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

[LordBrownTrout]

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?

Of course they don't but the left weren't complaining about their wrongs for over a year. I'll not listen to such hypocrites.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Is it because in a real Constitutionally approved impeachment, not a democrat/Nancy Pelosi controlled
politicized farce, the chief justice of the Supreme Court MUST be presiding over the proceedings?
Not some ancient servile party hack like Patrick Leahy.

It all makes me wonder why the left considers Russia
their all purpose scapegoat when Nan and the party apparatchiks are actually trying to hold Soviet style
show trials at this very moment in time. They owe much to Russia.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

Your silence on condemning their riots and violence identifies who you are regardless of how many yugos are parked in your green mountain grove.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page

404 Error Page

www.senate.gov

You agree with the lefts unconstitutional impeachment proceedings. I'm not surprised. Lol.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Is it because in a real Constitutionally approved impeachment, not a democrat/Nancy Pelosi controlled
politicized farce, the chief justice of the Supreme Court MUST be presiding over the proceedings?
Not some ancient servile party hack like Patrick Leahy.

It all makes me wonder why the left considers Russia
their all purpose scapegoat when Nan and the party apparatchiks are actually trying to hold Soviet style
show trials at this very moment in time. They owe much to Russia.

You don't reed reel gud do ya.

The Constitution says that the HOUSE impeaches. THEY DID THAT. Two weeks ago.
Tha same Constitution says that the CJ presides over the impeachment TRIAL of a SITTING President. No such trial is currently planned. Therefore the CJ gets off the hook.

Should we post it in Quechua now? Will it sink in that way?

 

[Lysistrata]

It was Roberts' decision not to preside over trump's impeachment trial, and he doesn't want to.

Roberts doesn't want to preside over Trump’s second impeachment trial: Schumer

 

[OldLady]

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. .

That is what the Constitution stipulates.

The Constitution does not say "sitting President" anywhere, Moon. I've read it, too.
Well, it's just my opinion. Roberts has wriggled out of it and I'm sure Leahy will take his responsibilities seriously. As a Democrat in the Senate, though, how can he be impartial? That's the only issue I have with it.

 

[Missourian]

This is a terrible blunder by the Democrats.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page

404 Error Page

www.senate.gov

You agree with the lefts unconstitutional impeachment proceedings. I'm not surprised. Lol.

It is not unconstitutional and it has been done before so there is a precedent, and if Trump didn't want to be impeached he should have played the game better.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Your silence on condemning their riots and violence identifies who you are regardless of how many yugos are parked in your green mountain grove.

I don't opine on shit I'm not familiar with. A strategy you might want to take up.
Not the freaking topic here anyway IS IT. If it were the freaking topic, I wouldn't freaking be here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Comment On Presiding Over The Impeachment Trial Of President Donald Trump | U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont

The official U.S. Senate website of Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont

www.leahy.senate.gov

Might as well appointed George Soros.

Roberts bailed on his own.

Nope... Roberts told them that what they are doing is unconstitutional...Then refused to play their game....

You would think having Chief Justice Roberts say, "No thanks. I don't believe I'll participate" would be a red flag to these people, but apparently not.

 

[tyroneweaver]

In essence what the dems are after is a Bill of Attainder

Which I thought were unconstitutional in the United States

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Why "should" Roberts have done it? What do you think you "know" that he doesn't?

And you're damned right we'd be screaming about it no matter what. And since what the left does is dream up insane new abuses of power and then send compliant mindless drones like you out to parrot talking points about how it's "perfectly normal, nothing to see here", opposing your shit very much is what we do.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Comment On Presiding Over The Impeachment Trial Of President Donald Trump | U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont

The official U.S. Senate website of Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont

www.leahy.senate.gov

Might as appointed George Soros.

Why don't you look up the rules? Roberts would only preside for a sitting President.

The Constitution covers a SITTING President.

Nowhere does it say you can hold an impeachment trial for a former President.

It also says the Chief Justice “shall preside” over any trial. If he isn’t there, there is no trial.

It's a Kangaroo court that they are hoping is enough to keep Trump from being able to run for office again--------Laws and common sense don't matter anymore.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

Your silence on condemning their riots and violence identifies who you are regardless of how many yugos are parked in your green mountain grove.

I don't opine on shit I'm not familiar with. A strategy you might want to take up.
Not the freaking topic here anyway IS IT. If it were the freaking topic, I wouldn't freaking be here.

Such anger and frothing white hot rage. Seek help pogo. This isn't you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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. .

That is what the Constitution stipulates.

The Constitution does not say "sitting President" anywhere, Moon. I've read it, too.
Well, it's just my opinion. Roberts has wriggled out of it and I'm sure Leahy will take his responsibilities seriously. As a Democrat in the Senate, though, how can he be impartial? That's the only issue I have with it.

The Constitution doesn't say "sitting President", you illiterate twat, because it's redundant. One is either President, or one is not. There's no such thing as a "non-sitting President", so only a damned fool trying to make excuses for her masters' abuses of power would attempt to pretend there's a hair to split here.

I'm sure Leahy will take his responsibilities seriously, as well; I am equally sure that his responsibilities are to abuse the power of the Senate as much as possible to further his party's agenda. I'm also sure, while I'm about it, that you will be here spouting whatever talking point he provides as though it's written in stone by the finger of God.

 

[Moonglow]

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. .

That is what the Constitution stipulates.

The Constitution does not say "sitting President" anywhere, Moon. I've read it, too.
Well, it's just my opinion. Roberts has wriggled out of it and I'm sure Leahy will take his responsibilities seriously. As a Democrat in the Senate, though, how can he be impartial? That's the only issue I have with it.

This is not an impeachment of a sitting president so what it says in the Constitution only applies to presidents in office.

In a statement released on Monday, Leahy wrote that the president pro tempore “has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents.” Leahy pledged to adhere to his “constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness.”

Roberts will not preside over impeachment trial - SCOTUSblog

 

[Leo123]

Why don't you look up the rules? Roberts would only preside for a sitting President.

Trump is out of office, it's a phony impeachment worse than the last phony impeachment.

 

[Nostra]

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.

U.S. Senate: 404 Error Page

404 Error Page

www.senate.gov

Cool story.

Unlike this Shampeachment they had evidence of a crime, held hearing to present evidence, then had a vote.

Nice link. Proves Nazi is running a Kangaroo House.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Your silence on condemning their riots and violence identifies who you are regardless of how many yugos are parked in your green mountain grove.

I don't opine on shit I'm not familiar with. A strategy you might want to take up.
Not the freaking topic here anyway IS IT. If it were the freaking topic, I wouldn't freaking be here.

Such anger and frothing white hot rage. Seek help pogo. This isn't you.

What? Calling out fallacies "isn't me"?? Fer fuxsake it's been me as long as there's been a me.