General Discussion

kentuck

(111,097 posts) Sat Jan 25, 2020, 10:51 AM Jan 2020

Will CJ Roberts make a ruling on "executive privilege" before the Senate votes to acquit?

Where he would state that there is no "executive privilege", if the witness is directly relative to the evidence in the impeachment trial? Also, that either side could call whatever witnesses they wanted, to help prove their case?

Wouldn't that be something?

But, don't hold your breath.

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Will CJ Roberts make a ruling on "executive privilege" before the Senate votes to acquit? (Original Post) kentuck Jan 2020 OP

Roberts' role is entirely ceremonial. He has no power over the proceedings. That's all Moscow Mitch. PSPS Jan 2020 #1

He will not. onenote Jan 2020 #2

This isn't a trial. Igel Jan 2020 #3

Is there a way for the Democrats to press this issue? kentuck Jan 2020 #4

This dude is 75% COWARD anyway. nt UniteFightBack Jan 2020 #5

I don't believe he can on his own. (might be wrong here) bluestarone Jan 2020 #6

I think he can rule on anything he wishes... kentuck Jan 2020 #7

PSPS

(13,599 posts)

1. Roberts' role is entirely ceremonial. He has no power over the proceedings. That's all Moscow Mitch.

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Sat Jan 25, 2020, 11:13 AM

Jan 2020

onenote

(42,703 posts)

2. He will not.

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Sat Jan 25, 2020, 11:26 AM

Jan 2020

Nor will he be asked to do so.

Igel

(35,309 posts)

3. This isn't a trial.

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Sat Jan 25, 2020, 12:32 PM

Jan 2020

Not in any normal sense. And not just because it's run by (R).

This is a "trial" in which the jury made the rules, any decision by the judge is subject to review by the jury, and all final decisions are ultimately up to the jury.

That's the Constitution.

kentuck

(111,097 posts)

4. Is there a way for the Democrats to press this issue?

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Sat Jan 25, 2020, 04:31 PM

Jan 2020

It would be a big story if Roberts ruled on "executive privilege". Fifty-one Senators could vote against him but that would be a huge political gamble, I would think?