Constitutional or not?

[Cellblock2429]

Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice.

/—-/ Another democRAT lynching.

"Lynching"??

Soooo I guess what you're saying is, sending a horde of Kool-Aid drinking gullible neckbeards to break into the main government buildings, construct a gallows, plant bombs, kill cops and shit on the floor, is the same thing as "being black" huh.

Sure you wanna plant your flag on that, Greenjeans?

And yet Pelosi and the Dem leadership were fine with Dems forcing their way in. The hypocrisy and double standards are off the scale.

...................... Huh?

/——/ Yeah, keep playing stupid. It suits you.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Besides being unConstitutional, the Senate won't have enough votes to find him guilty. But the Demtards gotta have their show trial.
Only liberal loons would think failure is somehow a victory. ...

Trump will be tried AND convicted in the liberal news media, this trial is just to set that up. That and allow Dems a media opp to spew faux rage over GOP senators who vote no.

There is a possibility it could squeak by. If so, it is worth the time. It is a political trial and does not interfer with actual criminal charges or lawsuits, so it does not limit options to send a message. We are not going to put up with dumb ass presidential demagogues sicking mobs of lawless people on government when they lose an election. It just isn't done, at least til now and we don't wish it to be repeated because it was allowed without consequences. He simply needs to be stripped of any perks or entitlements after leaving office as is deserving none, no staff (except for security) no allowance, no payments, nothing he didn't come to office with and should be banned from further participation except at the ballot box, casting is own ballot, but never holding an office of public trust as he has proven himself not to be trusted. It will be good to put all of the Senate on record to see who supports insurrection spurred by sitting elected officials and who support America, our constitution, our laws, our traditions, our free elections.

^^^ triggered left winger who seeks revenge and shits pants at the thought of facing Trump in another election. ^^^ this is what left wing fear looks like.

You support the insurrection launched against the Capital by trump. How do you justify it?

/——/ It was launched by Dementia Joe.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Besides being unConstitutional, the Senate won't have enough votes to find him guilty. But the Demtards gotta have their show trial.
Only liberal loons would think failure is somehow a victory. ...

back in 1876 the secretary of war was impeached after leaving office (William Belknap).

A core principle of the Constitution is that no one, not even the president, is above the law, and an abuse of power, by definition, is a violation of the Constitution.
The final days in office are no exception.

/—-/ Unless you’re a corrupt democRAT.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice.

/—-/ Another democRAT lynching.

"Lynching"??

Soooo I guess what you're saying is, sending a horde of Kool-Aid drinking gullible neckbeards to break into the main government buildings, construct a gallows, plant bombs, kill cops and shit on the floor, is the same thing as "being black" huh.

Sure you wanna plant your flag on that, Greenjeans?

No. He's saying democrats are the party of the KKK that lynched black people and used it as a metaphor for what they're doing today.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice.

According to Newsweek's experts,

The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president, there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved.
In 2010, when former federal Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached, Senate President Pro Tempore Daniel Inouye presided over the trial.

The article goes on to say he might not even have been asked.

I dunno, seems like splitting hairs to me and that Roberts should do it. Just because T**** is no longer President, he WAS when he was impeached, so it is still a Presidential impeachment trial. It does seem they could do better than have a senator preside from the same party bringing the impeachment. Hopefully, Leahy will be impartial, but you know it is going to cause endless whining and screeching.

I guess we're going to have to live with it.

The fate of republics. Apathetic decisions to just "live with it" are why we have to live with it.

 

[Pogo]

Romney
Collins
McConnell
Toomey
Murkowski
Rubio
Wicker
Daines
Grassley
Moran
Blunt
Burr
Hoeven
Lankford
Thune

Those are the likely votes for conviction. Rubio will seek the GOP establishment embrace rather than the "revolutionary" Trumpy one, especially with noise about Vanky challenging him in 2022. But only if Mitch leads the way.

McConnell is obviously the key. If he votes to convict it allows Grassley, Wicker, and some of the other old guard, near-retirement Republicans who know that Trump is a dangerous fraud.

I dunno about Burr -- although he is calling it quits -- but you could add Sasse. Maybe Capito...

 

[Pogo]

Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice.

/—-/ Another democRAT lynching.

"Lynching"??

Soooo I guess what you're saying is, sending a horde of Kool-Aid drinking gullible neckbeards to break into the main government buildings, construct a gallows, plant bombs, kill cops and shit on the floor, is the same thing as "being black" huh.

Sure you wanna plant your flag on that, Greenjeans?

No. He's saying democrats [sic] are the party of the KKK that lynched black people and used it as a metaphor for what they're doing today.

The KKK never had a party, and if it had had one it would be spelled with a capital letter as a proper name. No lynching ever had a 'party' either. I don't know how it works on your planet but nobody ever checked voter registrations at a lynching, NOR are all people put into your convenient bags because you can't think past the number two. Don't sit here and post bullshit, you WILL get called on it.

It IS however most illustrative that the poster wants to invoke an Appeal to Emotion for the purpose of letting sedition off the hook. Apparently he thinks any consequences for sending a mob to plunder, assault, destroy, bomb and shit on the floor, constitutes "lynching". Which tells us a great deal about his values, and as a white knight, a great deal about yours. Wear them proudly.

 

[Pogo]

Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice.

According to Newsweek's experts,

The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president, there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved.
In 2010, when former federal Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached, Senate President Pro Tempore Daniel Inouye presided over the trial.

The article goes on to say he might not even have been asked.

I dunno, seems like splitting hairs to me and that Roberts should do it. Just because T**** is no longer President, he WAS when he was impeached, so it is still a Presidential impeachment trial. It does seem they could do better than have a senator preside from the same party bringing the impeachment. Hopefully, Leahy will be impartial, but you know it is going to cause endless whining and screeching.

I guess we're going to have to live with it.

Fact Check: Did Chief Justice Roberts Refuse to Preside Over Trump's Trial?

Donald Trump's first impeachment trial, which concluded in early 2020, was presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts. Trump's unprecedented second impeachment trial will be presided over by Patrick Leahy (D- Vt.), the Senate President pro tempore.

www.newsweek.com

Fully agree. Roberts is letting himself off on a technicality,

This of course opens a door to future doubt about whether the trial after it's over will have been 'legitimate' without the CJ. And that will come from the same yahoos bleating right now about "waah, let Rump get away with sedition, waaah". They'll cling to it like a barnacle.

 

[Pogo]

Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice.

/—-/ Another democRAT lynching.

"Lynching"??

Soooo I guess what you're saying is, sending a horde of Kool-Aid drinking gullible neckbeards to break into the main government buildings, construct a gallows, plant bombs, kill cops and shit on the floor, is the same thing as "being black" huh.

Sure you wanna plant your flag on that, Greenjeans?

And yet Pelosi and the Dem leadership were fine with Dems forcing their way in. The hypocrisy and double standards are off the scale.

...................... Huh?

/——/ Yeah, keep playing stupid. It suits you.

I didn't write the post. The cryptic note bleats something about "Pelosi and the Dem leadership were fine with Dems forcing their way in". We have no idea what the fuck he's bleating about, because he didn't bother to explain. Presumably he's trying to tell us Nancy Pelosi, simultaneous with presiding on the House floor, sneaked outside to incite a mob to come in and trash the place. Makes no sense at all.

 

[Pogo]

Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice.

According to Newsweek's experts,

The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president, there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved.
In 2010, when former federal Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached, Senate President Pro Tempore Daniel Inouye presided over the trial.

The article goes on to say he might not even have been asked.

I dunno, seems like splitting hairs to me and that Roberts should do it. Just because T**** is no longer President, he WAS when he was impeached, so it is still a Presidential impeachment trial. It does seem they could do better than have a senator preside from the same party bringing the impeachment. Hopefully, Leahy will be impartial, but you know it is going to cause endless whining and screeching.

I guess we're going to have to live with it.

The fate of republics. Apathetic decisions to just "live with it" are why we have to live with it.

--- which is exactly why the act of inciting insurrectionists to sack the Capitol, kill police, conspire to hang public officials, plant bombs and shit on the fuckin' floor, deserve a response.

Whelp ----- here it is.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice.

According to Newsweek's experts,

The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president, there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved.
In 2010, when former federal Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached, Senate President Pro Tempore Daniel Inouye presided over the trial.

The article goes on to say he might not even have been asked.

I dunno, seems like splitting hairs to me and that Roberts should do it. Just because T**** is no longer President, he WAS when he was impeached, so it is still a Presidential impeachment trial. It does seem they could do better than have a senator preside from the same party bringing the impeachment. Hopefully, Leahy will be impartial, but you know it is going to cause endless whining and screeching.

I guess we're going to have to live with it.

The fate of republics. Apathetic decisions to just "live with it" are why we have to live with it.

--- which is exactly why the act of inciting insurrectionists to sack the Capitol, kill police, conspire to hang public officials, plant bombs and shit on the fuckin' floor, deserve a response.

Whelp ----- here it is.

Well, you'll have your kangaroo trial. Let's see what happens.

 

[White 6]

Besides being unConstitutional, the Senate won't have enough votes to find him guilty. But the Demtards gotta have their show trial.
Only liberal loons would think failure is somehow a victory. ...

Trump will be tried AND convicted in the liberal news media, this trial is just to set that up. That and allow Dems a media opp to spew faux rage over GOP senators who vote no.

There is a possibility it could squeak by. If so, it is worth the time. It is a political trial and does not interfer with actual criminal charges or lawsuits, so it does not limit options to send a message. We are not going to put up with dumb ass presidential demagogues sicking mobs of lawless people on government when they lose an election. It just isn't done, at least til now and we don't wish it to be repeated because it was allowed without consequences. He simply needs to be stripped of any perks or entitlements after leaving office as is deserving none, no staff (except for security) no allowance, no payments, nothing he didn't come to office with and should be banned from further participation except at the ballot box, casting is own ballot, but never holding an office of public trust as he has proven himself not to be trusted. It will be good to put all of the Senate on record to see who supports insurrection spurred by sitting elected officials and who support America, our constitution, our laws, our traditions, our free elections.

^^^ triggered left winger who seeks revenge and shits pants at the thought of facing Trump in another election. ^^^ this is what left wing fear looks like.

You support the insurrection launched against the Capital by trump. How do you justify it?

/——/ It was launched by Dementia Joe.

You are just another damn liar.

 

[TNHarley]

Read it yourself
"judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

 

[Cellblock2429]

Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice.

According to Newsweek's experts,

The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president, there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved.
In 2010, when former federal Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached, Senate President Pro Tempore Daniel Inouye presided over the trial.

The article goes on to say he might not even have been asked.

I dunno, seems like splitting hairs to me and that Roberts should do it. Just because T**** is no longer President, he WAS when he was impeached, so it is still a Presidential impeachment trial. It does seem they could do better than have a senator preside from the same party bringing the impeachment. Hopefully, Leahy will be impartial, but you know it is going to cause endless whining and screeching.

I guess we're going to have to live with it.

Fact Check: Did Chief Justice Roberts Refuse to Preside Over Trump's Trial?

Donald Trump's first impeachment trial, which concluded in early 2020, was presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts. Trump's unprecedented second impeachment trial will be presided over by Patrick Leahy (D- Vt.), the Senate President pro tempore.

www.newsweek.com

Fully agree. Roberts is letting himself off on a technicality,

This of course opens a door to future doubt about whether the trial after it's over will have been 'legitimate' without the CJ. And that will come from the same yahoos bleating right now about "waah, let Rump get away with sedition, waaah". They'll cling to it like a barnacle.

/——/ DemocRATs love their kangaroo courts and lynchings.

 

[Pogo]

Read it yourself
"judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Bolded the wrong part, Hawley. Here ya go:

"judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

There, all fixed.

That'll be $364.82

 

[Pogo]

Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice.

According to Newsweek's experts,

The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president, there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved.
In 2010, when former federal Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached, Senate President Pro Tempore Daniel Inouye presided over the trial.

The article goes on to say he might not even have been asked.

I dunno, seems like splitting hairs to me and that Roberts should do it. Just because T**** is no longer President, he WAS when he was impeached, so it is still a Presidential impeachment trial. It does seem they could do better than have a senator preside from the same party bringing the impeachment. Hopefully, Leahy will be impartial, but you know it is going to cause endless whining and screeching.

I guess we're going to have to live with it.

Fact Check: Did Chief Justice Roberts Refuse to Preside Over Trump's Trial?

Donald Trump's first impeachment trial, which concluded in early 2020, was presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts. Trump's unprecedented second impeachment trial will be presided over by Patrick Leahy (D- Vt.), the Senate President pro tempore.

www.newsweek.com

Fully agree. Roberts is letting himself off on a technicality,

This of course opens a door to future doubt about whether the trial after it's over will have been 'legitimate' without the CJ. And that will come from the same yahoos bleating right now about "waah, let Rump get away with sedition, waaah". They'll cling to it like a barnacle.

/——/ DemocRATs love their kangaroo courts and lynchings.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand there it is again. You're actually sitting on the internet trying to make the case that storming the main government building, breaking in, assaulting police, planting bombs, fashioning nooses, hunting humans for hanging and/or taking prisoner, and shitting on the floor not only equates to "being black" but should simply be I dunno, "ignored" or even "applauded". That there should be no consequences for storming the main government building, breaking in, assaulting/killing police, planting bombs, fashioning nooses, hunting humans for hanging and/or taking prisoner, and shitting on the floor.

Good to know where you stand.

 

[TNHarley]

Read it yourself
"judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Bolded the wrong part, Hawley. Here ya go:

"judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

There, all fixed.

That'll be $364.82

no i didnt.

 

[Pogo]

Read it yourself
"judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Bolded the wrong part, Hawley. Here ya go:

"judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

There, all fixed.

That'll be $364.82

no i didnt.

So you don't pay your bills, is that what we're sayin'?

 

[SC Patriot]

Well a Dem senator who has already called to convict Trump will now preside over the trial instead of the chief justice.

/—-/ Another democRAT lynching.

"Lynching"??

Soooo I guess what you're saying is, sending a horde of Kool-Aid drinking gullible neckbeards to break into the main government buildings, construct a gallows, plant bombs, kill cops and shit on the floor, is the same thing as "being black" huh.

Sure you wanna plant your flag on that, Greenjeans?

Grow up child.

 

[MadDog]

And since Trump is no longer President, the Senate can not legally try him. To hold a trial, Roberts HAS to preside. Dems are trying to play the “we impeached him as President but are trying him as a citizen” bullshit. Won’t fly. You don’t get to cherry pick which parts to enforce. Thanks for playing, take your lousy copy of the home game and lose again.

Let’s see if you can answer a simple question: If it’s unconstitutional for the Senate to try Trump, why hasn’t he challenged it before the Supreme Court?

Failure to file suit is a clear concession on Trump’s part that the trial is Constitutional.


YOUR legal arguments hardly matter but, hey, maybe Trump’s lawyers haven’t thought of your argument. Maybe you should write them and offer your ideas.