Justice Roberts says what?

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

 

[Polishprince]

Roberts could just not show up, and there is no trial without him.

Or, he shows, a motion to dismiss is made, and he grants it.

Who would make a motion to dismiss? Not Trump, at least not until he gets a chance to testify and give the Senate a piece of his mind as well as the millions of folks watching on TV

 

[Pogo]

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.

And here you're pulling the same boner Moisture did. "Leftists". In an event that has nothing to do with "leftists". Must be skeered.

 

[Meister]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

And again inserting strawmen ("condoning"). Once again I've posted no value judgments, I've explained the process. But you can't handle that.

Obviously, since you've been repeatedly corrected on this and you persist, you're trolling.
Write yourself up.

Obviously, you don't know what trolling is.
The republicans [sic] are not going to let Pelosi get a win on this. Everyone on the Hill knows it, dems [sic] don't care.
It's not justice, it's a vendetta. This will end up in front of the Supreme Court. I'm sure Roberts will be listening.
In the end, no matter what you, and your tribe says, no matter how many funny emogi's you give me.
Trump will run in 2024 if he wishes, I kinda think your tribe is afraid of just that.

Write yourself up AGAIN, troll.

You have no argument. Just divisive bullshit.

Divisive as in what your tribe is doing with going forward with a trial with a private citizen? That kind of divisive?
It's going to end up in the SC, and Robert's recognizes that.

Strike three, troll.

YOU have no argument. All YOU do is fling turds and strawmen.

SHOW ME where the fuck I "condoned" anything asshole. SHOW ME where the fuck I picked a "tribe".

Pretty sad when the only participant in a thread who can't resist trolling is a fucking moderator.

If I'm not printing in red, pogo, I'm a poster just like your ass is a poster..
You can say whatever you want about who you are, but everyone around you knows who's your tribe. Now back to the topic on hand.

I believe Roberts doesn't want to be remembered for having to preside over not one, but two impeachments
that were NOT in anyway anything but a kangaroo court. I can't blame him.
There needs to be hard evidence and there is not. Just opinions

 

[hadit]

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

Maybe he'll stop voting liberal and can be allowed to stay.

 

[Pogo]

A House Impeachment and subsequent Senate Trial are in the Constiution as a way to "remove" a President.
Since Trump has already left the White House, he is no longer there to be "removed". ...

Actually what Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 says about that is:

>> 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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. <<​

The Senate can do no more than remove from office and disqualify future office. In this case the first is not in play, the second is.

Everyone know they don't have the votes, and you know your tribe doesn't have the votes. It's a clown show....and you know it.

And there it is YET AGAIN.

>> However much there is a tendency to do so by the society at large, the astute professional helper avoids labeling people, for when such occurs the impetus to do so usually has come from a desire to quit learning about a person; all the things a person is now or can be in future time are efficiently discounted when such labels are affixed, the erroneous supposition being that the person has been thus essentially defined. Kierkegaard's famous line, "Once you label me, you negate me," drives the point home. << (here)​

Well you should be negated. I can't believe that your okay with your tribe and their clown show of an impeachment.
If they weren't your tribe, you wouldn't be condoning this type of behavior from them. Just embrace who you are.

And again inserting strawmen ("condoning"). Once again I've posted no value judgments, I've explained the process. But you can't handle that.

Obviously, since you've been repeatedly corrected on this and you persist, you're trolling.
Write yourself up.

Obviously, you don't know what trolling is.
The republicans [sic] are not going to let Pelosi get a win on this. Everyone on the Hill knows it, dems [sic] don't care.
It's not justice, it's a vendetta. This will end up in front of the Supreme Court. I'm sure Roberts will be listening.
In the end, no matter what you, and your tribe says, no matter how many funny emogi's you give me.
Trump will run in 2024 if he wishes, I kinda think your tribe is afraid of just that.

Write yourself up AGAIN, troll.

You have no argument. Just divisive bullshit.

Divisive as in what your tribe is doing with going forward with a trial with a private citizen? That kind of divisive?
It's going to end up in the SC, and Robert's recognizes that.

Strike three, troll.

YOU have no argument. All YOU do is fling turds and strawmen.

SHOW ME where the fuck I "condoned" anything asshole. SHOW ME where the fuck I picked a "tribe".

Pretty sad when the only participant in a thread who can't resist trolling is a fucking moderator.

If I'm not printing in red, pogo, I'm a poster just like your ass is a poster..
You can say whatever you want about who you are, but everyone around you knows who's your tribe. Now back to the topic on hand.

I believe Roberts doesn't want to be remembered for having to preside over not one, but two impeachments
that were NOT in anyway anything but a kangaroo court. I can't blame him.
There needs to be hard evidence and there is not. Just opinions

And once again, STILL more trolling. As readily apparent above you're the only one between the two of us injecting judgments he's in no position to make, troll. That puts YOU in a "tribe", troll, not me. It hangs value judgments around YOUR neck, troll, not mine.

And it's instructive that you've now dug yourself deeper trying to evade one fallacy by using another --- the ol' reliable "Everybody Knows" song and dance. You're a dishonest HACK.

 

[White 6]

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?

Not sure Chief Justice Roberts will be able to skirt it, even though it is an Ex- President. I do not see it be acceptable to the Republicans for Vice President Harris to preside, nor Senator Leahy. I wonder if he will slough it off to one of the associate justices. They come to the court by political appointment, but once there (for life) serve and decide presumably with little political partiality, supposedly on the merits of the cases and the constitution. I too would prefer someone not of the caustically partisan divided Senate. It would be a cop out for him to recuse himself, as it is in the District of Columbia and it is in his circuit as well as him being over the Federal circuit, but would be interesting to see it assigned to somebody like Kavanaugh or Kagan. Ruth is looking down chuckling. I suspect Roberts is stuck.

There is no choice, the Chief Justice is the presiding judge. No judge, no trial. Democrats can go pound sand.

I never heard any Democrats oppose Roberts presiding. Roberts is the one that would rather not be in that seat again. Like I said, "I suspect Roberts is stuck."

 

[BS Filter]

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?

Not sure Chief Justice Roberts will be able to skirt it, even though it is an Ex- President. I do not see it be acceptable to the Republicans for Vice President Harris to preside, nor Senator Leahy. I wonder if he will slough it off to one of the associate justices. They come to the court by political appointment, but once there (for life) serve and decide presumably with little political partiality, supposedly on the merits of the cases and the constitution. I too would prefer someone not of the caustically partisan divided Senate. It would be a cop out for him to recuse himself, as it is in the District of Columbia and it is in his circuit as well as him being over the Federal circuit, but would be interesting to see it assigned to somebody like Kavanaugh or Kagan. Ruth is looking down chuckling. I suspect Roberts is stuck.

There is no choice, the Chief Justice is the presiding judge. No judge, no trial. Democrats can go pound sand.

I never heard any Democrats oppose Roberts presiding. Roberts is the one that would rather not be in that seat again. Like I said, "I suspect Roberts is stuck."

He's not stuck. He can ignore it or show up and dismiss it. The person that's on trial is no longer in office. Democrats have once again proven that they're driven by anger and revenge.

 

[White 6]

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

He hasn't lost it. Don't count on him stepping down. He's only 65. He'll be around for a while.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

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...

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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".

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The constitution does not provide for an impeachment trial of a private citizen ex president. Justice Roberts would lack jurisdiction to preside over such a trial and the senate would lack jurisdiction to hear it. The sole remedy is removal of the president. The remedy is void without the accused in office.

Nancy Pelosi thinks she can use impeachment to keep Trump from running again. It can't. Impeachment cannot be used as a substitute for a vote and deprive the people of their right to vote.

I hope Roberts can slap some sense into these fools.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

 

[Pogo]

The constitution does not provide for an impeachment trial of a private citizen ex president. Justice Roberts would lack jurisdiction to preside over such a trial and the senate would lack jurisdiction to hear it. The sole remedy is removal of the president. The remedy is void without the accused in office.

Nancy Pelosi thinks she can use impeachment to keep Trump from running again. It can't. Impeachment cannot be used as a substitute for a vote and deprive the people of their right to vote.

I hope Roberts can slap some sense into these fools.

Exactly wrong --- removal from office is NOT the sole remedy at all. See post 27.

And as noted about 472 times, the impeachment has already been done and it was done while Rump was in office. What's ahead is trial, not impeachment.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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????

Being impeached and convicted does not even make one a criminal, it is for removing them from office that is all it is for.

He will not be convicted anyway since that requires 2/3 of the Senate (67 Senators) to vote for Conviction.

 

[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????

Being impeached and convicted does not even make one a criminal, it is for removing them from office that is all it is for.

No, that is not all it is for. Again ---- see post 27.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“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.

 

[WEATHER53]

The Democrats have to Impeach Trump because America still sees him as president. Nobody cares what bidens says, but when Trump talks, it's 24/7 news.

They have to make it as ic he was never here
More feelings fantasy remove it from sight.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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????

Being impeached and convicted does not even make one a criminal, it is for removing them from office that is all it is for.

No, that is not all it is for. Again ---- see post 27.

it is for removing them from office that is all it is for.

Actually you supported my statement, thank you.

Where do you get off editing my post?
Wanna get reported?

I didn't edit your stuff it somehow merges with your area, will try to correct.

Deleted instead,

 

[Sunsettommy]

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????

Nixon was out of office once he resigned, by definition.

Rump was still in office when he was impeached.

And? Trump is out of office now. Are they going to reinstate Trump to remove him.
It's done.

That is why it is all a bunch of hooey.

Meanwhile it requires 2/3 of the Senate (67) to convict him, not going to happen.

Waste if time and $$$.