Either Roberts will rule on the question or it will go directly to the full Court on an expedited basis and the answer will come down in a few days. Just as Bush v Gore was handled. that took 4 days.
Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry
- Thread starter Big AAPL
- Start date
Yep. or variations thereof such as it becomes leaked/reported that Bolton was/is adamant that the president had the right to do it and that he had no concerns about talking/cooperating with Trump on the issue, but that that does not mean that he condoned Rudy's murky attempts and drug deal type approach to it. Such that the dems continue to wonder just exactly what have they got there if they bring Bolton in. Bolton might be miffed and pissed about being fired but he is not some turncoat who suddenly wants to help the democrats. As discussed before, he does not want to be the one to bring Trump down- that will end his entire fox, think tank, talking head career. He hates the dems too much to sit over on CNN like Scaramucci or Bill Kristol.
GOP defense doing a good job of shooting down Dem case past day or two. As a former lawyer, I could say they did more than enough to defeat any presumption of guilt such that if there was truly an impartial jury, they would not vote to convict.
Everyone is assuming that Roberts has authority and jurisdiction to make a legal ruling on something. He does not. The powers of the supreme court or an article 3 court do not follow the chief justice just because he is in another role somewhere. He can perhaps rule on whether it needs to go before a true court based on his advisory opinion but that is not the same as making a definitive ruling on the underlying issue. He has no authority or jurisdiction to do that unless he is back sitting as a supreme court or article 3 judge.
Lol. This is all fantasy. Bolton explicitly wrote Trump predicated the aid on a Biden investigation. That is quid pro quo and that is illegal, hence the equivalency to a drug deal.
Romney is working out a deal with Toomey of all people for witnesses. It’s all rolling down the street now.
Roberts has the power to call witnesses as Chief Justice. His interpretation of executive privilege can very well stand and be the precedent.
Roberts doesn't have that authority. Bush v Gore is apples to shampeachment's oranges. You've no grasp.
You've seen that in writing?-- I doubt it---- By they way, even if true, it's meaningless here because it is incumbent on POTUS to root out corruption.
Yeah -----no he doesn't *** and *** Yeah-----no it can't nor won't.