Roberts wasn't corrupt enough so Dems appoint Leahy to preside over impeachment

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
50,286
Reaction score
12,226
Points
2,180
It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.
I looked and didn't see leftist robot Patrick Leahy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution in ANY context.
The Pelosi impeachment farce gets more and more absurd and illegal as it goes along.
And you won't, because the Constitution says nothing about who will preside except in the case of a SITTING President. Anybody else, it can and usually does go to either the VP or the PPT. Ain't rocket surgery.

The term "sitting " president doesn't appear in the Constitution. Just "President".

In any event, this will be something for the libs to thrash out in the courts. I can't see how Leaky Leahy can be considered "impartial" in any way, and even if he was "allowed" to preside (which he aint) , he should still recuse himself.

I'm looking forward to the trial, I think it will be very interesting and draw tremendous ratings, if Trump can be convinced to appear.
Well, by definition, if one is not the sitting President, then one is not President. There is no "almost President" or "sort-of President" as an actual office.

I can see how Leahy gets to preside over the impeachment trial of an officeholder who is not President, but the part the Democrats keep trying to pretend doesn't exist is that you can't impeach someone who doesn't hold office AT ALL. By definition, impeachment is only for people holding office, and doesn't exist when they don't hold office anymore. After that person leaves office, you either bring criminal charges, or you drop the matter because - one way or the other - the issue is resolved.
 

LordBrownTrout

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
31,849
Reaction score
10,920
Points
1,400
Location
South Texas Republic
It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.
I looked and didn't see leftist robot Patrick Leahy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution in ANY context.
The Pelosi impeachment farce gets more and more absurd and illegal as it goes along.
And you won't, because the Constitution says nothing about who will preside except in the case of a SITTING President. Anybody else, it can and usually does go to either the VP or the PPT. Ain't rocket surgery.

The term "sitting " president doesn't appear in the Constitution. Just "President".

In any event, this will be something for the libs to thrash out in the courts. I can't see how Leaky Leahy can be considered "impartial" in any way, and even if he was "allowed" to preside (which he aint) , he should still recuse himself.

I'm looking forward to the trial, I think it will be very interesting and draw tremendous ratings, if Trump can be convinced to appear.
Well, by definition, if one is not the sitting President, then one is not President. There is no "almost President" or "sort-of President" as an actual office.

I can see how Leahy gets to preside over the impeachment trial of an officeholder who is not President, but the part the Democrats keep trying to pretend doesn't exist is that you can't impeach someone who doesn't hold office AT ALL. By definition, impeachment is only for people holding office, and doesn't exist when they don't hold office anymore. After that person leaves office, you either bring criminal charges, or you drop the matter because - one way or the other - the issue is resolved.
Its that simple but they don't understand the constitution hence their blatant hate and constant yearning to rid themselves of it so they can implement a document that imposes strict measures on the populace. This is what dictatorships, communists, strongmen do. Its what we're seeing.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
22,707
Reaction score
18,366
Points
2,415
It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.
I looked and didn't see leftist robot Patrick Leahy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution in ANY context.
The Pelosi impeachment farce gets more and more absurd and illegal as it goes along.
And you won't, because the Constitution says nothing about who will preside except in the case of a SITTING President. Anybody else, it can and usually does go to either the VP or the PPT. Ain't rocket surgery.
Major flaw in your “logic”......Impeachment doesn’t cover private citizens, so you just proved this is unconstitutional.

:oops8:
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
19,699
Reaction score
10,128
Points
1,265
Well, by definition, if one is not the sitting President, then one is not President. There is no "almost President" or "sort-of President" as an actual office.

I can see how Leahy gets to preside over the impeachment trial of an officeholder who is not President, but the part the Democrats keep trying to pretend doesn't exist is that you can't impeach someone who doesn't hold office AT ALL. By definition, impeachment is only for people holding office, and doesn't exist when they don't hold office anymore. After that person leaves office, you either bring criminal charges, or you drop the matter because - one way or the other - the issue is resolved.
Well stated. Why do people with supposedly working cerebral cortexes fail to understand?
It must be that they cannot reconcile their political dogma with law and reality.

I blame Russia. For everything. Always. Especially for old pathetic liars like Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer and Nan Pelosi.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,590
Reaction score
22,105
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.
I looked and didn't see leftist robot Patrick Leahy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution in ANY context.
The Pelosi impeachment farce gets more and more absurd and illegal as it goes along.
And you won't, because the Constitution says nothing about who will preside except in the case of a SITTING President. Anybody else, it can and usually does go to either the VP or the PPT. Ain't rocket surgery.

The term "sitting " president doesn't appear in the Constitution. Just "President".

In any event, this will be something for the libs to thrash out in the courts. I can't see how Leaky Leahy can be considered "impartial" in any way, and even if he was "allowed" to preside (which he aint) , he should still recuse himself.

I'm looking forward to the trial, I think it will be very interesting and draw tremendous ratings, if Trump can be convinced to appear.
Well, by definition, if one is not the sitting President, then one is not President. There is no "almost President" or "sort-of President" as an actual office.

I can see how Leahy gets to preside over the impeachment trial of an officeholder who is not President, but the part the Democrats keep trying to pretend doesn't exist is that you can't impeach someone who doesn't hold office AT ALL.
And you don't have to. That was already done, January 13. Or hadn't you heard? Guess who was POTUS on January 13.

By definition, impeachment is only for people holding office, and doesn't exist when they don't hold office anymore. After that person leaves office, you either bring criminal charges, or you drop the matter because - one way or the other - the issue is resolved.
Oh the criminal charges will be coming too but that's entirely separate. Neither issue is resolved. The January 6 riot happened, this is fact. Even as we speak investigations continue as to who was involved, what they planned and what they did. The instant case charges that riot's catalyst.

Hard to believe I have to sit here and hold Civics class but an impeachment is not a criminal trial, nor does it need to assess whether a statutory CRIME has been committed --- the article(s) may or may not refer to a crime but what they do refer to is fitness for office.

As noted above the actual impeachment was done two weeks go, upon a person HOLDING OFFICE. What has yet to transpire is the TRIAL. There's no reason the target must still be in office during the trial, and there is precedent for the contrary.

An impeachment is cognate to an indictment. If some schlub gets indicted for embezzling funds from his company, and his company fires him before his trial............. the trial still goes on even though he no longer holds office in that company, does it not?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,590
Reaction score
22,105
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.
I looked and didn't see leftist robot Patrick Leahy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution in ANY context.
The Pelosi impeachment farce gets more and more absurd and illegal as it goes along.
And you won't, because the Constitution says nothing about who will preside except in the case of a SITTING President. Anybody else, it can and usually does go to either the VP or the PPT. Ain't rocket surgery.

The term "sitting " president doesn't appear in the Constitution. Just "President".

In any event, this will be something for the libs to thrash out in the courts. I can't see how Leaky Leahy can be considered "impartial" in any way, and even if he was "allowed" to preside (which he aint) , he should still recuse himself.

I'm looking forward to the trial, I think it will be very interesting and draw tremendous ratings, if Trump can be convinced to appear.
Well, by definition, if one is not the sitting President, then one is not President. There is no "almost President" or "sort-of President" as an actual office.

I can see how Leahy gets to preside over the impeachment trial of an officeholder who is not President, but the part the Democrats keep trying to pretend doesn't exist is that you can't impeach someone who doesn't hold office AT ALL. By definition, impeachment is only for people holding office, and doesn't exist when they don't hold office anymore. After that person leaves office, you either bring criminal charges, or you drop the matter because - one way or the other - the issue is resolved.
Its that simple but they don't understand the constitution hence their blatant hate and constant yearning to rid themselves of it so they can implement a document that imposes strict measures on the populace. This is what dictatorships, communists, strongmen do. Its what we're seeing.
Oh? If this is what "dictatorships" do, who is it that storms its own Capitol, breaks in, kills its guards using fire extinguishers as truncheons, plants bombs, builds a gallows (actually two), goes human-hunting for input for that gallows, hunts around for human hostages with plastic ties, and then shits on the floor?
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,511
Reaction score
12,472
Points
1,430
Location
Top Of The Great Divide

LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
3,121
Reaction score
3,327
Points
1,940
It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.
I looked and didn't see leftist robot Patrick Leahy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution in ANY context.
The Pelosi impeachment farce gets more and more absurd and illegal as it goes along.
And you won't, because the Constitution says nothing about who will preside except in the case of a SITTING President. Anybody else, it can and usually does go to either the VP or the PPT. Ain't rocket surgery.
Pogo, the constitutional scholar, thinks he found a loop hole in the constitution.
Do you do slip and falls too?
Pogo has slipped down a few notches. He had some really good humor and wit, now he's just seems bitter. Poor little guy.
He's a leftists. Their true colors always eventually come out. Anger,hate, petulance,fear.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,590
Reaction score
22,105
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.
I looked and didn't see leftist robot Patrick Leahy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution in ANY context.
The Pelosi impeachment farce gets more and more absurd and illegal as it goes along.
And you won't, because the Constitution says nothing about who will preside except in the case of a SITTING President. Anybody else, it can and usually does go to either the VP or the PPT. Ain't rocket surgery.
Pogo, the constitutional scholar, thinks he found a loop hole in the constitution.
Do you do slip and falls too?
Pogo has slipped down a few notches. He had some really good humor and wit, now he's just seems bitter. Poor little guy.
He's a leftists. Their true colors always eventually come out. Anger,hate, petulance,fear.
uh huh. Where does illiteracy "come out" from?
 

LordBrownTrout

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
31,849
Reaction score
10,920
Points
1,400
Location
South Texas Republic
It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.
I looked and didn't see leftist robot Patrick Leahy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution in ANY context.
The Pelosi impeachment farce gets more and more absurd and illegal as it goes along.
And you won't, because the Constitution says nothing about who will preside except in the case of a SITTING President. Anybody else, it can and usually does go to either the VP or the PPT. Ain't rocket surgery.

The term "sitting " president doesn't appear in the Constitution. Just "President".

In any event, this will be something for the libs to thrash out in the courts. I can't see how Leaky Leahy can be considered "impartial" in any way, and even if he was "allowed" to preside (which he aint) , he should still recuse himself.

I'm looking forward to the trial, I think it will be very interesting and draw tremendous ratings, if Trump can be convinced to appear.
Well, by definition, if one is not the sitting President, then one is not President. There is no "almost President" or "sort-of President" as an actual office.

I can see how Leahy gets to preside over the impeachment trial of an officeholder who is not President, but the part the Democrats keep trying to pretend doesn't exist is that you can't impeach someone who doesn't hold office AT ALL. By definition, impeachment is only for people holding office, and doesn't exist when they don't hold office anymore. After that person leaves office, you either bring criminal charges, or you drop the matter because - one way or the other - the issue is resolved.
Its that simple but they don't understand the constitution hence their blatant hate and constant yearning to rid themselves of it so they can implement a document that imposes strict measures on the populace. This is what dictatorships, communists, strongmen do. Its what we're seeing.
Oh? If this is what "dictatorships" do, who is it that storms its own Capitol, breaks in, kills its guards using fire extinguishers as truncheons, plants bombs, builds a gallows (actually two), goes human-hunting for input for that gallows, hunts around for human hostages with plastic ties, and then shits on the floor?
Please, don't lecture anyone on riots as your leftists murdered, pillaged, destroyed property, burned buildings, for over a year. You have nothing to stand in but hollow words. You're to be pitied.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
157,779
Reaction score
21,920
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.
I looked and didn't see leftist robot Patrick Leahy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution in ANY context.
The Pelosi impeachment farce gets more and more absurd and illegal as it goes along.
Try reading the impeachment of 1799, the first senate impeachment.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
157,779
Reaction score
21,920
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.
I looked and didn't see leftist robot Patrick Leahy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution in ANY context.
The Pelosi impeachment farce gets more and more absurd and illegal as it goes along.
And you won't, because the Constitution says nothing about who will preside except in the case of a SITTING President. Anybody else, it can and usually does go to either the VP or the PPT. Ain't rocket surgery.

The term "sitting " president doesn't appear in the Constitution. Just "President".

In any event, this will be something for the libs to thrash out in the courts. I can't see how Leaky Leahy can be considered "impartial" in any way, and even if he was "allowed" to preside (which he aint) , he should still recuse himself.

I'm looking forward to the trial, I think it will be very interesting and draw tremendous ratings, if Trump can be convinced to appear.
Well, by definition, if one is not the sitting President, then one is not President. There is no "almost President" or "sort-of President" as an actual office.

I can see how Leahy gets to preside over the impeachment trial of an officeholder who is not President, but the part the Democrats keep trying to pretend doesn't exist is that you can't impeach someone who doesn't hold office AT ALL. By definition, impeachment is only for people holding office, and doesn't exist when they don't hold office anymore. After that person leaves office, you either bring criminal charges, or you drop the matter because - one way or the other - the issue is resolved.
Its that simple but they don't understand the constitution hence their blatant hate and constant yearning to rid themselves of it so they can implement a document that imposes strict measures on the populace. This is what dictatorships, communists, strongmen do. Its what we're seeing.
Oh? If this is what "dictatorships" do, who is it that storms its own Capitol, breaks in, kills its guards using fire extinguishers as truncheons, plants bombs, builds a gallows (actually two), goes human-hunting for input for that gallows, hunts around for human hostages with plastic ties, and then shits on the floor?
Please, don't lecture anyone on riots as your leftists murdered, pillaged, destroyed property, burned buildings, for over a year. You have nothing to stand in but hollow words. You're to be pitied.
Go after the "leftist" then and the "rightist' will be dealt with also...Ever hear of how two wrongs don't make a right?
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
66,740
Reaction score
17,347
Points
2,220
Roberts should have done it, but let's face it. No matter who presides, the right would be screaming about it. It's what they do.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
157,779
Reaction score
21,920
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Roberts should have done it, but let's face it. No matter who presides, the right would be screaming about it. It's what they do.
Roberts is not required to do it since Trump is no longer president....
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,590
Reaction score
22,105
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.
I looked and didn't see leftist robot Patrick Leahy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution in ANY context.
The Pelosi impeachment farce gets more and more absurd and illegal as it goes along.
And you won't, because the Constitution says nothing about who will preside except in the case of a SITTING President. Anybody else, it can and usually does go to either the VP or the PPT. Ain't rocket surgery.

The term "sitting " president doesn't appear in the Constitution. Just "President".

In any event, this will be something for the libs to thrash out in the courts. I can't see how Leaky Leahy can be considered "impartial" in any way, and even if he was "allowed" to preside (which he aint) , he should still recuse himself.

I'm looking forward to the trial, I think it will be very interesting and draw tremendous ratings, if Trump can be convinced to appear.
Well, by definition, if one is not the sitting President, then one is not President. There is no "almost President" or "sort-of President" as an actual office.

I can see how Leahy gets to preside over the impeachment trial of an officeholder who is not President, but the part the Democrats keep trying to pretend doesn't exist is that you can't impeach someone who doesn't hold office AT ALL. By definition, impeachment is only for people holding office, and doesn't exist when they don't hold office anymore. After that person leaves office, you either bring criminal charges, or you drop the matter because - one way or the other - the issue is resolved.
Its that simple but they don't understand the constitution hence their blatant hate and constant yearning to rid themselves of it so they can implement a document that imposes strict measures on the populace. This is what dictatorships, communists, strongmen do. Its what we're seeing.
Oh? If this is what "dictatorships" do, who is it that storms its own Capitol, breaks in, kills its guards using fire extinguishers as truncheons, plants bombs, builds a gallows (actually two), goes human-hunting for input for that gallows, hunts around for human hostages with plastic ties, and then shits on the floor?
Please, don't lecture anyone on riots as your leftists murdered, pillaged, destroyed property, burned buildings, for over a year. You have nothing to stand in but hollow words. You're to be pitied.
I'm afraid I don't have any "leftists". Just looked all around the property. No leftists. Just all these Lambourghinis in the driveway.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
66,740
Reaction score
17,347
Points
2,220
Roberts should have done it, but let's face it. No matter who presides, the right would be screaming about it. It's what they do.
Roberts is not required to do it since Trump is no longer president....
That's splitting hairs, imo. It would have been more impartial, and there's no good reason for him not to do it. .
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
157,779
Reaction score
21,920
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
157,779
Reaction score
21,920
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.
I looked and didn't see leftist robot Patrick Leahy mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution in ANY context.
The Pelosi impeachment farce gets more and more absurd and illegal as it goes along.
And you won't, because the Constitution says nothing about who will preside except in the case of a SITTING President. Anybody else, it can and usually does go to either the VP or the PPT. Ain't rocket surgery.

The term "sitting " president doesn't appear in the Constitution. Just "President".

In any event, this will be something for the libs to thrash out in the courts. I can't see how Leaky Leahy can be considered "impartial" in any way, and even if he was "allowed" to preside (which he aint) , he should still recuse himself.

I'm looking forward to the trial, I think it will be very interesting and draw tremendous ratings, if Trump can be convinced to appear.
Well, by definition, if one is not the sitting President, then one is not President. There is no "almost President" or "sort-of President" as an actual office.

I can see how Leahy gets to preside over the impeachment trial of an officeholder who is not President, but the part the Democrats keep trying to pretend doesn't exist is that you can't impeach someone who doesn't hold office AT ALL. By definition, impeachment is only for people holding office, and doesn't exist when they don't hold office anymore. After that person leaves office, you either bring criminal charges, or you drop the matter because - one way or the other - the issue is resolved.
Its that simple but they don't understand the constitution hence their blatant hate and constant yearning to rid themselves of it so they can implement a document that imposes strict measures on the populace. This is what dictatorships, communists, strongmen do. Its what we're seeing.
Oh? If this is what "dictatorships" do, who is it that storms its own Capitol, breaks in, kills its guards using fire extinguishers as truncheons, plants bombs, builds a gallows (actually two), goes human-hunting for input for that gallows, hunts around for human hostages with plastic ties, and then shits on the floor?
Please, don't lecture anyone on riots as your leftists murdered, pillaged, destroyed property, burned buildings, for over a year. You have nothing to stand in but hollow words. You're to be pitied.
I'm afraid I don't have any "leftists". Just looked all around the property. No leftists. Just all these Lambourghinis in the driveway.
Left handed Lamborghinis as the Trumpets would call them.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,590
Reaction score
22,105
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Roberts should have done it, but let's face it. No matter who presides, the right would be screaming about it. It's what they do.
Roberts is not required to do it since Trump is no longer president....
He could have done it if he didn't want to find a technicality to get out of it.

But yes, they'd be either genuflecting to Roberts (if it went the insurrectionistas' way) or marching to construct a gallows for him if it didn't.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top