The Impeachment of President Trump

Considering Graham was a Southern Baptist minister:

The Southern Baptist Convention is the biggest Protestant denomination in the United States, accounting for 5.3% of the U.S. adult population - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/07/7-facts-about-southern-baptists/​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps I overstate with the word, "deadlock"; to t he otherRehnquist didn't need a tie-breaking vote—a fifty-fifty tie is a loss.

In absentia, it would be Trump appearing before Roberts in a Senate impeachment trial, but the chief justice's role is more umpire than judge or jury. The Senate would acquit or convict the president; Roberts would rule on procedural matters and might break tie votes, but not on conviction, which requires a two-thirds majority of the 100-member Senate.

(Wolf↱; boldface accent added)​

____________________

Notes:

Wolf, Richard. "Chief Justice John Roberts will be the 'umpire' in Senate impeachment trial of President Trump". USA Today. 10 October 2019. USAToday.com. 21 December 2019. http://bit.ly/34RyuKI

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nice try weaseling out of your ignorance, but you said:

There is no circumstance where Roberts "has a vote" in the Senate. Seems you've been duped by an uninformed journalist, who doesn't even seem to know what he's talking about, as he doesn't even try to explain why he mentions "breaking tie votes". So you thinking Roberts may have "room to sway the outcome" is pretty stupid. Don't believe just any journalist who affirms your bias.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2c33aa-233e-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html

 

If he's neutral, in his role as presider he can coerce the Senate into calling witnesses and otherwise observing the formalities of a fair trial. With even minimal backing from a few Rep Senators, he can establish a secret ballot.

The witnesses will probably do lots of damage to Trump, and highlight the absence of Trump's testimony. And as soon as a few Republicans can vote or abstain without identifying themselves, Trump's odds of conviction go way up.

It probably did. The stats say it did (70,000 + missing Presidential votes in Michigan, almost all of them from gerrymandered Dem districts, never even investigated, for example).
It set up the voter suppression and infrastructure manipulation, the ID requirements, the use of dubious and easily exploited voting machines, the failure to audit suspect vote counts, the invalid purging of voter registration rolls, and so forth, in the key States that Trump narrowly won.

Nothing secret or underhanded about it - not since 1980, near forty years ago.
It wasn't unprecedented, either; it had become frequent, as Republican hyper-partisan tactics - especially the use of the filibuster as never before - increasingly dominated Congressional politics. After the election of 2008 Republican Senators were even filibustering their own bills, if you recall, to prevent anything approved by Obama from getting through the Senate.

That's what "unprecedented" looks like. Filibustering one's own bill.

Meanwhile, reconciliation is not all that difficult to beat in theory - from Wiki:

All it takes to beat reconciliation is a few Republican Senators with the principles they claim instead of the toadying and cowardice they display.

Which is too high a bar, of course, but the theoretical possibility is there.

 

No, even in the judiciary, the judge has no power to coerce what witnesses are called. Your ignorance is astounding. And establishing a secret ballot would likewise have no input from Roberts. I know he's your last best hope, but you dream that he can do all kinds of things he actually can't. It's like Roberts is the star of the Marvel movie in your head. And thinking Republicans will follow Pelosi's lead of breaking precedent is equally unlikely.

"It probably did" is a non-argument. Dems simply didn't turn out because Hillary was a crap sandwich. And all you have are baseless, leftist conspiracy theories.

Not until Reid, 2008, was budget reconciliation used to pass a non-budgetary bill, and without a sunset provision.

 

Google is your friend. The date on this article, with sculptor's cited figures, is 2012: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24732952.html
Remind me, who was president in 2012?

Not so precedent setting, huh?

 

Unless or until you can show otherwise, the reality is strikingly clear.

I don't watch Fox News, so bad assumption on your part. I watch/read a very wide variety of sources, including the NYT, WP, and CNN.
I do note how you try to use an erroneous genetic fallacy rather than attempt to actually refute even a single point.

Not a deficiency and it doesn't favor one party. If Democrats were not amassed in relatively few large cities, they wouldn't be whining about it. States have a good amount of autonomy, and decide their own election policies. Compare the size of states to EU countries and then tell me they shouldn't have that much autonomy.

When I was young, I thought the electoral college was bad too. With age comes wisdom.

Yep, Trump beat Hillary in battleground states by smaller margins with fewer votes than Romney lost to Obama. They obviously didn't turn out for Hillary like they did Obama.

 

meh

I'm waiting for a White Nationalist magazine to come out and say that Trump is a scumbag.

 

Yeah, as Laurie pointed out, many evangelicals are defending Trump and Billy Graham himself reportedly voted for Trump: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-impeachment-of-president-trump.162501/page-7#post-3611472
So dashing your hopes:

No, you simply presumed (a leading question is still a presumption) because it affirmed your bias. I didn't presume, so I Googled it.

Don't know, but:

To Pelosi and some other top Democrats, the focus is on Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, who’s released his 2010 return and 2011 estimates and plans to release his 2011 return when it’s completed, but refuses to release any more. They say the very refusal to release more suggests that he’s hiding something.
- https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24732952.html#storylink=cpy​

It's pretty clear that nothing short of complete capitulation will appease Democrats anymore. So maybe Trump just gave the hypocrites something to bay about instead of conceding and STILL having them bawl.

Nice cop-out. You were all opinionated just a moment ago. What happened?

I didn't mention a catalog, I said "even a single point"...making it easy on you. Cop-out strike two.

And as expected, cop-out strike three.

Really? Four cop-outs? Why did you even bother to engage at all? Not as clever as you thought you were being?

We could, but if this post is any indication, you have no interest in EVER supporting your opinions. Just drive-by sound bites from your leftist bubble.

 

I'm a snowflake and you've crushed me.

Stop beating me and I'll succumb to anything you say.

 

Yep, and I'm not the least bit worried about it. Historical precedent is in my favor. Last time I predicted Hillary would not win because no Democrat had ever followed another into office (other than an ascending VP) since the inception of the Republican party. Republicans have done so. And the historical trend is for the incumbent to win, as long as the economy is good (and it's better than good), and he didn't already follow another Republican.

 

Can Trump even spell the word "Unprecedented"?
He would probably spell it "Unpresidented"?
Or may be his twitter feed could include words like "Unimpeached"
or "Untrumped"
lol

 

Why are foreigners so hung up on US politics? I realize that as goes the US so goes the world, but the way you guys pick one side, as if you live here. Leftist simpatico of collectivists, I guess.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But, I can't help but love the United States.

That's not a joke! They make some good TV.

:EDIT:

Even though your country totally sucks at hockey.