CBO: "Most scholars" conclude that the Senate CAN try a former President

[easyt65]

What cheating do you think took place with Democrats and not republicans as well?

It was proven that Democrats in Pa violated both Federal and State Constitutions and Federal and State Election Laws in the middle of the election by by-passing the Legislature to change Election Laws, rules, and Processes. The USSC - Chief Justice Roberts even publicly acknowledged this, right before he declared he and the USSC would shirk their responsibility by refusing to hear and pass judgment on the case. They wanted no part of this f*-up.

 

[easyt65]

Trump NEVER studied any issue before he issued an executive order..

Prove it. I say you're a liar.

 

[Nostra]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

1. The ONLY object of impeachment is to remove a sitting president or "civil Officer" from office, read the Constitution. Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

I don’t know what you think you are proving with this. Would you say that a POTUS can do whatever he wants in his final weeks of office, commit any crime, without any possibility of penalty?

He can be charged with those crimes the minute he is out of office, Stupid.

Why hasn't Pedo Joe's DOJ arrested Trump?
Hmmmm.......

 

[surada]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

1. The ONLY object of impeachment is to remove a sitting president or "civil Officer" from office, read the Constitution. Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

I don’t know what you think you are proving with this. Would you say that a POTUS can do whatever he wants in his final weeks of office, commit any crime, without any possibility of penalty?

If any citizen commits a crime the DOJ can prosecute him for that crime, except the President, who is immune from prosecution while in-office. So to prosecute a president, first you need to impeach him to remove him from office, then he could be prosecuted just like anyone else.

The DOJ lawyers already reviewed Trump's 1/6 speech and concluded that there is nothing there that can be prosecuted. So that's that. Maybe the partisan DAs in NY or DC can trump something up, but upon appeal it would lose.

You just don't get that there is no crime for the 2nd impeachment as well as the 1st.

It was not one speech, it was weeks and months prior to the speech too.... What brought all those thugs to Washington DC.

Please give a link to the DOJ reviewing his Jan 6th speech and claiming it was nothing....

Sorry, the Articles of impeachment accuse him of inciting an Insurrection at the Capitol, whish is a lie. And when the Transcripts proved they were clearly wrong they then switched to claiming EVERYTHING he said, whenever he said it, caused it....while still ignoring their criminal hypocrisy of ignoring VP Harris' actual support of / advocating Insurrection.

The Up-coming Impeachment will not investigate / cover how the Capitol Police aided violent rioters by moving barricades to give them access to the Capitol, how they stood by and did nothing to prevent the violence, and how they acted as a guide leading the rioters to politicians' offices and Chambers.

The Up-Coming Impeachment will not cover how foreign-funded Democrat-supported domestic terrorists Antifa and BLM were there, how witnesses report they instigated the initial violence and whipped people into a mob mentality riot and were in the Capitol illegally as well.

The Up-Coming Impeachment will not cover how Antifa and BLM members USED TWITTER AND FACEBOOK - not Parlor - to plan their part in the 'Insurrection'

They have Trump's videos and tweets forthe8 weeks before Biden's inauguration.. That's all the evidence they need. What does Antifa or BLM have to do with Trump's efforts to overturn the election?

I guess its true that you'll never lose money underestimating the stupidity of the American public.

 

[surada]

Trump NEVER studied any issue before he issued an executive order..

Prove it. I say you're a liar.

Trump frequently said he was his own advisor because he was a big brain stable genius.

 

[Nostra]

Obama never said he didnt have legal right for DACA.

Stop twisting the argument into something not said.

Barry declared publicly he did not have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to alter Immigration law - DACA.

DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted

President Donald Trump has caught a lot of heat for rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a six-month wind-down. Few people seem aware that he's ending an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens that President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal...

www.heritage.org

....but as you know, any law / edict that is UN-Constitutional is NOT legal.

Obama didn’t say that he lacked the right to act. In contrast, he emphasized his authority to set priorities until Congress approved the DREAM Act, a measure that would formalize the legal status of this group of immigrants.

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama said June 15, 2012. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."

The man by-passed Congress to affect Immigration Law and create a new process for Immigration, something that can only be done Constitutionally by the Legislature.

Try to spin it any way you want 100 times over, the SOB admitted he did not have the Constitutional authority to do what he did and then did so.

By Joe Biden's own remarks about EOs, both HE and BARRY were / are 'dictators'.

Trump NEVER studied any issue before he issued an executive order.. He just went with his hunches since he knows more than generals, doctors, scientists, intelligence officers and Constitutional scholars.

You know Hillary was a private citizen when she she sat for hours and hours of Benghazi hearings.. i think they should go ahead and have Trump attend hearings about the attack on the Capitol.

Another single digit IQ Dimwinger mind reader.

 

[Nostra]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

1. The ONLY object of impeachment is to remove a sitting president or "civil Officer" from office, read the Constitution. Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

I don’t know what you think you are proving with this. Would you say that a POTUS can do whatever he wants in his final weeks of office, commit any crime, without any possibility of penalty?

If any citizen commits a crime the DOJ can prosecute him for that crime, except the President, who is immune from prosecution while in-office. So to prosecute a president, first you need to impeach him to remove him from office, then he could be prosecuted just like anyone else.

The DOJ lawyers already reviewed Trump's 1/6 speech and concluded that there is nothing there that can be prosecuted. So that's that. Maybe the partisan DAs in NY or DC can trump something up, but upon appeal it would lose.

You just don't get that there is no crime for the 2nd impeachment as well as the 1st.

It was not one speech, it was weeks and months prior to the speech too.... What brought all those thugs to Washington DC.

Please give a link to the DOJ reviewing his Jan 6th speech and claiming it was nothing....

Sorry, the Articles of impeachment accuse him of inciting an Insurrection at the Capitol, whish is a lie. And when the Transcripts proved they were clearly wrong they then switched to claiming EVERYTHING he said, whenever he said it, caused it....while still ignoring their criminal hypocrisy of ignoring VP Harris' actual support of / advocating Insurrection.

The Up-coming Impeachment will not investigate / cover how the Capitol Police aided violent rioters by moving barricades to give them access to the Capitol, how they stood by and did nothing to prevent the violence, and how they acted as a guide leading the rioters to politicians' offices and Chambers.

The Up-Coming Impeachment will not cover how foreign-funded Democrat-supported domestic terrorists Antifa and BLM were there, how witnesses report they instigated the initial violence and whipped people into a mob mentality riot and were in the Capitol illegally as well.

The Up-Coming Impeachment will not cover how Antifa and BLM members USED TWITTER AND FACEBOOK - not Parlor - to plan their part in the 'Insurrection'

They have Trump's videos and tweets forthe8 weeks before Biden's inauguration.. That's all the evidence they need. What does Antifa or BLM have to do with Trump's efforts to overturn the election?

I guess its true that you'll never lose money underestimating the stupidity of the American public.

If they have all the evidence they need, why hasn't he been arrested?

 

[Care4all]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

1. The ONLY object of impeachment is to remove a sitting president or "civil Officer" from office, read the Constitution. Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

I don’t know what you think you are proving with this. Would you say that a POTUS can do whatever he wants in his final weeks of office, commit any crime, without any possibility of penalty?

If any citizen commits a crime the DOJ can prosecute him for that crime, except the President, who is immune from prosecution while in-office. So to prosecute a president, first you need to impeach him to remove him from office, then he could be prosecuted just like anyone else.

The DOJ lawyers already reviewed Trump's 1/6 speech and concluded that there is nothing there that can be prosecuted. So that's that. Maybe the partisan DAs in NY or DC can trump something up, but upon appeal it would lose.

You just don't get that there is no crime for the 2nd impeachment as well as the 1st.

It was not one speech, it was weeks and months prior to the speech too.... What brought all those thugs to Washington DC.

Please give a link to the DOJ reviewing his Jan 6th speech and claiming it was nothing....

Don't expect charges against Trump or allies for inciting Capitol siege, say DOJ officials

The Justice Department does not plan on seeking incitement charges against President Trump for his actions at the rally that led up to Wednesday's attack on the Capitol.

abcnews.go.com

The speech alone could not be used for criminal charges of aiding and abetting, but that does not rule it out.... as I said, it was a hell of a lot more than his words that day... your article was written less than 2 days after the insurrection.... a lot has come out since then.

I personally am not looking forward to a criminal trial at the moment.... a censure or impeachment conviction, would be good enough for History, to show he was wrong in what he did... So no future President repeats it.

 

[easyt65]

Trump NEVER studied any issue before he issued an executive order..

Joe Biden has now signed more Executive Orders than any other President in US history (approx. 3 - 4 times as many as any other President in US history one report states) in only his 1st 9 Days in office....

...this coming from a lying POS who in October declared to Americans (while he scammed them) that 'You can't rule by Executive Order, by-passing Congress', unless you're a ' DICTATOR'.

By setting this new U.S.RECORD, Biden has proven himself to be a 'Dictator'.
Only a Dictator can destroy tens of thousands of Private-Sector jobs, Americans' lives, with a Presidential Executive Order.

The only thing that prevents Biden from truly deserving the title of 'Dictator' is the fact that he has no f*ing clue what he is doing or what he is signing. In the 1st 9 days we have seen him repeatedly mumbling, reading cue cards, and failing to intelligently try to explain what the EOs he is signing means or encompasses. He's like a trained monkey - his handlers place an 'EO' in front of him and tells him to sign it. He signs it. then he gets to go back to his quarters and have a Jello pudding cup and a nap.

 

[Care4all]

Hey Cons, would you be vigorously defending Obama, if Obama and his followers had done what the Trumper thugs did, to the Capitol and Congress Critters, and the VP and the Capitol policemen?

 

[easyt65]

The speech alone could not be used for criminal charges of aiding and abetting, but that does not rule it out....

Thank you for admitting he did not Incite an Insurrection on 6 January. NOW, look at 'Defense Evidence Exhibit A':

Before the Articles of Impeachment had even been written Pelosi was on some show giving an interview, and in that interview - on videotape - Pelosi declared the reason for the 2nd Impeachment was to eliminate Trump as a threat to the Democrat Party in 2024 and beyond.

Pelosi destroyed the Democrats' own Impeachment Case by admitting it had nothing to do with Trump falsely 'Inciting Insurrection' and everything to do with making sure he does not return in 4 years or more to potentially kick their asses again.

 

[easyt65]

Hey Cons, would you be vigorously defending Obama, if Obama and his followers had done what the Trumper thugs did, to the Capitol and Congress Critters, and the VP and the Capitol policemen?

Foreign-funded, Democrat-supported domestic terrorists Antifa and BLM have done FAR WORSE than engaging in a Capitol riot.

They have looted, burned, destroyed, assaulted, attacked police, attempted to burn federal officers alive, resulting in damage and destruction totaling HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in Democrat-run communities all over the US. They have changed communities, eliminated businesses, destroyed businesses, destroyed lives, and they continue to do so.

THAT is a threat to our nation...yet Democrats have aided them, abetted them, supplied them, defended them, protected them, cheered them on, and advocated for the violence to continue.

In Seattle Democrat leaders cheered on the domestic terrorism - looting, burning, holding city blocks and their businesses and residents 'hostage', extorting businesses, allowing citizens to die by refusing to allow 1st responders inside the illegal zone. These Democrats brought in food, port-a-potties, food, and even gave them hardened barriers to more securely fortify and hold their control on this area. City politicians called the terrorism a 'Summer of Love'. As the violence spread across the country fake news like CNN stood in front of burning buildings and scenes of looting and declared them to be 'Mostly Peaceful Protests' ... by foreign-funded terrorists who openly declared they opposed GOVERNMENT, not one party, and wanted to 'Burn It All Down'.

VP Harris declared of the 'mostly peaceful protests', "It won't stop after the election. It should not stop. WE should not stop."
- From the 'horse's mouth: THERE is your 'Insurrection'.

Snowflakes declaring her words are not evidence of her calling for an Insurrection and violence to continue are the same idiots who watched Biden brag on videotape about he extorted the previous Ukraine PM then declared...Joe didn't say that (after watching him do it) or said, 'That's not what Joe MEANT.'

 

[Mac-7]

What cheating do you think took place with Democrats and not republicans as well?

Very few republics will stoop as low as democrats

most repubs do not have criminal records and do not want one

democrats at the street level where the fraud takes place have no such inhibitions

 

[kyzr]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

Thats is such a lame argument. The object is not to remove. A penalty is removal. Another penalty is also disqualification... the object of impeachment is to hold politicians accountable for their actions.

The argument is not "lame" if you can't dispute it. Its then called a "winning argument".
Calling an argument "lame" is lame. Read the Constitution.

I just did dispute it. You need to read more than the first sentence

1. The ONLY object of impeachment is to remove a sitting president or "civil Officer" from office, read the Constitution. Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President,1 Vice President, and all federal civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

I don’t know what you think you are proving with this. Would you say that a POTUS can do whatever he wants in his final weeks of office, commit any crime, without any possibility of penalty?

If any citizen commits a crime the DOJ can prosecute him for that crime, except the President, who is immune from prosecution while in-office. So to prosecute a president, first you need to impeach him to remove him from office, then he could be prosecuted just like anyone else.

The DOJ lawyers already reviewed Trump's 1/6 speech and concluded that there is nothing there that can be prosecuted. So that's that. Maybe the partisan DAs in NY or DC can trump something up, but upon appeal it would lose.

You just don't get that there is no crime for the 2nd impeachment as well as the 1st.

It was not one speech, it was weeks and months prior to the speech too.... What brought all those thugs to Washington DC.

Please give a link to the DOJ reviewing his Jan 6th speech and claiming it was nothing....

Don't expect charges against Trump or allies for inciting Capitol siege, say DOJ officials

The Justice Department does not plan on seeking incitement charges against President Trump for his actions at the rally that led up to Wednesday's attack on the Capitol.

abcnews.go.com

The speech alone could not be used for criminal charges of aiding and abetting, but that does not rule it out.... as I said, it was a hell of a lot more than his words that day... your article was written less than 2 days after the insurrection.... a lot has come out since then.

I personally am not looking forward to a criminal trial at the moment.... a censure or impeachment conviction, would be good enough for History, to show he was wrong in what he did... So no future President repeats it.

1. Agreed, some of the goobers are trying to roll on Trump for a plea deal
2. A criminal trial is low probability, especially when Obama is sweating out the Durham investigation.
3. A censure is probably the right "punishment". Holding a DC rally was a dumb idea.
4. Impeachment conviction isn't happening, I love watching the democrats melt down and heads explode over their faux "insurrection" claims.

 

[Dana7360]

This has to be a mistake by the independent CBO, since several anonymous right-wing graduates of the prestigious law school USMB University told me that Trump cannot be convicted:

"The Constitution does not directly address whether Congress may impeach and try a former President for actions taken while in office," the six-page brief said. "Though the text is open to debate, it appears that most scholars who closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office."

PolitiFact | Walker overreaches claiming Senate can’t convict Trump after departure

It's already been done.

Defense Secretary William Bellknap. He knew he was going to be impeached so he resigned.

The congress didn't care. They impeached him in the House and the Senate voted 37-29 guilty.

He is the one and only cabinet member to have been impeached.

 

[easyt65]

Hey Cons, would you be vigorously defending Obama, if Obama and his followers had done what the Trumper thugs did, to the Capitol and Congress Critters, and the VP and the Capitol policemen?

Barry and his criminal, treasonous administration have been exposed / proven to have done FAR worse:

Intentionally using Russian Intel Service-authored propaganda delivered by a foreign ex-spy as the basis for an Un-Constitutional, illegal investigation and political coup attempt to overthrow the US govt by illegally removing a newly elected President from office.

Illegally spying on Americans, reporters, the media, US Senators, USSC Justices, opposition party candidates and their team, and a newly elected President.


The overwhelming about of evidence is irrefutable....but that doesn't stop you mentally unstable, irrational hate-driven snowflakes from trying to do so anyway.


Since Speaker Nancy Pelosi just set the legal Precedence for conducting Impeachments of US citizens / former Presidents, for his undeniable crimes (more than just mentioned), Barak Obama sould be the next one to be impeached.

 

[Circe]

Since Chief Justice Roberts refuses to preside, I'd say that effectively demolishes the legality of trying someone as president who is NOT president.

They've got a president --- let them try Joe Biden if they are so eager to impeach a prez. It's their only sensible option.

 

[Care4all]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the sitting president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial now to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

But it isn't just to remove from office, it is separately to Also decide whether the impeached person, can hold office in the future. You can be convicted and removed on 2/3s vote, then a 2nd vote, on whether to ban, from ever serving again in office, which only takes a majority vote.

An impeached person can be removed, but still be able to hold a future office....weird....but that's the case.... it is a separate vote.

Without holding the senate trial for an already impeached person, the 2nd vote, required by the constitution, on whether to bar from future office, won't have the opportunity, to be taken...is the argument.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I'm not certain on how the SC would rule, if a case ever made it there, on impeaching a president Or officer holder after they have vacated the seat.... I know it has been done before....

But in this case with Trump, he was impeached WHILE sitting in office, and not enough time for a trial before leaving office. The constitution says the Senate SHALL try those impeached....

That means the Senate, constitutionally, has to have a trial in the Senate....

The object of an impeachment trial is to remove a sitting president. Trump is not the sitting president, and can't be removed. To hold a trial now to remove Trump makes no sense.
That said, I hope that they hold the trial and it takes 2-months, then Trump gets acquitted, and runs again in 2024.

The object of an Impeachment trial is to determine whether the defendant is innocent or guilty of the charges in the Article of Impeachment.

Once found guilty they will be removed from office and possibly barred from holding office ever again.

The Constitution really says that BOTH removal from office AND disbarment should be the result of being found guilty.

However, the Senate has created rules saying that disbarment will be voted on afterwards.

 

[Care4all]

Since Chief Justice Roberts refuses to preside, I'd say that effectively demolishes the legality of trying someone as president who is NOT president.

They've got a president --- let them try Joe Biden if they are so eager to impeach a prez. It's their only sensible option.

He wasn't even asked to, from what I've read. Though Roberts let it be known HE did not have to preside over the trial, because Trump was now a former President.

The chief justice purpose, is to preside over the impeachment trial of a president, because the President of the Senate who is the vice president to the President being impeached, has a huge conflict of interest in the trial... They would become President if the current president is convicted, or conversely the VP could show favor to his President.

When out of office, there is a new president of the Senate and the conflict of being the person that would replace the President, no longer exists.... is what I've just recently read on it.

I still think justice Roberts should over see the trial....