Justice Roberts says what?

[Richard-H]

8 other Justices.

Why put an obviously partisan senator from the opposing party in charge?

That would defeat his purpose of not wanting the supreme court justices viewed as part of the partisan ranks....

The Senate president is who presides over all impeachment regardless of party affiliation of the impeached person, except for a sitting president...because the VP has a direct conflict of interest with the President.

The VP, recused herself, for conflict of interest. The rules replaces a votes, with the longest serving member, of the Senate.

The rules replaces a votes, with the longest serving member, of the Senate.

Who should also recuse himself, for the same reason

impeachment is a specific delegated partisan process, by our founders.... but a direct conflict of Interest, should still be good cause, to recuse!

Well hell's bells, you could say the whole Senate has a conflict of interest, they were all witnesses.

Besides Hawley and Cruz who were arguably co-conspirators. (-:

I think the const is clear that here has to be a "trial" in the Senate. But the issue and facts are pretty clear. The dems could agree to just submit it all in documentation and take a vote. There's no way Trump's gonna be convicted anyway. We should be focusing on getting the senate operating to pass covid relief without giving up any potential removal of the fillibuster

McConnell wants to save the party. Right now, the GoP lost their cash cow corporate donors, because of Trump's Big Lie that caused the insurrection... He also lost his Majority Leader status, he blames the selfish TRUMP for Georgia loss.

I heard this made him burning mad...in my opinion he loves his party. He wants the Republicans to be able to continue, with their younger generations.... He feels if Trump is left out there to tease about running in 2024, his GOP and future republican 2024 presidential candidates will be snuffed out, and cash deprived if Trump continues to steal the limelight....he's a ball n chain for the party's foreseeable future.....only to find in 2024 when Trump is 78, he changed his mind and won't run.

One way for the republican survival and future, is to convict and vote to keep him from ever holding office. It nips it now. Likely nips his Pac funding too. Anger from trump supporters have time to let off steam, years before the 2024 election.

If those things above are true, the closer to the vote, Mitch could basically whip 17 senators to vote to remove.

YES. I KNOW it is a long shot!!!

All we can do is hope that 17 Republican Senators will grow a spine...like the way the Grinch who stole Christmas grew a heart.....

I'm not holding my breath....

 

[WEATHER53]

Nobody will preside over Hoax #34 because the witch hunt is now revenge witch hunt solely tailored to satisfy bizarre lib emotions that Trump has never existed
Plus, they have No “impeachment” authority over someone who is now a private citizen

 

[Care4all]

The reason the chief justice presides over presidential impeachment, is because the normal person presiding over impeachment is the President of the Senate, which is the vice president.

The vice president of a sitting president being impeached, presiding over this kind of impeachment of his partner and boss, is a known conflict of interest.

Since the President is no longer a sitting president, and his own vice pres is no longer the President of the Senate, the chief justice is no longer needed.

Wrong, Sugar Tits!
The Constitution requires the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside over the matter
to rule in procedural questions and such.
Look it up. The Vice President has nothing to do with this point of order.

Are you making this all up or did HuffPo put this idea in your head?

Yes! The chief justice over presidential impeachment.

The Senate president over all other impeachment. WHICH IS the vice president.

The founders decided the Senate President could not preside over an impeachment of a president, because the Senate president is the vp of the US, would be next in line if the President were to be impeached, which was a conflict of interest, thus the chief justice presiding over it.... there are documents recording the founding father's arguments on this....

 

[ElmerMudd]

JUST IN: Chief Justice Roberts Will Not Preside Over Trump Senate Impeachment Trial​

JUST IN: Chief Justice Roberts Will Not Preside Over Trump Senate Impeachment Trial (thegatewaypundit.com)
25 Jan 2021 ~~ By Cristina Laila


Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.
If was previously reported that Roberts was eager to avoid presiding over the sham impeachment of Trump because he doesn’t want to become a political lightning rod.
Senate President Pro Tempore, Pat Leahy (VT) will preside over the sham trial instead.
The Hill reported:

A Senate source said Leahy, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is expected to preside at the trial.​

A spokesman for Leahy said the decision on presiding over the trial is up to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).​

There is also talk that Republican senators may choose a secret ballot so their voting base will not know how each member voted.
If they do that the party is over. It’s already floundering after House leaders Kevin McCarthy and Liz Cheney blamed President Trump for the violence in the US Capitol on January 6th.
The Democrats are also floating barring Donald Trump from ever running for office.


Comment:
Damn the law and the Constitution, Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrats will use any means to destroy Trump and American Conservatism.
Chief Justice Roberts realizes that the sham trial of former President Trump is Un-Constitional.
Attorneys Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley both agree that the impeachment trial is not only wrong but violates the tenets of the U.S. Constitution....
Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commies and their quisling media have hit the ground running to reverse Trump' s policies. They'll soon begin to CLEANSE Trump supporters too. It's the Marxist communist wet dream come true.
The Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists by their actions have proved that President Trump is actually the president now because they're trying like "Hell" to impeach him.
The majority of Americans do not believes that China Joey Xi was legitimately elected. Especially after he said, while signing 29 FAKE executive orders, that he obviously didn't even know what he was signing, but his Marxist handlers told him to sign it anyway. So as a good puppet he followed orders and signed the Executive Orders.
Americans that resist and pledge to restore America must Stay The Course.

I see you are using quite a credible source, the Gateway Pundit.
"The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right[8] news and opinion website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[16]
The Gateway Pundit expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue.[17][18]"
The edition I looked at had ads for false teeth. They know that most Trump minion demographic are missing teeth if they any teeth at all. Smart advertising.

https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-Gateway-Pundit-NewsGuard-Nutrition-Label.pdf

I see you are using quite a credible source, Newsguard Tech.

Newsguard is a radical left, Soros funded propaganda site that rides the wave of fake "fact checkers." Newsguard exists to slander and defame sources of information that question or impugn the Reich. Though there is utterly no reason anyone should accept even a word from the Soros funded hacks, leftists on message boards attempt to present this, and other questionable sources as authoratative.

lie,

NewsGuard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Doc7505]

8 other Justices.

Why put an obviously partisan senator from the opposing party in charge?

That would defeat his purpose of not wanting the supreme court justices viewed as part of the partisan ranks....

The Senate president is who presides over all impeachment regardless of party affiliation of the impeached person, except for a sitting president...because the VP has a direct conflict of interest with the President.

The VP, recused herself, for conflict of interest. The rules replaces a votes, with the longest serving member, of the Senate.

The rules replaces a votes, with the longest serving member, of the Senate.

Who should also recuse himself, for the same reason

impeachment is a specific delegated partisan process, by our founders.... but a direct conflict of Interest, should still be good cause, to recuse!

Well hell's bells, you could say the whole Senate has a conflict of interest, they were all witnesses.

Besides Hawley and Cruz who were arguably co-conspirators. (-:

I think the const is clear that here has to be a "trial" in the Senate. But the issue and facts are pretty clear. The dems could agree to just submit it all in documentation and take a vote. There's no way Trump's gonna be convicted anyway. We should be focusing on getting the senate operating to pass covid relief without giving up any potential removal of the fillibuster

McConnell wants to save the party. Right now, the GoP lost their cash cow corporate donors, because of Trump's Big Lie that caused the insurrection... He also lost his Majority Leader status, he blames the selfish TRUMP for Georgia loss.

I heard this made him burning mad...in my opinion he loves his party. He wants the Republicans to be able to continue, with their younger generations.... He feels if Trump is left out there to tease about running in 2024, his GOP and future republican 2024 presidential candidates will be snuffed out, and cash deprived if Trump continues to steal the limelight....he's a ball n chain for the party's foreseeable future.....only to find in 2024 when Trump is 78, he changed his mind and won't run.

One way for the republican survival and future, is to convict and vote to keep him from ever holding office. It nips it now. Likely nips his Pac funding too. Anger from trump supporters have time to let off steam, years before the 2024 election.

If those things above are true, the closer to the vote, Mitch could basically whip 17 senators to vote to remove.

YES. I KNOW it is a long shot!!!

All we can do is hope that 17 Republican Senators will grow a spine...like the way the Grinch who stole Christmas grew a heart.....

I'm not holding my breath....

Remember!!!!

Glenn Beck: My Rally had "Minimum of 500,000 People"

Beck Says Estimates of Crowd at his "Restoring Honor" Rally Were Too Low, Complains Mainstream Media Trying to "Diminish" Event

www.cbsnews.com

 

[toobfreak]

Sure, it can bar Trump from running for president again,

I don't think so. As per Article Two Section Four, the Senate cannot bar Trump without a conviction of a crime, and the Senate has no power to convict a civilian who is not an acting officer of the United States.
This is yet one more lawless bullshit maneuver by the democrats.

You may be correct; however, for your point to be adjudicated, the senate would have to convict trump and bar him from holding federal office so that he could adjudicate the action in court. Until then, the senate will do what it wants to do, constitutional or not.

No. As per the Constitution, just being out of office and no longer POTUS frees all courts automatically to pursue any civil actions they might want to engender. The POTUS is only protected from legal actions while in office because otherwise, that could compromise the office, endangering national security.

 

[WEATHER53]

Sure, it can bar Trump from running for president again,

I don't think so. As per Article Two Section Four, the Senate cannot bar Trump without a conviction of a crime, and the Senate has no power to convict a civilian who is not an acting officer of the United States.
This is yet one more lawless bullshit maneuver by the democrats.

You may be correct; however, for your point to be adjudicated, the senate would have to convict trump and bar him from holding federal office so that he could adjudicate the action in court. Until then, the senate will do what it wants to do, constitutional or not.

No. As per the Constitution, just being out of office and no longer POTUS frees all courts automatically to pursue any civil actions they might want to engender. The POTUS is only protected from legal actions while in office because otherwise, that could compromise the office, endangering national security.

No
Since he is no longer President he cannot be “impeached” as if he was still President
Oh they will try and run a media aided shit show that they call impeachment,

 

[JoeMoma]

Sure, it can bar Trump from running for president again,

I don't think so. As per Article Two Section Four, the Senate cannot bar Trump without a conviction of a crime, and the Senate has no power to convict a civilian who is not an acting officer of the United States.
This is yet one more lawless bullshit maneuver by the democrats.

You may be correct; however, for your point to be adjudicated, the senate would have to convict trump and bar him from holding federal office so that he could adjudicate the action in court. Until then, the senate will do what it wants to do, constitutional or not.

No. As per the Constitution, just being out of office and no longer POTUS frees all courts automatically to pursue any civil actions they might want to engender. The POTUS is only protected from legal actions while in office because otherwise, that could compromise the office, endangering national security.

You might want to tell that to your senators.

 

[bendog]

Sure, it can bar Trump from running for president again,

I don't think so. As per Article Two Section Four, the Senate cannot bar Trump without a conviction of a crime, and the Senate has no power to convict a civilian who is not an acting officer of the United States.
This is yet one more lawless bullshit maneuver by the democrats.

You may be correct; however, for your point to be adjudicated, the senate would have to convict trump and bar him from holding federal office so that he could adjudicate the action in court. Until then, the senate will do what it wants to do, constitutional or not.

No. As per the Constitution, just being out of office and no longer POTUS frees all courts automatically to pursue any civil actions they might want to engender. The POTUS is only protected from legal actions while in office because otherwise, that could compromise the office, endangering national security.

Well they let Paula Jones sue Slick for alleged injuries having nothing to do with his presidential duties. McConnell is very good at saying "people should just move on" and then say "give up getting rid of the filibuster cause I might want to use it again to fk up Biden" LOL

 

[Uncensored2008]

8 other Justices.

Why put an obviously partisan senator from the opposing party in charge?

That would defeat his purpose of not wanting the supreme court justices viewed as part of the partisan ranks....

The Senate president is who presides over all impeachment regardless of party affiliation of the impeached person, except for a sitting president...because the VP has a direct conflict of interest with the President.

The VP, recused herself, for conflict of interest. The rules replaces a votes, with the longest serving member, of the Senate.

The rules replaces a votes, with the longest serving member, of the Senate.

Who should also recuse himself, for the same reason

impeachment is a specific delegated partisan process, by our founders.... but a direct conflict of Interest, should still be good cause, to recuse!

Well hell's bells, you could say the whole Senate has a conflict of interest, they were all witnesses.

Besides Hawley and Cruz who were arguably co-conspirators. (-:

I think the const is clear that here has to be a "trial" in the Senate. But the issue and facts are pretty clear. The dems could agree to just submit it all in documentation and take a vote. There's no way Trump's gonna be convicted anyway. We should be focusing on getting the senate operating to pass covid relief without giving up any potential removal of the fillibuster

McConnell wants to save the party. Right now, the GoP lost their cash cow corporate donors, because of Trump's Big Lie that caused the insurrection... He also lost his Majority Leader status, he blames the selfish TRUMP for Georgia loss.

I heard this made him burning mad...in my opinion he loves his party. He wants the Republicans to be able to continue, with their younger generations.... He feels if Trump is left out there to tease about running in 2024, his GOP and future republican 2024 presidential candidates will be snuffed out, and cash deprived if Trump continues to steal the limelight....he's a ball n chain for the party's foreseeable future.....only to find in 2024 when Trump is 78, he changed his mind and won't run.

One way for the republican survival and future, is to convict and vote to keep him from ever holding office. It nips it now. Likely nips his Pac funding too. Anger from trump supporters have time to let off steam, years before the 2024 election.

If those things above are true, the closer to the vote, Mitch could basically whip 17 senators to vote to remove.

YES. I KNOW it is a long shot!!!

If the Swamp were to "convict" (whatever the fuck that means in a lynching) Trump, the GOP is done, gone forever - which is exactly what you Nazis want.

 

[JoeMoma]

Sure, it can bar Trump from running for president again,

I don't think so. As per Article Two Section Four, the Senate cannot bar Trump without a conviction of a crime, and the Senate has no power to convict a civilian who is not an acting officer of the United States.
This is yet one more lawless bullshit maneuver by the democrats.

You may be correct; however, for your point to be adjudicated, the senate would have to convict trump and bar him from holding federal office so that he could adjudicate the action in court. Until then, the senate will do what it wants to do, constitutional or not.

No. As per the Constitution, just being out of office and no longer POTUS frees all courts automatically to pursue any civil actions they might want to engender. The POTUS is only protected from legal actions while in office because otherwise, that could compromise the office, endangering national security.

No
Since he is no longer President he cannot be “impeached” as if he was still President
Oh they will try and run a media aided shit show that they call impeachment,

You may want to tell that to your senators.

 

[Missourian]

The reason the chief justice presides over presidential impeachment, is because the normal person presiding over impeachment is the President of the Senate, which is the vice president.

The vice president of a sitting president being impeached, presiding over this kind of impeachment of his partner and boss, is a known conflict of interest.

Since the President is no longer a sitting president, and his own vice pres is no longer the President of the Senate, the chief justice is no longer needed.

Sorry Care...that dog won't hunt.

Not in this political climate.

Any "impeachment" not presided by the Chief Justice will never be considered legitimate.

After an election that wasn't considered legitimate...this would be a colossal mistake.

 

[BS Filter]

Leahy is a drunken partisan hack. Nothing but a shit show waste of money and time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

JUST IN: Chief Justice Roberts Will Not Preside Over Trump Senate Impeachment Trial​

JUST IN: Chief Justice Roberts Will Not Preside Over Trump Senate Impeachment Trial (thegatewaypundit.com)
25 Jan 2021 ~~ By Cristina Laila


Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.
If was previously reported that Roberts was eager to avoid presiding over the sham impeachment of Trump because he doesn’t want to become a political lightning rod.
Senate President Pro Tempore, Pat Leahy (VT) will preside over the sham trial instead.
The Hill reported:

A Senate source said Leahy, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is expected to preside at the trial.​

A spokesman for Leahy said the decision on presiding over the trial is up to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).​

There is also talk that Republican senators may choose a secret ballot so their voting base will not know how each member voted.
If they do that the party is over. It’s already floundering after House leaders Kevin McCarthy and Liz Cheney blamed President Trump for the violence in the US Capitol on January 6th.
The Democrats are also floating barring Donald Trump from ever running for office.


Comment:
Damn the law and the Constitution, Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrats will use any means to destroy Trump and American Conservatism.
Chief Justice Roberts realizes that the sham trial of former President Trump is Un-Constitional.
Attorneys Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley both agree that the impeachment trial is not only wrong but violates the tenets of the U.S. Constitution....
Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Commies and their quisling media have hit the ground running to reverse Trump' s policies. They'll soon begin to CLEANSE Trump supporters too. It's the Marxist communist wet dream come true.
The Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists by their actions have proved that President Trump is actually the president now because they're trying like "Hell" to impeach him.
The majority of Americans do not believes that China Joey Xi was legitimately elected. Especially after he said, while signing 29 FAKE executive orders, that he obviously didn't even know what he was signing, but his Marxist handlers told him to sign it anyway. So as a good puppet he followed orders and signed the Executive Orders.
Americans that resist and pledge to restore America must Stay The Course.

I see you are using quite a credible source, the Gateway Pundit.
"The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right[8] news and opinion website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[16]
The Gateway Pundit expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue.[17][18]"
The edition I looked at had ads for false teeth. They know that most Trump minion demographic are missing teeth if they any teeth at all. Smart advertising.

https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-Gateway-Pundit-NewsGuard-Nutrition-Label.pdf

I see you are using quite a credible source, Newsguard Tech.

Newsguard is a radical left, Soros funded propaganda site that rides the wave of fake "fact checkers." Newsguard exists to slander and defame sources of information that question or impugn the Reich. Though there is utterly no reason anyone should accept even a word from the Soros funded hacks, leftists on message boards attempt to present this, and other questionable sources as authoratative.

lie,

NewsGuard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bullshit.

NewGuard's Investor Has Partnered with George Soros on Several Occasions — NewsArmor

NewsGuard is the latest group of censoring, fact-checking, bias pontificating hypocrites to come down the pike....

newsarmor.com

 

[Missourian]

senators may choose a secret ballot so their voting base will not know how each member voted.

Just start replacing them now.

Less than 10 of 50 are worth a plugged nickel.

 

[Richard-H]

The reason the chief justice presides over presidential impeachment, is because the normal person presiding over impeachment is the President of the Senate, which is the vice president.

The vice president of a sitting president being impeached, presiding over this kind of impeachment of his partner and boss, is a known conflict of interest.

Since the President is no longer a sitting president, and his own vice pres is no longer the President of the Senate, the chief justice is no longer needed.

Sorry Care...that dog won't hunt.

Not in this political climate.

Any "impeachment" not presided by the Chief Justice will never be considered legitimate.

After an election that wasn't considered legitimate...this would be a colossal mistake.

Who cares what you consider legitimate?

The election was determined to be legitimate by the courts. The States certified their results. A combined session of Congress certified the electoral votes and Biden's election.

The Constitution states that the Senate will try Trump according to the Senate's rules. Everyone of consequence has agreed that the Chief Justice should not reside over the trial.

So you can stomp you little tootsies like a child all you want and nobody gives a shit.

 

[toobfreak]

Roberts and the court have a Constitutional duty to put the Nazis back into their place.

Until the Supreme Court (or perhaps federal court) says the act is useless....The senate can bar Trump from running again.

No. The Constitution is not worded that way that a power exists until explicitly forbidden. The Constitution is written to expressly enumerate what powers the Senate has, and as written, forbidding an officer from ever running for office again is a power ascribed to AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES UPON CONVICTION OF IMPEACHMENT which can only be done:

1. To an Officer of the United States (Trump is a civilian).
2. As a result of conviction of crimes or misdemeanor (the Senate cannot convict private citizens of crimes ), Non bis in idem.

The Senate has the power to ascribe punishment to an officer of the government including barring from running for office up to impeachment upon conviction of a crime. Since Trump holds no office, he cannot be convicted by the Senate, cannot be punished by the senate. Whatever the democrats have in mind is to torture the law much as they did during the election and in the last impeachment. IMO, the Congress must first pass an amendment expressly empowering them to be able to pursue people out of office which they will never get passed as it would essentially award the Senate virtually unlimited legal power (which is kind of what Nancy is going for).

The bitch be slapped down. Fuck her.

 

[JoeMoma]

Roberts and the court have a Constitutional duty to put the Nazis back into their place.

Until the Supreme Court (or perhaps federal court) says the act is useless....The senate can bar Trump from running again.

No. The Constitution is not worded that way that a power exists until explicitly forbidden. The Constitution is written to expressly enumerate what powers the Senate has, and as written, forbidding an officer from ever running for office again is a power ascribed to AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES UPON CONVICTION OF IMPEACHMENT which can only be done:

1. To an Officer of the United States (Trump is a civilian).
2. As a result of conviction of crimes or misdemeanor (the Senate cannot convict private citizens of crimes ), Non bis in idem.

The Senate has the power to ascribe punishment to an officer of the government including barring from running for office up to impeachment upon conviction of a crime. Since Trump holds no office, he cannot be convicted by the Senate, cannot be punished by the senate. Whatever the democrats have in mind is to torture the law much as they did during the election and in the last impeachment. IMO, the Congress must first pass an amendment expressly empowering them to be able to pursue people out of office which they will never get passed as it would essentially award the Senate virtually unlimited legal power (which is kind of what Nancy is going for).

The bitch be slapped down. Fuck her.

It wouldn't be the first time that the federal government didn't follow the constitution.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Trump was i

it is first sign that Roberts might have a tiny backbone

He shows backbone by refusing to do his job? the man is a coward

He is doing his job. The Senate can't try any civilian and Trump is now a civilian.

CORRECT. Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states: 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 also allows for involuntary removal from office of the president, vice president, Cabinet secretaries, and other executive officers, as well as judges, who may be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate.

Any official convicted by the Senate is immediately removed from office, and the Senate may also order, by a simple majority, that the removed official be forever disqualified from holding any federal office.

The Constitution makes no allowance for impeaching a person from office who HOLDS NO OFFICE and is not a civil officer of the United States. Period. End of story.


Before Nancy can have her pound of flesh, she would need to have an amendment ratified to the Constitution first making allowance for the Senate to try civilians and FORMER officers of the United States, which they cannot do as this would create a legal quandry of giving the Senate unlimited power to cross legal boundaries into civilian courts.

Trump was impeached while he was President. So the impeachment is valid.

Once impeached the Senate must put him on trial. It's up to the Senate when to schedule the trial.

The fact that he is no longer President is not relevant.

When Sen. Blount was impeached in 1797, the fact that he had already been expelled from the Senate was deemed not relevant.

U.S. Senate: Blount Expulsion

Most Democrat Ensign Pulver

Trump was i

it is first sign that Roberts might have a tiny backbone

He shows backbone by refusing to do his job? the man is a coward

He is doing his job. The Senate can't try any civilian and Trump is now a civilian.

CORRECT. Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states: 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 also allows for involuntary removal from office of the president, vice president, Cabinet secretaries, and other executive officers, as well as judges, who may be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate.

Any official convicted by the Senate is immediately removed from office, and the Senate may also order, by a simple majority, that the removed official be forever disqualified from holding any federal office.

The Constitution makes no allowance for impeaching a person from office who HOLDS NO OFFICE and is not a civil officer of the United States. Period. End of story.


Before Nancy can have her pound of flesh, she would need to have an amendment ratified to the Constitution first making allowance for the Senate to try civilians and FORMER officers of the United States, which they cannot do as this would create a legal quandry of giving the Senate unlimited power to cross legal boundaries into civilian courts.

Trump was impeached while he was President. So the impeachment is valid.

Once impeached the Senate must put him on trial. It's up to the Senate when to schedule the trial.

The fact that he is no longer President is not relevant.

When Sen. Blount was impeached in 1797, the fact that he had already been expelled from the Senate was deemed not relevant.

U.S. Senate: Blount Expulsion

Most Democrat Voters do not understand that their first impeachment was totally bogus, and that this impeachment is even worse.
1 Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. He just asked about Biden's crimes in the Ukraine.
2 Trump DID NOT incite an insurrection.
The problem seems to be that the Dem voter's hate is about 10x stronger than their minds.
Liberals seem to lack any sense of shame because they also lack a conscience.
They do not understand how bad that they look to reasonable people.
The Democrat Party is based on hate.

 

[toobfreak]

Trump was i

it is first sign that Roberts might have a tiny backbone

He shows backbone by refusing to do his job? the man is a coward

He is doing his job. The Senate can't try any civilian and Trump is now a civilian.

CORRECT. Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states: 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 also allows for involuntary removal from office of the president, vice president, Cabinet secretaries, and other executive officers, as well as judges, who may be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate.

Any official convicted by the Senate is immediately removed from office, and the Senate may also order, by a simple majority, that the removed official be forever disqualified from holding any federal office.

The Constitution makes no allowance for impeaching a person from office who HOLDS NO OFFICE and is not a civil officer of the United States. Period. End of story.


Before Nancy can have her pound of flesh, she would need to have an amendment ratified to the Constitution first making allowance for the Senate to try civilians and FORMER officers of the United States, which they cannot do as this would create a legal quandary of giving the Senate unlimited power to cross legal boundaries into civilian courts.

Trump was impeached while he was President. So the impeachment is valid.

Totally different situation. Impeachment is censure. The purpose of conviction is for removing from office of a chargeable crime rather than mere whim of the House. The constitution is explicit that the Senate can only convict OFFICERS of the government. Blount was a senator not a president and was guilty of treason, and the senate even then in doing so tortured the law setting up a legal conflict many took great issue with.