So much for a fair and unbiased trial

[hislegacy]

Patrick Leahy, the longest serving Democrat replaces the Chief Justice for the impeachment trail.

Leahy has already stated ""President Trump has not simply failed to uphold his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which itself would be sufficient to warrant his impeachment and removal. He has emerged as the greatest threat to the Constitution and to American democracy in a generation."

How can he possibly be unbiased?

 

[hislegacy]

BTW the topic of the thread is Leahy's ability to be unbiased - not Trumps guilt or innocence.

 

[Arcangl86]

It's a good thing that the Senators as a whole make all the decisions and the presiding officer has limited power.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Patrick Leahy, the longest serving Democrat replaces the Chief Justice for the impeachment trail.

Leahy has already stated ""President Trump has not simply failed to uphold his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which itself would be sufficient to warrant his impeachment and removal. He has emerged as the greatest threat to the Constitution and to American democracy in a generation."

How can he possibly be unbiased?

Though I agree with you, his involvement is very limited.

 

[hislegacy]

It's a good thing that the Senators as a whole make all the decisions and the presiding officer has limited power.

BTW the topic of the thread is Leahy's ability to be unbiased - not Trumps guilt or innocence.

Though I agree with you, his involvement is very limited.

BTW the topic of the thread is Leahy's ability to be unbiased - not Trumps guilt or innocence.

 

[Arcangl86]

It doesn't matter if Leahy can be unbaised since it is the Senate as a whole which makes all decisions during the impeachment trial. It's mostly a ceremonial role.

 

[hislegacy]

It doesn't matter if Leahy can be unbaised since it is the Senate as a whole which makes all decisions during the impeachment trial. It's mostly a ceremonial role.

Not accurate - the Presiding Judge controls the trial - he has the power of controlling the proceedings -

Let's put this narrative to rest, shall we:

The role of the chief justice in an impeachment trial - SCOTUSblog

The Senate’s standing rules for impeachment trials make no distinction between the powers of the chief justice presiding in an impeachment and those of any other officer in the same role. The job is referred to throughout as “Presiding Officer” and its authority is the same regardless of who holds it. The rules nominally give the presiding officer considerable power, including the power to issue “orders, mandates, writs, and precepts” (Rule V), to “direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying and impeachment” (Rule VII), and to “rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence” (Rule VII). But in every case, this apparent authority is subject to the critical limitation that the presiding officer may only act in accordance with the will of the Senate.
​

Please stop saying the Presiding officer is a ceremonial role - that is just not accurate. It helps a narrative, but is not based in reality.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

When anyone in DC utters the words "fair and unbiased", run for the hills!

 

[Michael]

All human beings are "biased' one way or another, whether they express their biases publicly or not.

I'm curious to know what important influence you believe that Justice Roberts had in the last impeachment process that would have been any different had he held some sort of bias one way or another?

Other than refusing to allow one specific question to be read publicly that essentially 'ratted out' someone who was protected by whistle blower laws, I can't even recall Roberts have *any particular influence over that trial. He had no say as to whether or not witnesses would be called, nor did he have any unique voting ability to sway any particular decision in that process.

I simply don't see how it even matters if Leahy is biased in some way because the role itself *is* more ceremonial than crucial to start with. Perhaps you feel differently and you could explain to us what Roberts did in the last trial that someone like Leahy would have done differently and how it might have influenced the outcome of the last impeachment "trail", where no witnesses were even allowed to be presented to the Senate?

Mitch McConnell had a *much* bigger influence on the proceedings of the last impeachment trial and he also had 'biases", so all impeachment trails are "biased" one way or another. Likewise, the new majority leader of the Senate is likely to have a *much* larger role in determining the 'fairness" of the upcoming proceedings, and whether witnesses may be called, etc. Why all the fixation of Leahy? What's he going to do that you're so sure will have some important influence on the outcome of this impeachment process?

 

[Arcangl86]

Not accurate - the Presiding Judge controls the trial - he has the power of controlling the proceedings -

Let's put this narrative to rest, shall we:

The role of the chief justice in an impeachment trial - SCOTUSblog

The Senate’s standing rules for impeachment trials make no distinction between the powers of the chief justice presiding in an impeachment and those of any other officer in the same role. The job is referred to throughout as “Presiding Officer” and its authority is the same regardless of who holds it. The rules nominally give the presiding officer considerable power, including the power to issue “orders, mandates, writs, and precepts” (Rule V), to “direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying and impeachment” (Rule VII), and to “rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence” (Rule VII). But in every case, this apparent authority is subject to the critical limitation that the presiding officer may only act in accordance with the will of the Senate.
​

Please stop saying the Presiding officer is a ceremonial role - that is just not accurate. It helps a narrative, but is not based in reality.

If every single decision is subject to being overridden by the vote of the Senate, then he has no power. He really has no discretion but must act according to the majority of the Senate. The presiding officer of the Senate is not a judge in the normal sense and as such it doesn't matter as much. I think the intention of the founders probably was very different which is why they didn't want the VP to preside at a trial in which they benefit, but the Rules of the Senate kind of nullify that concern.

 

[Michael]

Other than the one question that Roberts refused to read out loud in public which would have revealed the identity of the whistleblower, I can't even recall anything that Roberts did that had any effect whatsoever on the previous impeachment process.

Meanwhile McConnell and the GOP refused to even allow for witnesses to be presented in that case, and Roberts had no say in the matter. You can't even have a real trial without witnesses. The last impeachment trail certainly wasn't "fair and unbiased", simply because Roberts presided over the process.

 

[Albion]

and is it even legitimate to have this trial without the Chief Justice being in the chair? The Constitution calls for him to preside.

 

[hislegacy]

Let's put this narrative to rest, shall we:

The role of the chief justice in an impeachment trial - SCOTUSblog

The Senate’s standing rules for impeachment trials make no distinction between the powers of the chief justice presiding in an impeachment and those of any other officer in the same role. The job is referred to throughout as “Presiding Officer” and its authority is the same regardless of who holds it. The rules nominally give the presiding officer considerable power, including the power to issue “orders, mandates, writs, and precepts” (Rule V), to “direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying and impeachment” (Rule VII), and to “rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence” (Rule VII). But in every case, this apparent authority is subject to the critical limitation that the presiding officer may only act in accordance with the will of the Senate.
​

Please stop saying the Presiding officer is a ceremonial role - that is just not accurate. It helps a narrative, but is not based in reality.

I simply don't see how it even matters if Leahy is biased in some way because the role itself *is* more ceremonial than crucial to start with.

If every single decision is subject to being overridden by the vote of the Senate, then he has no power. He really has no discretion but must act according to the majority of the Senate. The presiding officer of the Senate is not a judge in the normal sense and as such it doesn't matter as much. I think the intention of the founders probably was very different which is why they didn't want the VP to preside at a trial in which they benefit, but the Rules of the Senate kind of nullify that concern.

It is the same in scope and power as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court according the the Supreme Court.

He is a member, and an outspoken member of the party in control of the Senate - he is biased in his remarks as noted in the op and according to his own words he is pre disposed in the results of trial.

That in not fair and impartial the way a chief Justice would be.

 

[Michael]

It is the same in scope and power as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court according the the Supreme Court.

So specifically what did Roberts *do* in the first impeachment trial that had any substantive effect on the outcome of the results of the first impeachment trial? You talk about "considerable powers", but AFAIK the only thing Roberts actually *did* in the previous impeachment trial is refuse to read *one question* which would have publicly revealed the identity of the whistleblower. He never even "ruled" on anything else that I can recall. The Senators set the rules, and they wouldn't even allow for witnesses to be heard in the Senate, so it was a kangaroo court *even with Roberts* presiding over the process.

What did Roberts do in the first impeachment that was an example of "considerable power"?

He is a member, ....

Sure, just like every other Senator that will vote in the trial.

and an outspoken member of the party in control of the Senate - he is biased in his remarks as noted in the op and according to his own words he is pre disposed in the results of trial.

The fact he's currently predisposed to vote a specific way doesn't automatically mean that he'll be biased in the way he handles himself in the role that Robert's fulfilled in the last impeachment. It's not like Roberts even had much of an actual role to start with.

That in not fair and impartial the way a chief Justice would be.

Get real. Every single individual in that room is going to have some amount of "bias" going into the process, and we all know it. That doesn't mean that they will even all have the same beliefs and biases at the end of the process.

I'm still waiting to see you explain which specific instance that Roberts involved himself in the last impeachment process that would or could have been any different than if I had been sitting there in his place? I can't think of a single thing I could have or would have done any differently, regardless of my feelings about Trump. I would also have protected the name of the whistleblower as Roberts did, but AFAIK, I wouldn't even have had any opportunity to 'rule' on anything or do anything differently to start with, even if I wanted to.

 

[Michael]

and is it even legitimate to have this trial without the Chief Justice being in the chair?

Define "legitimate" in this instance. Was it "legitimate" to not even allow for any witnesses to testify at the last impeachment trial? Was that a "legitimate" trial in your opinion?

The Constitution calls for him to preside.

It only requires him to preside over a *sitting*/current US President, presumably so that the VP can't sway the outcome in his/her own favor and usurp the role of President. An impeachment trial is not a "criminal trial", so it's *necessarily* a political process *by design*.

 

[hislegacy]

I'm still waiting to see you explain which specific instance that Roberts involved himself in the last impeachment process that would or could have been any different than if I had been sitting there in his place?

You will be waiting a long time. That has zero to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[Michael]

You will be waiting a long time. That has zero to do with the topic of the thread.

Sure it does. As the last impeachment "trial" (a supposed trial without any witnesses) demonstrated quite clearly, the person filling the role that Roberts (or anyone else) fills, has no real effect on anything. Roberts didn't vote on anything. He didn't change anything. He simply presided over the *procedures* which the Senate itself determined. Every decision was based on the vote of the Senate, and it will work that way in the next trial. A complete amateur could do that job and their bias wouldn't make a darn bit of difference to the outcome. All the power is in the Senate votes themselves and Robert's role was simply procedural in nature. The next trial will be no different.

 

[Richard T]

Leahy back at home after brief hospitalization

 

[hislegacy]

Leahy back at home after brief hospitalization

Our prayers go out to him, I hope he is well and that this is not a major issue.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Patrick Leahy, the longest serving Democrat replaces the Chief Justice for the impeachment trail.

Leahy has already stated ""President Trump has not simply failed to uphold his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which itself would be sufficient to warrant his impeachment and removal. He has emerged as the greatest threat to the Constitution and to American democracy in a generation."

How can he possibly be unbiased?

Bias

The trial of Trump is political affair based on did the election result come about because of fraud or a legitimate vote? The sad reality is, many believe that in truth there was fraud though unproven and not shown, not taken through the courts with any prosecutions.

Any actions that are based on this lie are therefore delusional and any resulting criminal acts, worthy of prosecution. This is the actual legal position of the law. And those guilty of insisting such behaviour is justified is taking full responsibility of the consequences onto themselves.

Imagine someone claiming an individual had been murdered and the guilty party should be imprisoned or killed. As a result of this belief the guilty parties house is invaded, ransaked and if possible, the person supposed to be guilty of the crime, would have been executed.

The problem is the person was not murdered, is alive and kicking, and the guilty party were innocent and had a grevious crime committed against them in the ransaking of their house, and their life put in danger based on this lie.

The only people unbiased are those who believe the truth, that there was no murder and that the actions based upon the lie are criminal. To literally believe otherwise is to be insane and deluded.
So deep is this idea that sedition is justified because the seditious behaviour is justified in response to the sedition by the fraud in the election, there are few independent voices, because put simply there is no middle ground.

I have tried to put the evidence to those who want to believe suggestion and rumour, and they literally say I am lying and inventing facts, when it is clearly the other way around.

The civil cases of Dominion against Rudy and Sidney will silence many folk, and the prosecution for sedition of those who planned the invasion of the Capitol will change everything. In many previous times in history, these folk would have had a short trial and been executed. That line between highlighting problems to full blown rebellion was crossed so quickly with no regard and insane belief as if their lives are not in danger. Wars have been fought, people died to defend these principles and systems, yet to ignore them, it is like nothing, as if the world is an alternate reality. This is free speech gone nuts.

God bless you