Justice Roberts says what?

[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?

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!

I have several records by these guys...

 

[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.

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

Yeah, that's what they say. However, it's bogus. President Trump did nothing regarding a so called "insurrection".

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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!

There is rumored to be a photograph of Justice Roberts in Epstein's island home with his head on Ghislaine Maxwell's lap.

 

[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?

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!

There is rumored to be a photograph of Justice Roberts in Epstein's island home with his head on Ghislaine Maxwell's lap.

There is rumored to be a photograph of you with your head up your ass too.
Ah, rumors.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

Yeah, that's what they say. However, it's bogus. President Trump did nothing regarding a so called "insurrection".

The communists undoubtably think they can fake up evidence like they fake up elections.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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!

There is rumored to be a photograph of Justice Roberts in Epstein's island home with his head on Ghislaine Maxwell's lap.

There is rumored to be a photograph of you with your head up your ass too.
Ah, rumors.

Ohh I'm sorry. Was that YOUR photo?

 

[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?

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!

There is rumored to be a photograph of Justice Roberts in Epstein's island home with his head on Ghislaine Maxwell's lap.

There is rumored to be a photograph of you with your head up your ass too.
Ah, rumors.

Ohh I'm sorry. Was that YOUR photo?

No but you keep looking in there. It's where most of your posts come from.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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!

There is rumored to be a photograph of Justice Roberts in Epstein's island home with his head on Ghislaine Maxwell's lap.

There is rumored to be a photograph of you with your head up your ass too.
Ah, rumors.

Ohh I'm sorry. Was that YOUR photo?

No but you keep looking in there. It's where most of your posts come from.

Everyone makes a fool of you. I don't feel special.

 

[Obiwan]

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

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

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

The impeachment is already over and doesn't involve the Chief Justice. The House does that.

And it was determined during the last impeachment attempt that the impeachment isn't official until it's delivered to the Senate....

That won't happen until Monday, January 25th....

House will send Trump impeachment article to Senate on Monday (msn.com)

So it appears that Pelosi fucked this one up too...

Trump wasn't impeached until AFTER he left office, dumbass!!!!

 

[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...

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

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

And

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

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

 

[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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

The "truth over facts" bunch just lives for their daily talking points

 

[wamose]

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 are not going to let Pelosi get a win on this. Everyone on the Hill knows it, dems 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.

Not a vendetta, just something that has to be done. I do not presume you approve the attack on the Capital Building. I also presume you are aware he invited them there for the "Stop The Steal" rally that morning and saw his appeal to the crowd sending to the Capital along with hearing his lawyer and his son's word on his stage. President's do not get to pull that kind of stuff, especially trying to overthrow an election. It must be answered by the adults of both houses in one way or another, lest we see repeat, possibly every 4 years. I understand you to be in trump's corner, but at some level you know this to be true and that he brought it on himself and the rest of the country.

EXACTLY. If the entity with the power to do so (the House) does NOT impeach, they're tacitly approving it. Lack of that action declares that it's OK. Whatever happens or doesn't happen in trial, the statement MUST be made, or future POTUSes will think they can do it too.

That's exactly what the protestors were saying about the Democrat party stealing the election. There is plenty of proof to illustrate election fraud but it was suppressed by the media, the Democrat party and the supreme court. Something that corrupt needs to be addressed or it will happen again and again. Furthermore, the American peoples confidence in our voting system has been shattered and needs to be repaired. If this election was actually fair, nothing will be hurt by allowing investigations take place. And no more of this Comey bullshit where he finds Hillary guilty then comes up with some bogus bullshit for not charging her. We need to be totally open and honest.

 

[debbiedowner]

If a person can be impeached after they leave office, what is to stop vengeful idiots from impeaching ANY former president?

I think it is high time we impeach Millard Fillmore, myself.

He's already been impeached by congress, senate convicts.

 

[kyzr]

Nancy's faux impeachment of Trump is beginning to fall apart already.
The Belknap "precedent" is not even a "given".
Can you say "Constitutional Crisis"?

Kamala Harris could preside over Trump impeachment trial if John Roberts doesn’t

The Constitution says that in impeachments for presidents, the chief justice of the Supreme Court is the presiding officer. For lesser impeachments, the presiding officer has been the same as for other Senate business — either the vice president or a senator. The Constitution is not clear on...

www.foxnews.com

"The Constitution says that in impeachments for presidents, the chief justice of the Supreme Court is the presiding officer. For lesser impeachments, the presiding officer has been the same as for other Senate business — either the vice president or a senator. The Constitution is not clear on who should preside over impeachments for former presidents."

So if Kamala Harris presides over Nancy's Kangaroo Court, just imagine how fast the trial will be and how little the defense will be allowed to present. OBJECTION!! What a joke. If ANY Republicans vote guilty they are done, gone, primaried and discarded.

 

[theHawk]

These are “unprecedented times”. We don’t need “due process” anymore, or trial by jury anymore. Private citizens can be judged by Congress now.

 

[harmonica]

.....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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

 

[harmonica]

These are “unprecedented times”. We don’t need “due process” anymore, or trial by jury anymore. Private citizens can be judged by Congress now.

MORE proof they act like nazis

People's Court (Germany) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Auld Phart]

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

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

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

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

POLITICO Playbook: The Washington Trump leaves behind

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

www.politico.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Aldo Raine]

.....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