Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

[Nostra]

Conviction is DOA. Votes are not there.

Move on fuckwits.

The votes are indeed not there. The impeachment trial will proceed anyway.

So you admit it is just a temper tantrum.

 

[Faun]

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

You're lying again. The Constitution says there is...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Fawnboi is TILTING!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

LOL

I like how you're trying to redefine the word, "ALL."

Never used the word “all”, Dumbfuck.

Keep TILTING, Fawnboi.

The Constitution certainly does.

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

Not 'all impeachment trials except whatever Nostra makes up'. But all impeachment trials. If someone has been impeached, then the senate has the sole power over their impeachment trial.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment AND William Belknap.

Keep running, Troll. The constitution doesn't change just because you ignore it.

You're posting non sequiturs. William Belknap was not legally impeached. The only thing "impending" with rerad to Trump is a Democrat circus.

Impeachment isn't a legal process. He was Constitutionally impeached. Just like Twice Impeached Trump. And just like Belknap, Twice Impeached Trump will be tried in the Senate, just like the Constitution authorizes.

 

[Skylar]

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

There's no 'private citizen' exemption. The senate has authority over all impeachment trials. Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has the authority to try him.

You imagined the 'private citizen' exemption. And your imagination is irrelevant to the Senate's authority. The constitution, however....is not.

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

It doesn't say 'The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.....except if someone has already left office and is a private citizen at the time of the trial.

The limit to senate authority you've imagined......is completely made up. It simply doesn't exist in the constitution

Only a handful of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS are subject to the impeachment process. Private citizens are not subject to the impeachment process.

Says you citing you. The constitution however says that the Senate has authority over ALL impeachment trials.

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

There is no 'private citizen' exemption to the Senate's authority. You imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial....and the impeachment trial of William Belknap

Try again, Troll.

It says the Senate shall preside over impeaching "THE PRESIDENT," you fucking moron.

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

Fawnboi is tilting hard now.

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

You're lying again. The Constitution says there is...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Fawnboi is TILTING!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

There's no exemption for non Apple employees from being fired from Apple computer. That's what you're arguing.

You're arguing that being fired from Apple can forbid you from ever holding office again?

If no, then clearly you're not familiar with the potential consequences of an impeachment trial.

As always, your pseudo-legal gibberish obligates no one to do anything. As Trump's impending impeachment trial demonstrates elegantly.

I can always count on you to deliberately misconstrue what I said.

What is the consequence to me of being impeached by the Senate?

It means they can then vote to disqualify him from ever holding a federal office again. As opposed to your backyard circle jerk with your buddies only results in a mess you yourself will end up cleaning.

There's no such consequence to me because I'm not a federal office holder, and neither is Trump, you fucking moron.

You get that the disqualification would apply to the future, right?

You understand the difference between the future, the past and the present, yes?

If you're impeached, you can never hold another office IN THE FUTURE. Trump has talked about running again IN THE FUTURE. And an impeachment trial conviction would prevent him from ever running again IN THE FUTURE.

Did you follow this time?

 

[bripat9643]

Then what are the consequences to me of being convicted by the Senate?

Have you been impeached by the House? Because that's the only way the Senate can try you.

I knew you were going to say that. You're just running away like a scared little girl.

If you've been impeached by the House, then a conviction in the Senate during your impeachment trial would mean that you can never hold federal elected office again. Its called 'disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

Which you'd know if you'd actually read the constitution rather than quoting your imagination.

I have never held a federal office, so it means nothing. Impeaching Schumar and Piglosi in my backyard has just as much significance.

If you've never held a federal office, you couldn't have been impeached in the House. Making you irrelevant to what we're discussing.

While Trump was impeached while President (FYI...that's a federal office) and has talked about running again. Impeachment would disqualify him from ever doing so.

Again, read the ACTUAL constitution. The pseudo-legal gibberish you make up has nothing to do with it.

No, not just "ever held." If you are currently not holding a federal office, you can't be impeached.

 

[Faun]

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

There's no 'private citizen' exemption. The senate has authority over all impeachment trials. Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has the authority to try him.

You imagined the 'private citizen' exemption. And your imagination is irrelevant to the Senate's authority. The constitution, however....is not.

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

It doesn't say 'The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.....except if someone has already left office and is a private citizen at the time of the trial.

The limit to senate authority you've imagined......is completely made up. It simply doesn't exist in the constitution

Only a handful of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS are subject to the impeachment process. Private citizens are not subject to the impeachment process.

Says you citing you. The constitution however says that the Senate has authority over ALL impeachment trials.

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

There is no 'private citizen' exemption to the Senate's authority. You imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial....and the impeachment trial of William Belknap

Try again, Troll.

It says the Senate shall preside over impeaching "THE PRESIDENT," you fucking moron.

LOLOL

Nowhere does the Constitution say that. You're fucking hallucinating again. Want proof...?

Quote the Constitution saying the Senate shall preside over impeaching the president.....

quit being anal retentive. Evryone knows what I meant. You pretend you don't because you know you've lost this argument.

You're a fucking moron... try quoting the part you "meant"... you'll still prove yourself to be the fucking moron the forum knows you to be....

You've already thoroughly embarassed yourself. There's no need for me to double down on your humiliation.

LOLOLOL

I knew you couldn't quote the Constitution stating what you idiotically think it states. Hence, the popcorn guy.

Thanks for performing as expected, fucking moron.

 

[bripat9643]

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

You're lying again. The Constitution says there is...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Fawnboi is TILTING!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

LOL

I like how you're trying to redefine the word, "ALL."

Never used the word “all”, Dumbfuck.

Keep TILTING, Fawnboi.

The Constitution certainly does.

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

Not 'all impeachment trials except whatever Nostra makes up'. But all impeachment trials. If someone has been impeached, then the senate has the sole power over their impeachment trial.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment AND William Belknap.

Keep running, Troll. The constitution doesn't change just because you ignore it.

You're posting non sequiturs. William Belknap was not legally impeached. The only thing "impending" with rerad to Trump is a Democrat circus.

Impeachment isn't a legal process. He was Constitutionally impeached. Just like Twice Impeached Trump. And just like Belknap, Twice Impeached Trump will be tried in the Senate, just like the Constitution authorizes.

Prove it was constitutional. What was the penalty he suffered?

 

[Skylar]

Conviction is DOA. Votes are not there.

Move on fuckwits.

The votes are indeed not there. The impeachment trial will proceed anyway.

So you admit it is just a temper tantrum.

Nope. Its an constitutionally authrorized impeachment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This needs to be tried in a federal court. It was a crime. Trump aided in the crime. No one should be able to do what was done and just be allowed to walk. Fuck you republicans because you all suppported trumps attempts to investigate and imprison private citizens for nothing but a lie. So nobody wants to hear chirping from the clown car.

Shut up.

He gave a speech that leftist pieces of human shit like you didn't like. As a result, a relatively small group of uber-right-wing fanatics decided to storm the Capitol.

If it should be tried in a federal court, let's see you offer an unqualified denouncement of the impeachment. Otherwise, you're just another hypocritical negro...

Former President Donald Trump can be convicted in an impeachment trial for his role in inciting the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6 even though he is no longer in office, a bipartisan group of constitutional law scholars wrote in a letter Thursday.

Legal scholars, including at Federalist Society, say Trump can be convicted

Some Republicans have argued a former president can't be the target of an impeachment trial.

www.politico.com

and the federalist society is very conservative.

You must have us confused with Democrats, who slavishly believe anything that's said by someone famous from their party because they're unequipped to have original thoughts.

The Federalist Society can think any damned thing they want, and I reserve the right to think they're full of shit, no matter how "very conservative" you consider them to be. "They think this, and they're on your side, so you HAVE to think it too!!!" only works with drooling fools like you.

 

[Lastamender]

The voter fraud took place in six swing states. Witnesses and data prove the fraud.

Why was the data that you claim proved such, never brought to court in a suit, by Giuliani or Powel or any of his legal teams?

DEAR GOD, I've answered this I bet 200 times and I guess I'll do it ONE MORE TIME. The evidence WAS brought before court after court, and not in one case was it disproven as wrong or false, much less "baseless," in fact, the evidence was never even examined. The cases themselves were denied purely on a procedural basis, such as the time or date the case was brought to them on the grounds that the president didn't have standing to even bring the charges to challenge the election! It never even got to where the court was willing to test the evidence to determine if it showed fraud or not. Amazing.

DEAR LORD, I'll point this out one last time....

You've been sold a bill of goods by your mind control handlers...

NONE, ZIP, ZERO of those cases rejected by the court, brought by Trump team lawyers to court, involved any CLAIMS OF VOTER FRAUD.

The court cases they brought were procedural objections to election laws used....

No Domnion, or Smartmatic computer fraud allegations, or ballot stuffing allegations, or vote switching allegations, etc etc etc were ever brought to court, to be DENIED. The cases rejected or shot down were on election process rules and changes.

The claims your TRUMP mind control masters have repetitively inundated you with ....enough, that you believe them, regarding their voter fraud evidence not being allowed to be presented in their court cases because their court cases were denied standing....

THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

Trump brought NO court cases to the Courts on voter fraud, to be denied.

I went through the list of the 60 plus court cases one by one, that the right wing is passing around.... fraud cases were never brought.

What makes you think saying minds are controlled when people are censored? That would be your mind being controlled by the narrative you are stupid enough to believe. There was massive fraud and the legal games prove it even more. The guilt is obvious and your repetition that fraud never happened only enforces that fact.

 

[Faun]

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

There's no 'private citizen' exemption. The senate has authority over all impeachment trials. Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has the authority to try him.

You imagined the 'private citizen' exemption. And your imagination is irrelevant to the Senate's authority. The constitution, however....is not.

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

It doesn't say 'The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.....except if someone has already left office and is a private citizen at the time of the trial.

The limit to senate authority you've imagined......is completely made up. It simply doesn't exist in the constitution

Only a handful of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS are subject to the impeachment process. Private citizens are not subject to the impeachment process.

Says you citing you. The constitution however says that the Senate has authority over ALL impeachment trials.

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

There is no 'private citizen' exemption to the Senate's authority. You imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial....and the impeachment trial of William Belknap

Try again, Troll.

It says the Senate shall preside over impeaching "THE PRESIDENT," you fucking moron.

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

Fawnboi is tilting hard now.

LOL

You're lying yet again, dumbfuck. Nowhere does the Constitution limit for whom the Senate can hold an impeachment trial. In fact, it says they have the power to try "ALL impeachments."

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Only someone suffering brain damage would believe your arguments are convincing.

I never expected to convince a fucking moron like you of reality. I'm just having fun watching you drown in your own hallucinations.

 

[bripat9643]

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

There's no 'private citizen' exemption. The senate has authority over all impeachment trials. Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has the authority to try him.

You imagined the 'private citizen' exemption. And your imagination is irrelevant to the Senate's authority. The constitution, however....is not.

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

It doesn't say 'The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.....except if someone has already left office and is a private citizen at the time of the trial.

The limit to senate authority you've imagined......is completely made up. It simply doesn't exist in the constitution

Only a handful of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS are subject to the impeachment process. Private citizens are not subject to the impeachment process.

Says you citing you. The constitution however says that the Senate has authority over ALL impeachment trials.

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

There is no 'private citizen' exemption to the Senate's authority. You imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial....and the impeachment trial of William Belknap

Try again, Troll.

It says the Senate shall preside over impeaching "THE PRESIDENT," you fucking moron.

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

Fawnboi is tilting hard now.

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

You're lying again. The Constitution says there is...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Fawnboi is TILTING!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

There's no exemption for non Apple employees from being fired from Apple computer. That's what you're arguing.

You're arguing that being fired from Apple can forbid you from ever holding office again?

If no, then clearly you're not familiar with the potential consequences of an impeachment trial.

As always, your pseudo-legal gibberish obligates no one to do anything. As Trump's impending impeachment trial demonstrates elegantly.

I can always count on you to deliberately misconstrue what I said.

What is the consequence to me of being impeached by the Senate?

It means they can then vote to disqualify him from ever holding a federal office again. As opposed to your backyard circle jerk with your buddies only results in a mess you yourself will end up cleaning.

There's no such consequence to me because I'm not a federal office holder, and neither is Trump, you fucking moron.

You get that the disqualification would apply to the future, right?

You understand the difference between the future, the past and the present, yes?

If you're impeached, you can never hold another office IN THE FUTURE. Trump has talked about running again IN THE FUTURE. And an impeachment trial conviction would prevent him from ever running again IN THE FUTURE.

Did you follow this time?

There are no disqualifications because of show trials, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

There's no 'private citizen' exemption. The senate has authority over all impeachment trials. Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has the authority to try him.

You imagined the 'private citizen' exemption. And your imagination is irrelevant to the Senate's authority. The constitution, however....is not.

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

It doesn't say 'The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.....except if someone has already left office and is a private citizen at the time of the trial.

The limit to senate authority you've imagined......is completely made up. It simply doesn't exist in the constitution

Only a handful of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS are subject to the impeachment process. Private citizens are not subject to the impeachment process.

Says you citing you. The constitution however says that the Senate has authority over ALL impeachment trials.

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

There is no 'private citizen' exemption to the Senate's authority. You imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial....and the impeachment trial of William Belknap

Try again, Troll.

It says the Senate shall preside over impeaching "THE PRESIDENT," you fucking moron.

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

Fawnboi is tilting hard now.

LOL

You're lying yet again, dumbfuck. Nowhere does the Constitution limit for whom the Senate can hold an impeachment trial. In fact, it says they have the power to try "ALL impeachments."

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Only someone suffering brain damage would believe your arguments are convincing.

I never expected to convince a fucking moron like you of reality. I'm just having fun watching you drown in your own hallucinations.

You know that you're making a fool of yourself.

 

[Lastamender]

Conviction is DOA. Votes are not there.

Move on fuckwits.

The votes are indeed not there. The impeachment trial will proceed anyway.

So you admit it is just a temper tantrum.

Nope. Its an constitutionally authrorized impeachment.

45 Senators say it is not. You need 67 to convict. Looks like your ass sucks cottonwood.

 

[Skylar]

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

You're lying again. The Constitution says there is...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Fawnboi is TILTING!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

LOL

I like how you're trying to redefine the word, "ALL."

Never used the word “all”, Dumbfuck.

Keep TILTING, Fawnboi.

The Constitution certainly does.

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

Not 'all impeachment trials except whatever Nostra makes up'. But all impeachment trials. If someone has been impeached, then the senate has the sole power over their impeachment trial.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment AND William Belknap.

Keep running, Troll. The constitution doesn't change just because you ignore it.

You're posting non sequiturs. William Belknap was not legally impeached. The only thing "impending" with rerad to Trump is a Democrat circus.

Impeachment isn't a legal process. He was Constitutionally impeached. Just like Twice Impeached Trump. And just like Belknap, Twice Impeached Trump will be tried in the Senate, just like the Constitution authorizes.

Prove it was constitutional. What was the penalty he suffered?

Belknap wasn't legally impeached....says you, citing yourself.

Belknap was legally impeached, says the US Senate.

Alas, the Constitution definitely picks a team on who has the authority to make that call:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

And as predictable as Trump's impeachment trial.......your argument devolves into you, once again, insisting that your imagination is the sole legal authority to which all the law is bound.

Shocker.

 

[bripat9643]

Conviction is DOA. Votes are not there.

Move on fuckwits.

The votes are indeed not there. The impeachment trial will proceed anyway.

So you admit it is just a temper tantrum.

Nope. Its an constitutionally authrorized impeachment.

I haven't seen the language that authorizes it.

 

[Faun]

Then what are the consequences to me of being convicted by the Senate?

Have you been impeached by the House? Because that's the only way the Senate can try you.

I knew you were going to say that. You're just running away like a scared little girl.

If you've been impeached by the House, then a conviction in the Senate during your impeachment trial would mean that you can never hold federal elected office again. Its called 'disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

Which you'd know if you'd actually read the constitution rather than quoting your imagination.

I have never held a federal office, so it means nothing. Impeaching Schumar and Piglosi in my backyard has just as much significance.

"I have never held a federal office"

You didn't; and for good reason. Twice Impeached Trump did. He was constitutionally impeached. Now he faces a constitutionally authorized trial.

 

[bripat9643]

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

You're lying again. The Constitution says there is...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Fawnboi is TILTING!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

LOL

I like how you're trying to redefine the word, "ALL."

Never used the word “all”, Dumbfuck.

Keep TILTING, Fawnboi.

The Constitution certainly does.

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

Not 'all impeachment trials except whatever Nostra makes up'. But all impeachment trials. If someone has been impeached, then the senate has the sole power over their impeachment trial.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment AND William Belknap.

Keep running, Troll. The constitution doesn't change just because you ignore it.

You're posting non sequiturs. William Belknap was not legally impeached. The only thing "impending" with rerad to Trump is a Democrat circus.

Impeachment isn't a legal process. He was Constitutionally impeached. Just like Twice Impeached Trump. And just like Belknap, Twice Impeached Trump will be tried in the Senate, just like the Constitution authorizes.

Prove it was constitutional. What was the penalty he suffered?

Belknap wasn't legally impeached....says you, citing yourself.

Belknap was legally impeached, says the US Senate.

Alas, the Constitution definitely picks a team on who has the authority to make that call:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

And as predictable as Trump's impeachment trial.......your argument devolves into you, once again, insisting that your imagination is the sole legal authority to which all the law is bound.

Shocker.

What judge says he was legally impeached? . . . . . . that's right: none. Your "precedent" is therefor null and void.

 

[bripat9643]

Then what are the consequences to me of being convicted by the Senate?

Have you been impeached by the House? Because that's the only way the Senate can try you.

I knew you were going to say that. You're just running away like a scared little girl.

If you've been impeached by the House, then a conviction in the Senate during your impeachment trial would mean that you can never hold federal elected office again. Its called 'disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

Which you'd know if you'd actually read the constitution rather than quoting your imagination.

I have never held a federal office, so it means nothing. Impeaching Schumar and Piglosi in my backyard has just as much significance.

"I have never held a federal office"

You didn't; and for good reason. Twice Impeached Trump did. He was constitutionally impeached. Now he faces a constitutionally authorized trial.

You're kidding. That's your argument?

 

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

There's no 'private citizen' exemption. The senate has authority over all impeachment trials. Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has the authority to try him.

You imagined the 'private citizen' exemption. And your imagination is irrelevant to the Senate's authority. The constitution, however....is not.

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

It doesn't say 'The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.....except if someone has already left office and is a private citizen at the time of the trial.

The limit to senate authority you've imagined......is completely made up. It simply doesn't exist in the constitution

Only a handful of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS are subject to the impeachment process. Private citizens are not subject to the impeachment process.

Says you citing you. The constitution however says that the Senate has authority over ALL impeachment trials.

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

There is no 'private citizen' exemption to the Senate's authority. You imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial....and the impeachment trial of William Belknap

Try again, Troll.

It says the Senate shall preside over impeaching "THE PRESIDENT," you fucking moron.

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

Fawnboi is tilting hard now.

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

You're lying again. The Constitution says there is...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Fawnboi is TILTING!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

There's no exemption for non Apple employees from being fired from Apple computer. That's what you're arguing.

You're arguing that being fired from Apple can forbid you from ever holding office again?

If no, then clearly you're not familiar with the potential consequences of an impeachment trial.

As always, your pseudo-legal gibberish obligates no one to do anything. As Trump's impending impeachment trial demonstrates elegantly.

I can always count on you to deliberately misconstrue what I said.

What is the consequence to me of being impeached by the Senate?

It means they can then vote to disqualify him from ever holding a federal office again. As opposed to your backyard circle jerk with your buddies only results in a mess you yourself will end up cleaning.

There's no such consequence to me because I'm not a federal office holder, and neither is Trump, you fucking moron.

You get that the disqualification would apply to the future, right?

You understand the difference between the future, the past and the present, yes?

If you're impeached, you can never hold another office IN THE FUTURE. Trump has talked about running again IN THE FUTURE. And an impeachment trial conviction would prevent him from ever running again IN THE FUTURE.

Did you follow this time?

Votes are not there. Everyone knows it.

Dimwinger Temper Tantrum 2.0

 

[bripat9643]

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

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, you're inability to comprehend even basic logic here is cracking me up!

Roberts presides over impeachment trials for the president.

Twice Impeached Trump is NOT the president.

Therefore, Roberts cannot preside over Twice Impeached Trump's impeachment trial.
Savvy?

Trump isn't president. Where does the Constitution say he non-president can be tried as the result of an impeachment? It doesn't.

They hate the Constitution, so they ignore it.

There's no 'private citizen' exemption for impeachment trials. You've imagined it.

And the Senate isn't bound to your imagination. As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment trial.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

You're lying again. The Constitution says there is...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.​

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the Senate to hold a trial for a private citizen.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Fawnboi is TILTING!

Laughing.....there is no exemption for private citizens. You've made that up. The constitution grants the Senate authority over ALL impeachment trials, with no exceptions.


"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

You ignore the constitution and imagine limits to the Senate's power that neither the Constitution nor history have ever recognized.

Good luck with that!

When the Constitution provides a list of the only people something applies to, all others are exempt, you raving lunatic.

LOL

I like how you're trying to redefine the word, "ALL."

Never used the word “all”, Dumbfuck.

Keep TILTING, Fawnboi.

The Constitution certainly does.

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

Not 'all impeachment trials except whatever Nostra makes up'. But all impeachment trials. If someone has been impeached, then the senate has the sole power over their impeachment trial.

As demonstrated by Trump's impending impeachment AND William Belknap.

Keep running, Troll. The constitution doesn't change just because you ignore it.

You're posting non sequiturs. William Belknap was not legally impeached. The only thing "impending" with rerad to Trump is a Democrat circus.

Impeachment isn't a legal process. He was Constitutionally impeached. Just like Twice Impeached Trump. And just like Belknap, Twice Impeached Trump will be tried in the Senate, just like the Constitution authorizes.

Prove it was constitutional. What was the penalty he suffered?

Belknap wasn't legally impeached....says you, citing yourself.

Belknap was legally impeached, says the US Senate.

Alas, the Constitution definitely picks a team on who has the authority to make that call:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

And as predictable as Trump's impeachment trial.......your argument devolves into you, once again, insisting that your imagination is the sole legal authority to which all the law is bound.

Shocker.

<YAWN!>

You're reguritating the same talking points over and over again.