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

[Pogo]

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.

Rump was not out of office when he was impeached, either time. Fact.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

It is not illegal to try someone not in office for offenses while in office...

 

[Nostra]

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

Nice of Leahy to announce he isn’t authorized to preside over the trial of a President.

 

[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

Nice of Leahy to announce he isn’t authorized to preside over the trial of a President.

I noticed you produced nothing to back up your opinion.

 

[Flash]

Trump would probably just tell the Demcrat scum to go pound sand but this gives him the opportunity to tell the American people about the voter fraud that allowed the Democrats to steal the election. The story the Libtard media refused to tell.

 

[Leo123]

It is not illegal to try someone not in office for offenses while in office...

Apparently no unconstitutional procedure is beyond the Democrat leadership. BTW this is not a trial it's an impeachment, Moonie.

 

[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.

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

Lol. There's that wit. Incorrect but.......

 

[Moonglow]

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.

You don't get to make the rules for a senate trial of a former president.

 

[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.

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.

Now I've gotta teach English too

"Sitting President" is as you note, redundant. If such President were not sitting he/she would be an "ex-President" or "future President" or "President-elect". The adverb "sitting" emphasizes that he is none of those, that he is there in the present. The Constitution doesn't say "sitting" because it doesn't need to. However when trying to explain to the obtuse who are determined not to hear, redundancies, simplification, amplification, repetition and other devices are employed to convey that which will not be conveyed.

SHEESH

 

[Moonglow]

It is not illegal to try someone not in office for offenses while in office...

Apparently no unconstitutional procedure is beyond the Democrat leadership. BTW this is not a trial it's an impeachment, Moonie.

Show me how it is unconstitutional. I have provided proof that it is not unconstitutional.

 

[Nostra]

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?

Where does the Constitution say the Senate can put a private citizen on trial?

 

[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.

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.

He should have done it because "When the president is tried, the chief justice shall preside.”

T**** was President when he was impeached and he is being tried for acts committed while he was the President. I don't see how a sitting senator from either side can be considered impartial. He acts as referee. It's like having a pitcher's mom be umpire in the World Series.

 

[Nostra]

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.

It is not illegal to try someone not in office for offenses while in office...

I notice you produced nothing to back up your misguided opinion.

 

[Nostra]

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

Nice of Leahy to announce he isn’t authorized to preside over the trial of a President.

I noticed you produced nothing to back up your opinion.

The plain text of the Constitution backs me up, Troll.

 

[Nostra]

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.

You don't get to make the rules for a senate trial of a former president.

No such thing.

 

[tyroneweaver]

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.

It is not illegal to try someone not in office for offenses while in office...

I notice you produced nothing to back up your misguided opinion.

I put the fem on ignore

 

[Leo123]

Show me how it is unconstitutional. I have provided proof that it is not unconstitutional.

You provided a link to an article about a trial for treason in the late 1700's. What is happening today and what happened at the last faux impeachment bears no resemblance to that old trial in any way, shape or form. Besides the Democrats have no evidence that Trump committed any impeachable offense, just a lot of presupposing in order to conduct yet another "Orange Man Bad" dog and pony show. The real reason is that the Democrats are deathly afraid of Trump and his 70 to 80 million avid supporters. They would like to be able to preclude him from doing anything political to protect their cush swamp positions.

 

[Lysistrata]

If Roberts won't do it, and you don't want Leahy to preside, or anyone else who is affiliated with a U.S. political party, who ya gonna call? Queen Elizabeth?

 

[Leo123]

If Roberts won't do it, and you don't want Leahy to preside, or anyone else who is affiliated with a U.S. political party, who ya gonna call? Queen Elizabeth?

How about just calling off the whole charade? Trump is a private citizen. All this is a a veiled effort to kill Trump's political and any memory of him. It is shameful and so are you.

"Trump Impeachment Trial Faces Challenge From Republican Sen. Paul"

Trump Impeachment Trial Faces Challenge From Republican Sen. Paul

The Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump on a charge of inciting the deadly Capitol siege could draw its first challenge on Tuesday, with a Republican senator arguing that trying a former president would violate the U.S. Constitution. Trump is the only president to have...

www.newsmax.com

 

[Lysistrata]

If Roberts won't do it, and you don't want Leahy to preside, or anyone else who is affiliated with a U.S. political party, who ya gonna call? Queen Elizabeth?

How about just calling off the whole charade?

It's not a "charade." The guy was a criminal when he was in office, and he must be held accountable, regardless of the fact that he no longer is in office.

Remember that trump just totally ignored everyone who didn't vote for him when he was in office and just bad-mouthed them, and millions did not vote for him, considering that he did not win the majority vote in either the 2016 or 2020 elections. He would not even submit to Congress' lawful oversight.