Justice Roberts says what?

[Pogo]

what makes it even funnier is -- Trumpers will also whine if Kamala Harris presided over the impeachment trial....

The constitution appointed the chief justice for the purpose of avoiding a conflict of interest......


But according the logic of you Trumpers -- if Trump is no longer president; there is no conflict of interest right?? It isn't like Kamala will be president if Trump is convicted or anything

What makes you think she can do that? You have still not explained yourself.

Does no one read the thread before they post?

See the same question answered in post 158, quoted from the OP.

 

[kyzr]

.....as USUAL, more time and American tax payer $$$$$$ WASTED on crap
.....the Capitol/etc NEEDS to be invaded and those jackasses hit with frying pans!!!!!!!!!!!!
......so much bullshit waste
......remember the MLB steroid hearings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

Like 11 Benghazi investigations to come up with.....ZIP?

MAGA

Zip? The Benghazi investigations came up with plenty. Obama and Hillary fucked that pooch in the caboose. They did not want to admit that Obama had not stopped terrorism during his reelection campaign.

As long as we are going off topic...You know what came up with ZIP? Mueller.

WTF is your point on the SECOND Impeachment clown show????????

I am glad that ewe like your God/King trying to overthrow our government!!!

MAGA

Govt is the lib god. Thats all they have.

tRump is yours!

MAGA

I supported him. I don't nor will I ever support Rs or Ds who have been destroying this country for decades.

Exactly. The oligarchs buy politicains, and then make $billions outsourcing jobs, and importing products that undercut US products. Trump upset the applecart with his "populist-America First" agenda.

That was all window dressing. Trump was in on the importing or at least the branding of imported products, as much as anyone. Look behind the curtain; he's been laughing at you.

Either show me a few links to backup your bullshit or I'm laughing at you.

Please remember that the FBI is investigating the Biden's money-laundering scams.
The Bidens got $millions from Burisma in Ukraine
The Bidens got a cool $1,500,000,000 from China to "invest"
You can google any of these and get tons of links

p.s. don't forget Hunter's laptop, the emails, and the 1st hand whistleblower

p.s. I don't know Q? That must be for goobers only.

You don't know Q? You must be a RINO.

All I know are Trump's "promises kept", and that Xiden is hurting America with his moronic policies.

Donald J. Trump for President

Help continue our promise to Make America Great Again!

www.donaldjtrump.com

 

[Care4all]

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

then the next in line is the VP

Says who?

Senate Rules

Who presides over impeachment trial if Trump is out of office?

The answer is subject to interpretation.

www.syracuse.com

By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Constitution says the chief justice is to preside at the impeachment trial of a president. But what about an ex-president?

Like so much else about the Constitution, the answer is subject to interpretation.

If President Donald Trump’s trial begins after Jan. 20, it’s not clear whether Chief Justice John Roberts would make his way to the Senate chamber as he did last year for Trump’s first trial.


Impeachment scholars, law professors and political scientists offer differing views.

The choices appear to be Roberts, Kamala Harris, who by then will be vice president, or Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who will be the Senate’s president pro tem once the Democrats gain control of the Senate.

The issue is “unsettled, completely without precedent, and unspecific in existing Senate rules and precedents,” Princeton University political scientist Keith Whittington wrote in an email.

One reason that the Constitution specifies the chief justice to run the president’s trial is that the person who otherwise presides over the Senate is the vice president — the very person who would assume the presidency if the chief executive is convicted. That’s a bit unseemly....

 

[WillHaftawaite]

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

then the next in line is the VP

Says who?

Are you just gonna Peewee Herman this question and punt every time? This was already asked and answered, from your own OP link.

Historically, either the vice president or the longest-serving member of the Senate have taken up the mantle for lower-level impeachments,

the office of president is 'lower level'?

How many straws have you grasped so far?

 

[TheGreatSatan]

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?

He hung out with Epstein and flew on his plane.

 

[WillHaftawaite]

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

then the next in line is the VP

Says who?

Senate Rules

Who presides over impeachment trial if Trump is out of office?

The answer is subject to interpretation.

www.syracuse.com

By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Constitution says the chief justice is to preside at the impeachment trial of a president. But what about an ex-president?

Like so much else about the Constitution, the answer is subject to interpretation.

If President Donald Trump’s trial begins after Jan. 20, it’s not clear whether Chief Justice John Roberts would make his way to the Senate chamber as he did last year for Trump’s first trial.


Impeachment scholars, law professors and political scientists offer differing views.

The choices appear to be Roberts, Kamala Harris, who by then will be vice president, or Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who will be the Senate’s president pro tem once the Democrats gain control of the Senate.

The issue is “unsettled, completely without precedent, and unspecific in existing Senate rules and precedents,” Princeton University political scientist Keith Whittington wrote in an email.

One reason that the Constitution specifies the chief justice to run the president’s trial is that the person who otherwise presides over the Senate is the vice president — the very person who would assume the presidency if the chief executive is convicted. That’s a bit unseemly....

Impeachment scholars, law professors and political scientists offer differing views.

and, as we have seen, so do people on this board.

 

[wamose]

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?

I'm assuming his ties to Epstein Island are true. Maybe it's his smirk that annoys me. The dude just seems to need a smack.

 

[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

then the next in line is the VP

Says who?

Are you just gonna Peewee Herman this question and punt every time? This was already asked and answered, from your own OP link.

Historically, either the vice president or the longest-serving member of the Senate have taken up the mantle for lower-level impeachments,

the office of president is 'lower level'?

How many straws have you grasped so far?

The "office" of FORMER President is. Y'all keep pointing that out.

 

[Pogo]

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?

I'm assuming his ties to Epstein Island are true. Maybe it's his smirk that annoys me. The dude just seems to need a smack.

Oh, yamean like this guy?

 

[TheGreatSatan]

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?

I'm assuming his ties to Epstein Island are true. Maybe it's his smirk that annoys me. The dude just seems to need a smack.

Oh, yamean like this guy?

Democrats have a thing for attacking children.

 

[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?

He hung out with Epstein and flew on his plane.

Got any proof of that? Where are the pics? If you are talking about the flight log, how do you knw it wasn't Fox News reporter John Roberts?

Chief Justice Roberts is a DC guy and has been since Reagan was President.. Why would he know Epstein, who was a NY mogul?

 

[wamose]

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?

I'm assuming his ties to Epstein Island are true. Maybe it's his smirk that annoys me. The dude just seems to need a smack.

Oh, yamean like this guy?

Come on Qdog. If you want to play this game at least try to make sense.

 

[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?

I'm assuming his ties to Epstein Island are true. Maybe it's his smirk that annoys me. The dude just seems to need a smack.

That's a big assumption based on zero information?

 

[TheGreatSatan]

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?

He hung out with Epstein and flew on his plane.

Got any proof of that? Where are the pics? If you are talking about the flight log, how do you knw it wasn't Fox News reporter John Roberts?

Chief Justice Roberts is a DC guy and has been since Reagan was President.. Why would he know Epstein, who was a NY mogul?

The fact chinacrats are here trying to cast doubt on the Roberts pedophile thing makes me believe it even more.

Bet you believe bill Clinton is clean and pure as well.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

what makes it even funnier is -- Trumpers will also whine if Kamala Harris presided over the impeachment trial....

The constitution appointed the chief justice for the purpose of avoiding a conflict of interest......


But according the logic of you Trumpers -- if Trump is no longer president; there is no conflict of interest right?? It isn't like Kamala will be president if Trump is convicted or anything

What makes you think she can do that? You have still not explained yourself.

Does no one read the thread before they post?

See the same question answered in post 158, quoted from the OP.

You should be called Stretch Armstrong or you don't understand the fucking written language! I hate stupid people like you!

The language in the Constitution is perfectly clear to anyone above Kindergarten. The Chief Justice provides over all impeachments of the President. What is so unclear about that?

 

[Pogo]

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?

I'm assuming his ties to Epstein Island are true. Maybe it's his smirk that annoys me. The dude just seems to need a smack.

Oh, yamean like this guy?

Come on Qdog. If you want to play this game at least try to make sense.

Hey, you posted about a "smirk" so I provides an example. You're welcome.

 

[Pogo]

what makes it even funnier is -- Trumpers will also whine if Kamala Harris presided over the impeachment trial....

The constitution appointed the chief justice for the purpose of avoiding a conflict of interest......


But according the logic of you Trumpers -- if Trump is no longer president; there is no conflict of interest right?? It isn't like Kamala will be president if Trump is convicted or anything

What makes you think she can do that? You have still not explained yourself.

Does no one read the thread before they post?

See the same question answered in post 158, quoted from the OP.

You should be called Stretch Armstrong or you don't understand the fucking written language! I hate stupid people like you!

The language in the Constitution is perfectly clear to anyone above Kindergarten. The Chief Justice provides over all impeachments of the President. What is so unclear about that?

Rump will not be President by then; what's unclear about that?

The question was, where does the idea come from that in lieu of Roberts the presiding officer would be Harris or Leahy. I provided that answer. Multiple times. And it derived from the OP's own link, which is ironic in that he posed the question, revealing that he didn't read his own link.

Did you follow that fucking written language or do I need to draw stick figures?

 

[harmonica]

High crimes and misdemeanors. Not “because you put ketchup on steak”

Not a good argument for your side.

yes--it is----it's exactly to the point

 

[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?

He hung out with Epstein and flew on his plane.

Got any proof of that? Where are the pics? If you are talking about the flight log, how do you knw it wasn't Fox News reporter John Roberts?

Chief Justice Roberts is a DC guy and has been since Reagan was President.. Why would he know Epstein, who was a NY mogul?

The fact chinacrats are here trying to cast doubt on the Roberts pedophile thing makes me believe it even more.

Bet you believe bill Clinton is clean and pure as well.

I have never seen anything except morons accusing him of being a pedophile with zero proof on this message board.

You can also take your "chinacrat" label and shove it up your ass!

 

[TheGreatSatan]

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?

He hung out with Epstein and flew on his plane.

Got any proof of that? Where are the pics? If you are talking about the flight log, how do you knw it wasn't Fox News reporter John Roberts?

Chief Justice Roberts is a DC guy and has been since Reagan was President.. Why would he know Epstein, who was a NY mogul?

The fact chinacrats are here trying to cast doubt on the Roberts pedophile thing makes me believe it even more.

Bet you believe bill Clinton is clean and pure as well.

I have never seen anything except morons accusing him of being a pedophile with zero proof on this message board.

So you deny he flew on Epsteins plane?

What do you think about abc news covering for Bill and Andrew? Maybe abc news takes orders from xi?