roberts. It was the Senate that voted to not call witnesses, not Roberts deciding that. Since the Senate has "the sole power to try all impeachments" (US Const. Art. I, § 3, cl. 6), it's not even clear Roberts had the ability to override that decision. I'm not sure what you're talking about with things not being recorded. You can find the entire trial on YouTube.
- pstuart 6y ago
  I don't blame Roberts specifically for the outcome, but I was not impressed. "Doing nothing" is often doing something in absentia. I writing in haste and have already been too political in this thread (hopefully in a respectful manner). We could dissect the flaws (which I would enjoy in the proper forum with time to carve out for it), but as an independent (but "progressive") voter I found both trials to be shams. My original comment was snarky (but true), but in the end I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of "my team" or "being right", but to pursue truth wherever it may lead me.