Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

[OldLady]

LOL You aren't wiggling your way out this one. It's a valid trial, being conducted in a legal manner, just like the election was. All the crying and whining in the world isn't going to change this, either.

 

[BS Filter]

LOL You aren't wiggling your way out this one. It's a valid trial, being conducted in a legal manner, just like the election was. All the crying and whining in the world isn't going to change this, either.

Yeah, with a partisan Democrat hack as presiding judge. This trial is right out of Nazi Germany.

 

[Lesh]

They just took Patrick Leahy to the hospital. Probably fell down drunk and broke his fat lying nose.

I hope he goes into a coma for a couple of years.

Imagine the (manufactured) outrage if a Dem (any Dem, anywhere) had said that about a GOP Senator

 

[Nostra]

Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......

Do you have a link to that?

Your ignorance of Roberts’ refusal to oversee the Shampeachment trial isn’t my concern.

Translation: You're citing yourself AS Roberts. As Roberts has never claimed that the impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'.

Color me shocked.

Then he must be impeached. Why isn’t Nazi impeaching him?

You can’t win this.

Who is 'nazi' in your little imagination?

Remember, you're not quoting Roberts. You're quoting yourself. The only one saying that Roberts must be impeached is you, citing yourself as a constitutional authority.

And your source doesn't know what he's talking about.

If this trial is Constitutional the Constitution requires Roberts to preside.

Says you, citing yourself as the constitutional authority. And you don't know what you're talking about.

The constitution has only this requirement of Roberts: "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside"

Since Trump is no longer president, Roberts is under no obligation to preside. See how simple that was?

Either it is Constitutional, or he is violating his oath and needs to be impeached.

Or....you don't know what you're talking about.

I’m citing the Constitution, Stupid.

You should find someone to read it to you.

 

[Nostra]

LOL You aren't wiggling your way out this one. It's a valid trial, being conducted in a legal manner, just like the election was. All the crying and whining in the world isn't going to change this, either.

You are clearly ignorant of what the Constitution says about a Senate Impeachment trial.

 

[Skylar]

I’m citing the Constitution, Stupid.

You should find someone to read it to you.

Here's the constitution:

Show me where it says that Roberts must preside over the impeachment trial of an ex-president.

If you're citing the constitution, this will be remarkably easy. If you're citing your imagination, it will be a bit harder.

 

[Lesh]

I qouted the Constitution, shitstain. What part of " When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside" didn't you understand?

The only Impeachment that requires the Chief Justice is for a sitting President. Roberts demurred because he reportedly didn't want to be at the center of this. Precedent says that in cases not involving a sitting President that the VP or President Pro Tem preside. It has happened numerous times

The History of American Impeachment

There’s a precedent that it's not just for presidents

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Skylar]

LOL You aren't wiggling your way out this one. It's a valid trial, being conducted in a legal manner, just like the election was. All the crying and whining in the world isn't going to change this, either.

You are clearly ignorant of what the Constitution says about a Senate Impeachment trial.

Or....you are. Here's everything the constitution has to say on the matter:

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgement 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law."

That establishes the Senate's authority. That establishes the punishments. That establishes the requirements of conviction.

So where is the part that says that Trump's impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'? Because I'm pretty sure you're citing your imagination on that one.

 

[OldLady]

LOL You aren't wiggling your way out this one. It's a valid trial, being conducted in a legal manner, just like the election was. All the crying and whining in the world isn't going to change this, either.

Yeah, with a partisan Democrat hack as presiding judge. This trial is right out of Nazi Germany.

Personally, I'd prefer Roberts do it, but that's not the decision they made. Leahy is going to do his best. He's taking it so seriously, he's giving himself a heart attack.
Comment On Presiding Over The Impeachment Trial Of President Donald Trump
“The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents. When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously.
“I consider holding the office of the president pro tempore and the responsibilities that come with it to be one of the highest honors and most serious responsibilities of my career. When I preside over the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, I will not waver from my constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws.

Give him the same respect you want shown to Trump's defenders and see how he does.

 

[Nostra]

I’m citing the Constitution, Stupid.

You should find someone to read it to you.

Here's the constitution:

Show me where it says that Roberts must preside over the impeachment trial of an ex-president.

If you're citing the constitution, this will be remarkably easy. If you're citing your imagination, it will be a bit harder.

No such thing as impeaching a private citizen.

Next?

 

[Nostra]

LOL You aren't wiggling your way out this one. It's a valid trial, being conducted in a legal manner, just like the election was. All the crying and whining in the world isn't going to change this, either.

You are clearly ignorant of what the Constitution says about a Senate Impeachment trial.

Or....you are. Here's everything the constitution has to say on the matter:

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgement 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law."

That establishes the Senate's authority. That establishes the punishments. That establishes the requirements of conviction.

So where is the part that says that Trump's impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'? Because I'm pretty sure you're citing your imagination on that one.

You just posted that Trump was an EX-PRESIDENT. Now you are arguing he is President.

You can’t win, Stupid.

 

[Skylar]

I’m citing the Constitution, Stupid.

You should find someone to read it to you.

Here's the constitution:

Show me where it says that Roberts must preside over the impeachment trial of an ex-president.

If you're citing the constitution, this will be remarkably easy. If you're citing your imagination, it will be a bit harder.

No such thing as impeaching a private citizen.

Says who? That would be you, citing yourself.

Trump was impeached, thus the Senate has authority. Says who? Says the constitution.

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation."

Now why would I ignore the constitution and instead believe your rambling pseudo-legal gibberish?

 

[Nostra]

LOL You aren't wiggling your way out this one. It's a valid trial, being conducted in a legal manner, just like the election was. All the crying and whining in the world isn't going to change this, either.

You are clearly ignorant of what the Constitution says about a Senate Impeachment trial.

Or....you are. Here's everything the constitution has to say on the matter:

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgement 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law."

That establishes the Senate's authority. That establishes the punishments. That establishes the requirements of conviction.

So where is the part that says that Trump's impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'? Because I'm pretty sure you're citing your imagination on that one.

Your link...”WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS TRIED”.

You have Biden on trial, Dumbass.

 

[Nostra]

I’m citing the Constitution, Stupid.

You should find someone to read it to you.

Here's the constitution:

Show me where it says that Roberts must preside over the impeachment trial of an ex-president.

If you're citing the constitution, this will be remarkably easy. If you're citing your imagination, it will be a bit harder.

No such thing as impeaching a private citizen.

Says who? That would be you, citing yourself.

Trump was impeached, thus the Senate has authority. Says who? Says the constitution.

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation."

Now why would I ignore the constitution and instead believe your rambling pseudo-legal gibberish?

Show me where the Constitution spells out the procedures for impeaching a private citizen.

You lose again.

 

[Skylar]

LOL You aren't wiggling your way out this one. It's a valid trial, being conducted in a legal manner, just like the election was. All the crying and whining in the world isn't going to change this, either.

You are clearly ignorant of what the Constitution says about a Senate Impeachment trial.

Or....you are. Here's everything the constitution has to say on the matter:

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgement 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law."

That establishes the Senate's authority. That establishes the punishments. That establishes the requirements of conviction.

So where is the part that says that Trump's impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'? Because I'm pretty sure you're citing your imagination on that one.

You just posted that Trump was an EX-PRESIDENT. Now you are arguing he is President.

You can’t win, Stupid.

Nope. I've never said that Trump is still president. That would be you, citing yourself again.

Show us in the constitution where it says that the Senate has no authority over his impeachment trial after he's left office.

Smiling.....good luck.

 

[Nostra]

LOL You aren't wiggling your way out this one. It's a valid trial, being conducted in a legal manner, just like the election was. All the crying and whining in the world isn't going to change this, either.

You are clearly ignorant of what the Constitution says about a Senate Impeachment trial.

Or....you are. Here's everything the constitution has to say on the matter:

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgement 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law."

That establishes the Senate's authority. That establishes the punishments. That establishes the requirements of conviction.

So where is the part that says that Trump's impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'? Because I'm pretty sure you're citing your imagination on that one.

You just posted that Trump was an EX-PRESIDENT. Now you are arguing he is President.

You can’t win, Stupid.

Nope. I've never said that Trump is still president. That would be you, citing yourself again.

Show us in the constitution where it says that the Senate has no authority over his impeachment trial after he's left office.

Smiling.....good luck.

Your link did just that.

Are you now claiming Trump is still President?

 

[Skylar]

I’m citing the Constitution, Stupid.

You should find someone to read it to you.

Here's the constitution:

Show me where it says that Roberts must preside over the impeachment trial of an ex-president.

If you're citing the constitution, this will be remarkably easy. If you're citing your imagination, it will be a bit harder.

No such thing as impeaching a private citizen.

Says who? That would be you, citing yourself.

Trump was impeached, thus the Senate has authority. Says who? Says the constitution.

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation."

Now why would I ignore the constitution and instead believe your rambling pseudo-legal gibberish?

Show me where the Constitution spells out the procedures for impeaching a private citizen.

You lose again.

There's no 'private citizen' limit to the Senate's authority over impeachment trials. You imagined it.

Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has authority over his impeachment trial. Says who? Says the constitution.

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation."

I keep quoting the constitution. You keep quoting yourself. Our sources are not equal.

 

[OldLady]

LOL You aren't wiggling your way out this one. It's a valid trial, being conducted in a legal manner, just like the election was. All the crying and whining in the world isn't going to change this, either.

You are clearly ignorant of what the Constitution says about a Senate Impeachment trial.

I've read it, I've quoted it, and I've remarked on it. It's not up to me, or you, to make this decision. Precedent has been set and they have interpreted the situation the way they have. We've never had a President shit the bed so close to leaving office before, so their decision is theirs to make, and they've made it, despite the efforts of legions of Trumpsters to play Constitutional Lawyer. You're just making noise at this point. You might do better to polish up on why the President doesn't deserve to be convicted, because that train is coming down the track.

 

[Skylar]

LOL You aren't wiggling your way out this one. It's a valid trial, being conducted in a legal manner, just like the election was. All the crying and whining in the world isn't going to change this, either.

You are clearly ignorant of what the Constitution says about a Senate Impeachment trial.

Or....you are. Here's everything the constitution has to say on the matter:

"The Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgement 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law."

That establishes the Senate's authority. That establishes the punishments. That establishes the requirements of conviction.

So where is the part that says that Trump's impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'? Because I'm pretty sure you're citing your imagination on that one.

You just posted that Trump was an EX-PRESIDENT. Now you are arguing he is President.

You can’t win, Stupid.

Nope. I've never said that Trump is still president. That would be you, citing yourself again.

Show us in the constitution where it says that the Senate has no authority over his impeachment trial after he's left office.

Smiling.....good luck.

Your link did just that.

Are you now claiming Trump is still President?

Nope. You imagined it.

 

[Lesh]

No such thing as impeaching a private citizen.

It's been shown to you that Sec of War was a private citizen when Impeached due to his resignation.

Now you're just lying