Justice Roberts says what?

[BS Filter]

According to the Constitution, the chief justice doesn't have a choice....

If there is an impeachment trial, he must preside over it

And if he doesent are you going to impeach the the chief justice too?

Here is why you goofy ass Trumpers are so pathetic...

On this very post you idiots go on and on about how Roberts is a Deep State traitor, blah blah - because he didn't do what you want him to do...

And yet, here you are saying "Wait you will see...Roberts is going to do exactly what I want him to do!!"

And when it doesn't happen....again.....due to Constitutional constraints......

Yall will revert right back to calling him RINOS, traitors, etc

It's not about what we want him to do. It's about how Roberts interprets the Constitution.

Yea, and he can easily say he shouldn't preside because Trump is no longer a sitting president....

I am sure you Trumpers are perfectly ok with Kamala presiding.....it plays in perfectly to your victim-hood fetish

Nope. She isn't going to preside over a trial of Trump. What are you smoking?

Why not??

Trump being convicted wouldn't result in Kamala being president...

That was the conflict of interest the framers were talking about...

Unconstitutional. Roberts is the only one who can preside over the impeachment of a President, and Trump isn't in office. Enjoy your dream.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The impeachment trial process is to remove a sitting president.
Trump is no longer a sitting president, he's a private citizen.
Yes, this really could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Anyone wonder why they didn't impeach Nixon once he resigned????

You folks are pathetic.......

Pathetic is the look on Nancys goons faces walking the article of impeachment to the Senate, and being redirected to the Dead Letter Office.

Show me where in the Constitution does it give the Chief Justice a choice??

I'll wait

Show me where he is required to appear for the impeachment for a non president.

Rump was still in office on January 13 --- when he was impeached.

Impeachment is a FACT. It's done. What lies ahead is the TRIAL of that impeachment. The article is not going to change after January 13; it's writ in stone. THAT is what gets tried, not anything after then. In an impeachment trial you're trying what happened in the PAST. Andrew Johnson having replaced Stanton with Grant. Bill Clinton having gotten a hummer. Doornail Rump having shaked down Ukraine. All events completed in the PAST, not the PRESENT.

Impeachment is a FACT. It's done.

Yes, it is.

the discussion is about Roberts not attending the Senate trial, because Trump has already been removed by the voters.

The Chief Justice only sits on impeachments of SITTING presidents.

Uh HUH. If you could, y'know go ahead and show the class where the Constitution says that, that'd be great.

Of course, if the CJ doesn't do it, then the next Constitutional officer to do it would be either Kamala Harris or Patrick Leahy.

Whatever.... all this shit is what Rumpbots voted for. The chickens called, they said get the roost ready, they'll be here shortly.

Oh yeah, put a Democrat as presiding judge. Good idea. How do you think that's gonna turn out?

Ask the Constitution.......it doesn't specify what party the presiding official has to belong to......you don't want the Chief Justice to do it, then the next in line is the VP

Where does the Constitution say that?

Well, since Trump isn't president -- treat it like you treat an impeachment trial of a former elected or appointed official -- the same as we managed to do with former judges and cabinet holders....

The amount of hoops and shit you people jump thru to defend all things Trump is amazing......

And don't say shit to me about unconstitutional -- when you dic suckers were cheerleading an insurrection because your cult leader's VP wouldn't do something unconstitutional....

You fascists have a hard time wrapping yourself up in the Constitution

 

[BS Filter]

The impeachment trial process is to remove a sitting president.
Trump is no longer a sitting president, he's a private citizen.
Yes, this really could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Anyone wonder why they didn't impeach Nixon once he resigned????

You folks are pathetic.......

Pathetic is the look on Nancys goons faces walking the article of impeachment to the Senate, and being redirected to the Dead Letter Office.

Show me where in the Constitution does it give the Chief Justice a choice??

I'll wait

Show me where he is required to appear for the impeachment for a non president.

Rump was still in office on January 13 --- when he was impeached.

Impeachment is a FACT. It's done. What lies ahead is the TRIAL of that impeachment. The article is not going to change after January 13; it's writ in stone. THAT is what gets tried, not anything after then. In an impeachment trial you're trying what happened in the PAST. Andrew Johnson having replaced Stanton with Grant. Bill Clinton having gotten a hummer. Doornail Rump having shaked down Ukraine. All events completed in the PAST, not the PRESENT.

Impeachment is a FACT. It's done.

Yes, it is.

the discussion is about Roberts not attending the Senate trial, because Trump has already been removed by the voters.

The Chief Justice only sits on impeachments of SITTING presidents.

Uh HUH. If you could, y'know go ahead and show the class where the Constitution says that, that'd be great.

Of course, if the CJ doesn't do it, then the next Constitutional officer to do it would be either Kamala Harris or Patrick Leahy.

Whatever.... all this shit is what Rumpbots voted for. The chickens called, they said get the roost ready, they'll be here shortly.

Oh yeah, put a Democrat as presiding judge. Good idea. How do you think that's gonna turn out?

Ask the Constitution.......it doesn't specify what party the presiding official has to belong to......you don't want the Chief Justice to do it, then the next in line is the VP

Where does the Constitution say that?

Well, since Trump isn't president -- treat it like you treat an impeachment trial of a former elected or appointed official -- the same as we managed to do with former judges and cabinet holders....

The amount of hoops and and shit you people jump thru to defend all things Trump is amazing......

Yeah, go ahead and put a Democrat as presiding judge. You must be smoking some good shit.

 

[Dadoalex]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

Perhaps you could do some research into the impeachment of Alcee Hastings.

Since Trump is no longer president the Senate has great flexibility on how to conduct the trial and who will sit a the "judge."

 

[Pogo]

The impeachment trial process is to remove a sitting president.
Trump is no longer a sitting president, he's a private citizen.
Yes, this really could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Anyone wonder why they didn't impeach Nixon once he resigned????

You folks are pathetic.......

Pathetic is the look on Nancys goons faces walking the article of impeachment to the Senate, and being redirected to the Dead Letter Office.

Show me where in the Constitution does it give the Chief Justice a choice??

I'll wait

Show me where he is required to appear for the impeachment for a non president.

Rump was still in office on January 13 --- when he was impeached.

Impeachment is a FACT. It's done. What lies ahead is the TRIAL of that impeachment. The article is not going to change after January 13; it's writ in stone. THAT is what gets tried, not anything after then. In an impeachment trial you're trying what happened in the PAST. Andrew Johnson having replaced Stanton with Grant. Bill Clinton having gotten a hummer. Doornail Rump having shaked down Ukraine. All events completed in the PAST, not the PRESENT.

Impeachment is a FACT. It's done.

Yes, it is.

the discussion is about Roberts not attending the Senate trial, because Trump has already been removed by the voters.

The Chief Justice only sits on impeachments of SITTING presidents.

Uh HUH. If you could, y'know go ahead and show the class where the Constitution says that, that'd be great.

Of course, if the CJ doesn't do it, then the next Constitutional officer to do it would be either Kamala Harris or Patrick Leahy.

Whatever.... all this shit is what Rumpbots voted for. The chickens called, they said get the roost ready, they'll be here shortly.

Of course, if the CJ doesn't do it, then the next Constitutional officer to do it would be either Kamala Harris or Patrick Leahy.

according to who?

Why, your own OP link says that.

>> Historically, either the vice president or the longest-serving member of the Senate have taken up the mantle for lower-level impeachments, per Politico. That means Vice President-elect Kamala Harris or Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) could be the choice.<<​

.​

Leahy is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the next-highest rank after the VP. If both Roberts and Harris recuse themselves it would be he.

 

[Care4all]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

From your linked article's original source, Politico...because this trial is not of a sitting president, but ex president, he does not have to be the one presiding over the impeachment according to the Constitution.... it can be someone like the President of the Senate, VP Harris, or longest Served Senator, Leahy.....

POLITICO Playbook: The Washington Trump leaves behind

And John Roberts tries to wriggle out of the Senate impeachment trial.

www.politico.com

JOHN ROBERTS WANTS OUT OF JURY DUTY: Multiple Republican and Democratic sources close to the impeachment trial negotiations tell us that Supreme Court Chief Justice JOHN ROBERTS is looking to avoid presiding over impeachment proceedings.

We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. “He wants no further part of this,” one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment when our Josh Gerstein reached out.

The Constitution delegates the chief justice to oversee impeachments of presidents, but this time around Trump will be an ex-president. That’s why lawmakers and aides were talking through the weekend about two other figures who historically have presided over lower-level impeachments: the vice president and the longest-serving member of the chamber. But would KAMALA HARRIS really want to do this in her first week on the job? If not, Sen. PATRICK LEAHY (D-Vt.) could be the guy.

Typical Democrats, making it up as they go along. How can you Constitutionality impeach and convict a person who is no longer in office?

First, he was impeached while in office, the trial two weeks after he left office.

But to answer your question, there is precedent.... President Grant's Secretary of War, William Belknap, was impeached AFTER he no longer held the office, and was tried by the Senate about 3 weeks after he had been impeached and no longer held office.

In addition, the 14th Amendment States anyone involved in an attempted insurrection shall no longer be eligible to hold any future office... but no means is given on how to do such.... one option is through impeachment, the other through criminal insurrection charges....

The impeachment trial per the constitution involves two votes by the Senators...

One VOTE is to convict him of the articles of impeachment, which takes 2/3rds of the Senators,

The second VOTE, is for Senators to keep the office holder from ever holding g an office holder position again, which only requires a majority vote.

In order to achieve the second constitutional requirement of voting to never allow them to hold office again, a trial in the Senate, has to take place... So a person no longer holding office when an impeachment trial takes place to essentially remove them from office...does stop the trial from taking place, because the second impeachment vote required, still has to be done, to complete the Senate trial process.

President Grant's Secretary of War, William Belknap, was impeached AFTER he no longer held the office,

Oddly, considering William Belnap was never president, your precedent is doesnt' fit.

Why wouldn't it fit?

The constitution on impeachment, has President, Vice president, and Office holders, ALL in the same sentence.... it doesn't separate them.

 

[Concerned American]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

The impeachment trial process is to remove a sitting president.
Trump is no longer a sitting president, he's a private citizen.
Yes, this really could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Anyone wonder why they didn't impeach Nixon once he resigned????

Because he already couldn't run again. There was nothing to gain.

 

[Meister]

The left is acting like they already have enough of the Senate vote to convict....well, ya don't.
And, you aren't going to.
I do feel sorry for Roberts having to be part of the sham.

 

[Concerned American]

The impeachment trial process is to remove a sitting president.
Trump is no longer a sitting president, he's a private citizen.
Yes, this really could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Anyone wonder why they didn't impeach Nixon once he resigned????

You folks are pathetic.......

Pathetic is the look on Nancys goons faces walking the article of impeachment to the Senate, and being redirected to the Dead Letter Office.

Show me where in the Constitution does it give the Chief Justice a choice??

I'll wait

Show me where he is required to appear for the impeachment for a non president.

Rump was still in office on January 13 --- when he was impeached.

Impeachment is a FACT. It's done. What lies ahead is the TRIAL of that impeachment. The article is not going to change after January 13; it's writ in stone. THAT is what gets tried, not anything after then. In an impeachment trial you're trying what happened in the PAST. Andrew Johnson having replaced Stanton with Grant. Bill Clinton having gotten a hummer. Doornail Rump having shaked down Ukraine. All events completed in the PAST, not the PRESENT.

Impeachment is a FACT. It's done.

Yes, it is.

the discussion is about Roberts not attending the Senate trial, because Trump has already been removed by the voters.

The Chief Justice only sits on impeachments of SITTING presidents.

Uh HUH. If you could, y'know go ahead and show the class where the Constitution says that, that'd be great.

Of course, if the CJ doesn't do it, then the next Constitutional officer to do it would be either Kamala Harris or Patrick Leahy.

Whatever.... all this shit is what Rumpbots voted for. The chickens called, they said get the roost ready, they'll be here shortly.

Of course, if the CJ doesn't do it, then the next Constitutional officer to do it would be either Kamala Harris or Patrick Leahy.

according to who?

Why, your own OP link says that.

>> Historically, either the vice president or the longest-serving member of the Senate have taken up the mantle for lower-level impeachments, per Politico. That means Vice President-elect Kamala Harris or Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) could be the choice.<<​

.​

Leahy is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the next-highest rank after the VP. If both Roberts and Harris recuse themselves it would be he.

That's pretty good--per Politico. BS Link that does not address the topic at all. What impeachments did they cite? Linkie?

 

[Pogo]

The impeachment trial process is to remove a sitting president.
Trump is no longer a sitting president, he's a private citizen.
Yes, this really could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Anyone wonder why they didn't impeach Nixon once he resigned????

You folks are pathetic.......

Pathetic is the look on Nancys goons faces walking the article of impeachment to the Senate, and being redirected to the Dead Letter Office.

Show me where in the Constitution does it give the Chief Justice a choice??

I'll wait

Show me where he is required to appear for the impeachment for a non president.

Rump was still in office on January 13 --- when he was impeached.

Impeachment is a FACT. It's done. What lies ahead is the TRIAL of that impeachment. The article is not going to change after January 13; it's writ in stone. THAT is what gets tried, not anything after then. In an impeachment trial you're trying what happened in the PAST. Andrew Johnson having replaced Stanton with Grant. Bill Clinton having gotten a hummer. Doornail Rump having shaked down Ukraine. All events completed in the PAST, not the PRESENT.

Impeachment is a FACT. It's done.

Yes, it is.

the discussion is about Roberts not attending the Senate trial, because Trump has already been removed by the voters.

The Chief Justice only sits on impeachments of SITTING presidents.

Uh HUH. If you could, y'know go ahead and show the class where the Constitution says that, that'd be great.

Of course, if the CJ doesn't do it, then the next Constitutional officer to do it would be either Kamala Harris or Patrick Leahy.

Whatever.... all this shit is what Rumpbots voted for. The chickens called, they said get the roost ready, they'll be here shortly.

Oh yeah, put a Democrat as presiding judge. Good idea. How do you think that's gonna turn out?

Ask the Constitution.......it doesn't specify what party the presiding official has to belong to......you don't want the Chief Justice to do it, then the next in line is the VP

Where does the Constitution say that?

Well, since Trump isn't president -- treat it like you treat an impeachment trial of a former elected or appointed official -- the same as we managed to do with former judges and cabinet holders....

The amount of hoops and shit you people jump thru to defend all things Trump is amazing......

And don't say shit to me about unconstitutional -- when you dic suckers were cheerleading an insurrection because your cult leader's VP wouldn't do something unconstitutional....

You fascists have a hard time wrapping yourself up in the Constitution

It is quite the acrobatic gyration though, to wrap oneself in the flag while simultaneously pissing on it.

It prolly doesn't get any more ironical that a yahoo using the American flag to beat a guard protecting the US Capitol....

​

But ------ "get those sumbitch football players off the field" right.... SMH

 

[Pogo]

The left is acting like they already have enough of the Senate vote to convict....well, ya don't.
And, you aren't going to.
I do feel sorry for Roberts having to be part of the sham.

"The left".

Still flailing in desperation.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Too little too late.

In my book, Roberts is a piece of shit.

I think the rumors about him are true

Absolutely they are.

He is a pedophile like most of them.

Why does anyone on this message board think Roberts is a pedophile? Got any evidence?

 

[Meister]

The left is acting like they already have enough of the Senate vote to convict....well, ya don't.
And, you aren't going to.
I do feel sorry for Roberts having to be part of the sham.

"The left".

Still flailing in desperation.

I should have said your tribe, clown.
And, you can't argue that your tribe does not have the votes in the Senate. So keep flailing.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

Perhaps you could do some research into the impeachment of Alcee Hastings.

Since Trump is no longer president the Senate has great flexibility on how to conduct the trial and who will sit a the "judge."

What about Hastings? He was impeached and removed. Then he ran for and was elected to Congress. How is that relevant?

 

[Pogo]

The left is acting like they already have enough of the Senate vote to convict....well, ya don't.
And, you aren't going to.
I do feel sorry for Roberts having to be part of the sham.

"The left".

Still flailing in desperation.

I should have said your tribe, clown.
And, you can't argue that your tribe does not have the votes in the Senate. So keep flailing.

The number of votes in the Senate has yet to be established, crystal-ball boi.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

“Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial”

Too bad.

He needs to put on his big boy robes and do his job.

He’s otherwise at liberty to resign.

He is to preside at the trial of a President. Are you going to impeach Biden so he has a valid reason to have a trial?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You see what you want to see, Pogo/troll. I read the words from Trump, and not seeing what you and yours are seeing.
If he wanted a riot, he would have stated just that, he didn't. He was speaking how he felt about the election and the process.
That is not inciting a riot. And, what they've learned about the participants of the actual riot, tends to lean toward
the professional agitators like we've seen last summer with the mostly peaceful protests.

I find it odd how there have been all these hundreds, if not thousands of accusations here that he incited a riot, yet not so much as one single leftist hack can quote his words that actually did so. It's always "well, people say he did", or "Everybody knows he did" or some such.

I worry for our country when so many mindless partisans do not even ask one simple question -- "is this true". These true believers simply do not care. All they know is that all their little mates would kick them out of the club if they DID ask that question.

Mitch McConnell states that Trump is at fault for what happened that day and let me be clear if you believe Mitch McConnell is a leftist hack then you are nuts!

Fact is Trump didn’t do much before or during the assault on the Capitol and afterwards when he realized manyRepublicans were pissed he issued a statement, and even then his comments were wrong for the moment!!

Finally, those believing the Senate Trial is the Impeachment phase need to brush up on their U.S. Government courses and let be clear if the Senate does Convict this is no longer a leftist thing but a bipartisan thing where enough Senators from both sides said Trump was guilty!

Now with that written I will warn that if Trump is convicted it will be tossed by the USSC because is not a sitting President and he has left office...

Thank you for confirming that none of the leftist hacks here are capable of anything more than "but people say so".

Thank you for confirming that you are unable to understand the difference between the Impeachment in the House and the Senate Trial.

And

Thank you for showing the board how you believe the Democrats are the only ones wanting to punish Trump and those like you for your insurrection against the U.S. Government when it is clear many Republicans from McConnell to Cheney want some sort of punishment!

Isn’t it amazing anyone that does not drink Trump bath water must be a RINO or Leftist whore in the mind of someone like you when in fact Trump was best friends with Clinton and major donor for the Democrats for decades, so which one of us is the true leftist whore here and remember you are the one crying over Trump and not me!

Cheney is in the HOUSE! She doesn't get to decide. She already showed her ass and will probably suffer for it.

 

[Meister]

The left is acting like they already have enough of the Senate vote to convict....well, ya don't.
And, you aren't going to.
I do feel sorry for Roberts having to be part of the sham.

"The left".

Still flailing in desperation.

I should have said your tribe, clown.
And, you can't argue that your tribe does not have the votes in the Senate. So keep flailing.

The number of votes in the Senate has yet to be established, crystal-ball boi.

Your tribe will not get 17 republicans to go along with the sham, clown.
Take that to the bank, you heard it here first.

 

[miketx]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

Hopefully shove up pelosi's ass until she chokes on it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial (yahoo.com)

" Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. "

Gee, what's Schumer going to do with his 'erection' now?

Roberts has lost it. He's become erratic and indecisive. Time for him to step down

In all fairness, I think GWB should be impeached for nominating this perverted dipshit.

How is he perverted?