Trump wasn't impeached by House vote

[parmalee]

No more than a decent education includes watching TV. Publishers, with style guides, are first and foremost entertainment/infotainment.

Huh?!

Some examples of these industry style guides include the following:

• AP style for journalism and most forms of corporate communications
• USGPO style or AGPS style for government publications
• Oxford style and Chicago style for academic publishing and readership
• APA style and ASA style for the social sciences
• CSE style for various physical sciences
• ACS style for chemistry
• AMA style for medicine
• Bluebook style for law

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide

Which of the preceding is mostly just "entertainment/infotainment?"

 

[iceaura]

Notice how your reply has nothing to do with justifying the conflation of "obstruction of Congress" with the actual crime of "obstruction of justice".

Notice that your reading comprehension skills are not even up to your grammar, which sucks.

Roberts has no Constitutional authority in the trial other than keeping order

The actual Constitution does not say "keeping order".

It's the role his mentor and predecessor in the same role embraced in the Clinton impeachment trial. Learn some history.

That was a trial, conducted somewhat as trials are - it had potential (at least) witnesses and evidence and so forth, for starters. Rehnquist did not have to deal with somebody like McConnell trying to pull stunts like excluding witnesses and evidence (deposition or live).
- - -

Style guides do not follow traditional grammar rules, and they're often bastardizations of those rules. Exactly the sort of thing I'd expect you to cite.

So you didn't read it.

You fools don't even fact check when you're getting your noses rubbed in it.

The Chicago Manual does - famously, explicitly, to the point of being mocked, and including specifically and explicitly the example I provided you - follow traditional grammar rules whenever possible. The standard, traditional formulation of the possessive in that situation is exactly what it recommends, for exactly that reason - it's traditional, time-honored, standard, unambiguous, and familiar to every literate speaker of English.

The Chicago even - as is traditional - allows some slack in the system, for semi-literates such as you and for those with reasoned objections in certain special cases. It will "accept" certain variants, if the author is consistent. The example at hand - the formation of the possessive of "Roberts", a polysyllabic name in which the final letter sounds as an 's' rather than a 'z' - is not one of them. (One problem it would create involves the possessive of the plural - more than one Robert in possession. That plural possessive is formed thus: "Roberts' ". You see the issue - your illiteracy creates an ambiguity where there was none.)

If you don't like style manuals, for some reason or simply from apparent ignorance of them, there are always sources such as Garner's "A Dictionary of Modern American Usage" - same info, in a less pedantic context. Excellent book, btw - recommended.

 

[sculptor]

It seems that the senate gets to choose(make) the rules for the impeachment trial.
It seems that Chief justice Roberts is a tad more moderate than most senate republicans.
Make of that what you will.
This could prove entertaining.

 

[Vociferous]

The actual Constitution does not say "keeping order".

No, it says presides over, but even in the first presidential impeachment trial, at least to Chief Justice rulings were overridden by Senate vote. Since none of his rulings are final, presiding over the trial gives him no more power than keeping order.

That was a trial, conducted somewhat as trials are - it had potential (at least) witnesses and evidence and so forth, for starters. Rehnquist did not have to deal with somebody like McConnell trying to pull stunts like excluding witnesses and evidence (deposition or live).

Senators will likely vote, after opening arguments, as to whether they deem witnesses are necessary. And it doesn't matter one with who pulls what, as any ruling by the Chief Justice can be overridden by Senate vote.

 

[iceaura]

Since none of his rulings are final, presiding over the trial gives him no more power than keeping order.

It doesn't give him that power either - if the ability to be overriden only by a majority vote of the US Senate is your idea of having no power.
What he has is influence, via authority. All he would need is the will to use it.