Impeachment Testimony
-
Go Trump.
Tell them to piss up a robe. Roberts has already signaled that this impeachment case is DOA at SCOTUS.
Kabuki theater.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Was President Trump asked to testify at the first impeachment?
-
Go Trump.
Tell them to piss up a robe. Roberts has already signaled that this impeachment case is DOA at SCOTUS.
Kabuki theater.
-
@jolly said in Impeachment Testimony:
Roberts has already signaled that this impeachment case is DOA at SCOTUS.
Doubt that.
@jon-nyc said in Impeachment Testimony:
@jolly said in Impeachment Testimony:
Roberts has already signaled that this impeachment case is DOA at SCOTUS.
Doubt that.
Keep dreaming.
By telling the Senate he would not preside at this farce, Roberts sent a clear and concise message to everybody about the Constitutionality of the procedure.
Kabuki theater.
-
-
Why would it go to the Supreme Court?
@taiwan_girl said in Impeachment Testimony:
Why would it go to the Supreme Court?
I don't see how it would. SCOTUS has been historically reluctant to get involved in political disagreements. The law here is pretty clear: The House of Representatives has sole authority to impeach - which they did. The Senate has the sole authority to try - which they are poised to.
The only question is whether this is constitutional, for it states "The president," which Trump is not. Precedent for non-presidential impeachments of former holders of office exists. That is the thinking of the House, I presume.
All that said, SCOTUS wants to avoid opening this Pandora's box, and allow Congress to do whatever they want.
How, having said all that, there's still a question: Suppose Trump is convicted (which he won't be, of course), and he wants to appeal that conviction. Does he have standing to appeal to SCOTUS? I'd guess SCOTUS would not grant cert because, as I said, this has nothing to do with law, other than the constitution, which is sufficiently clear that this is a political, not legal, process.
The other interesting question is whether the Senate has subpoena power to compel testimony.
