Justice Roberts says what?

[SassyIrishLass]

Too little too late.

In my book, Roberts is a piece of shit.

Someone has dirt on him

 

[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????

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 $$$.

Not to worry; Senators already get paid, trial or no trial.

In this case the impeachment is probably more significant than the trial. Because Congress had to make some statement in response to the actions he took on January 6. Impeachment did so, and that's now on the historical record.

 

[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 $$$.

Not to worry; Senators already get paid, trial or no trial.

In this case the impeachment is probably more significant than the trial. Because Congress had to make some statement in response to the actions he took on January 6. Impeachment did so, and that's now on the historical record.

If he isn't convicted, then impeachment fails too.

 

[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????

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 $$$.

Not to worry; Senators already get paid, trial or no trial.

In this case the impeachment is probably more significant than the trial. Because Congress had to make some statement in response to the actions he took on January 6. Impeachment did so, and that's now on the historical record.

If he isn't convicted, then impeachment fails too.

Nope. Impeachment already happened. It's in the books. With two-party support.

 

[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 $$$.

Not to worry; Senators already get paid, trial or no trial.

In this case the impeachment is probably more significant than the trial. Because Congress had to make some statement in response to the actions he took on January 6. Impeachment did so, and that's now on the historical record.

If he isn't convicted, then impeachment fails too.

Nope. Impeachment already happened. It's in the books. With two-party support.

Yes in the history books, but in impeachment is a set of charges made, that must be supported in a TRIAL, which is in the Senate, which is why it is considered a failure if the Conviction fails. Then the impeachment charges are vacated.

 

[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????

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 $$$.

Not to worry; Senators already get paid, trial or no trial.

In this case the impeachment is probably more significant than the trial. Because Congress had to make some statement in response to the actions he took on January 6. Impeachment did so, and that's now on the historical record.

If he isn't convicted, then impeachment fails too.

Nope. Impeachment already happened. It's in the books. With two-party support.

Yes in the history books, but in impeachment is a set of charges made, that must be supported in a TRIAL, which is in the Senate, which is why it is considered a failure if the Conviction fails. Then the impeachment charges are vacated.

No they're not "vacated". Where do you get this?
Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are STILL known for impeachments, hell Richard Nixon is known for almost getting impeached and he didn't even get one.

A non-conviction isn't a "failure", it simply means the available remedies of removal from office and/or disqualification from future office, cannot be imposed. The conviction is what opens them up.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

There will be no way for the D's to try Trump without him being there. Secret trials, defendants not being allowed to testify, these are things that are not part of our legal system.

And the networks would have a hard time ignoring the event.

The only thing that might stop Trump from participating directly is if he couldn't make an arrangement with the networks for his appearance. He isn't inclined to want to rate their TV ratings for free.

But even then, the D's don't have enough votes to convict, and Trump will still be able to do a victory lap after his Exoneration.

 

[Pogo]

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.

There will be no way for the D's to try Trump without him being there. Secret trials, defendants not being allowed to testify, these are things that are not part of our legal system.

And the networks would have a hard time ignoring the event.

The only thing that might stop Trump from participating directly is if he couldn't make an arrangement with the networks for his appearance. He isn't inclined to want to rate their TV ratings for free.

But even then, the D's don't have enough votes to convict, and Trump will still be able to do a victory lap after his Exoneration.

Rump was never at his first impeachment trial. It isn't required.

Matter of fact I'm not sure ANY POTUS has actually sat in on his own impeachment trial.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

There will be no way for the D's to try Trump without him being there. Secret trials, defendants not being allowed to testify, these are things that are not part of our legal system.

And the networks would have a hard time ignoring the event.

The only thing that might stop Trump from participating directly is if he couldn't make an arrangement with the networks for his appearance. He isn't inclined to want to rate their TV ratings for free.

But even then, the D's don't have enough votes to convict, and Trump will still be able to do a victory lap after his Exoneration.

Rump was never at his first impeachment trial. It isn't required.

Matter of fact I'm not sure ANY POTUS has actually sat in on his own impeachment trial.

Trump has a RIGHT to be there, the fact that he might not have been there during the previous Fake Impeachment or others weren't is irrelevant. They've never had an impeachment trial for a retiree with an open schedule before.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

He has, and I didn't say he would I said he should.

 

[Pogo]

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.

There will be no way for the D's to try Trump without him being there. Secret trials, defendants not being allowed to testify, these are things that are not part of our legal system.

And the networks would have a hard time ignoring the event.

The only thing that might stop Trump from participating directly is if he couldn't make an arrangement with the networks for his appearance. He isn't inclined to want to rate their TV ratings for free.

But even then, the D's don't have enough votes to convict, and Trump will still be able to do a victory lap after his Exoneration.

Rump was never at his first impeachment trial. It isn't required.

Matter of fact I'm not sure ANY POTUS has actually sat in on his own impeachment trial.

Trump has a RIGHT to be there, the fact that he might not have been there during the previous Fake Impeachment or others weren't is irrelevant. They've never had an impeachment trial for a retiree with an open schedule before.

"Open schedule" is not why they're not there. An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial. They don't need to be there. That's what attorneys are for.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

There will be no way for the D's to try Trump without him being there. Secret trials, defendants not being allowed to testify, these are things that are not part of our legal system.

And the networks would have a hard time ignoring the event.

The only thing that might stop Trump from participating directly is if he couldn't make an arrangement with the networks for his appearance. He isn't inclined to want to rate their TV ratings for free.

But even then, the D's don't have enough votes to convict, and Trump will still be able to do a victory lap after his Exoneration.

Rump was never at his first impeachment trial. It isn't required.

Matter of fact I'm not sure ANY POTUS has actually sat in on his own impeachment trial.

Bill clinton was called as a witness

 

[Polishprince]

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.

There will be no way for the D's to try Trump without him being there. Secret trials, defendants not being allowed to testify, these are things that are not part of our legal system.

And the networks would have a hard time ignoring the event.

The only thing that might stop Trump from participating directly is if he couldn't make an arrangement with the networks for his appearance. He isn't inclined to want to rate their TV ratings for free.

But even then, the D's don't have enough votes to convict, and Trump will still be able to do a victory lap after his Exoneration.

Rump was never at his first impeachment trial. It isn't required.

Matter of fact I'm not sure ANY POTUS has actually sat in on his own impeachment trial.

Trump has a RIGHT to be there, the fact that he might not have been there during the previous Fake Impeachment or others weren't is irrelevant. They've never had an impeachment trial for a retiree with an open schedule before.

"Open schedule" is not why they're not there. An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial. They don't need to be there. That's what attorneys are for.

They might not NEED to be there, but they have a RIGHT to be there and to testify.

Most wouldn't , but Trump has no reason not to.

Except of course, if he doesn't like the deal the networks are offering him to appear.

 

[Pogo]

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.

There will be no way for the D's to try Trump without him being there. Secret trials, defendants not being allowed to testify, these are things that are not part of our legal system.

And the networks would have a hard time ignoring the event.

The only thing that might stop Trump from participating directly is if he couldn't make an arrangement with the networks for his appearance. He isn't inclined to want to rate their TV ratings for free.

But even then, the D's don't have enough votes to convict, and Trump will still be able to do a victory lap after his Exoneration.

Rump was never at his first impeachment trial. It isn't required.

Matter of fact I'm not sure ANY POTUS has actually sat in on his own impeachment trial.

Bill clinton was called as a witness

I don't remember --- was it a videotaped deposition?

I know Andrew Johnson was not at his trial.

In the instant case there already is a video deposition, and it's the evidence. It's right there on tape.

 

[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.

 

[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?

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 Trump wasn't part of any insurrection.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

There will be no way for the D's to try Trump without him being there. Secret trials, defendants not being allowed to testify, these are things that are not part of our legal system.

And the networks would have a hard time ignoring the event.

The only thing that might stop Trump from participating directly is if he couldn't make an arrangement with the networks for his appearance. He isn't inclined to want to rate their TV ratings for free.

But even then, the D's don't have enough votes to convict, and Trump will still be able to do a victory lap after his Exoneration.

Rump was never at his first impeachment trial. It isn't required.

Matter of fact I'm not sure ANY POTUS has actually sat in on his own impeachment trial.

Bill clinton was called as a witness

I don't remember --- was it a videotaped deposition?

I know Andrew Johnson was not at his trial.

In the instant case there already is a video deposition, and it's the evidence. It's right there on tape.

The defendant has a right to confront and question the witnesses. Just showing the tape means nothing by itself.

 

[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 Trump wasn't part of any insurrection.

he's being charged in Articles of impeachment for spending three weeks seeding/ inciting it.

 

[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.

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.

And the SOLE DECISION IS REMOVAL.

 

[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?

Justice Roberts could of avoided the whole impeachment trial if he would of acted on the voter fraud of the 2020 election, but no, like a establishment republican he cowardly went along with the progs and denied the voices of 75 million citizens. Fuck Justice Roberts.....

Roberts is a disgrace. I still want to know how many times he went to Epstein's island.

According to the Epstein's flight log this is one time,probably there were others

View attachment 447197

Do you conspiracy nut morons have any idea how many men are named John Roberts in this country? For Pete's sake, Fox News has a reporter with the same name!