Posted on 01/25/2021 4:39:18 PM PST by bimboeruption
You beat me to it. It will be a Soviet style show trial. The only thing is, they will be making a huge mistake. Trump will defend himself like no one has done before and they will suffer major blow-back from the American people.
[You would think at those ages you may want to get right with the Lord not with the evil one.]
Exactly. What with their support of PP and scoffing at Romans 1:24-28.
But, they gonna do what they gonna do. Or so it seems.
I pray they actually repent of these things. Imagine if they opened up about all that has gone on. Because you know, they DO know what has been happening.
If one of them did that, they would be labeled as “senile”.
The Democrats have actually created quite a conundrum.
“That’s because Roberts knows it’s unconstitutional.”
“The Senate cannot impeach a private citizen.”
Also the impeachment (indictment) did not evaluate evidence, have testimony, and was a sham overall.
In addition, if the Chief Justice does not preside, it is a sham as well.
You can’t go run willy, nilly over the Constitution just because you don’t like someone.
It’s more than just Roberts.
Conflicts of interest involve not only actual prejudice but the appearance of prejudice. Would it not appear to be a conflict of interest with Harris to make rulings regarding the dismarment of the leading potential candidate against her? Who should preside if the chief justice and the vice president should not? How would that decision be made? The Constitution provides for no such process. In this instance, the Senate could elect the presiding officer or the majority leader would appoint one. Because Democrats now control the Senate, with the vice president casting the vote to break a tie, that would also create another appearance of conflict.
So they could go through this entire process and not legally be able to make a decision since the Chief Justice, the VP, and because of prior actions, Leahy who voted in the first impeachment hearing, they all fall under conflict of interest status as their only reason for impeachment is for future considerations and not for high crimes and misdemeanor of a sitting president. They are predestinating a disqualification of a candidate for office. There is no prevision for that in the Constitution. They also need to read the Hatch Act.
wy69
Can this be used to unseat Roberts?
"The Senate shall have the 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...
ArtI, Sec. 3.
Shameful! No masks!
You know what’s infuriating.
Senate Republicans are confirming Biden’s nominees left and right.
Yellen just got confirmed 85-15.
I bet even Kerry and Susan Rice will get confirmed easily.
This is a SICK joke
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And yet on other threads we are being told we have to keep voting for more betrayal from the GOP.
This is actually the fault of those dummies that wrote the Constitution. What a bunch of numb-skulls. They wrote that the Chief Justice will preside over the impeachment of the President. They forgot to add “or the spiteful sham impeachment of the guy that just left office as the majority party just wants a scam to bar him from running again”.
The Senate cannot impeach anyone.
You can’t go run willy, nilly over the Constitution just because you don’t like someone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why not?
They ran over it to make the Kenyan from Indonesia President in direct violation of it.
Also with the help of the GOP.
More on Leaky Leahy:
Sen. Leahy to FBI Director: Give Me Secret Information
12/8/2006, 9:14:50 PM · by Nasty McPhilthy · 43 replies · 1,695+ views
MND ^ | December 08, 2006 | By Jim Kouri, CPP
While Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) isn’t scheduled to takeover as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee until January 2007, he already sounds as if he’s the man in charge of oversight of our nation’s law enforcement and courts. And considering his history of being kicked off the Senate Intelligence Committee due to his propensity for revealing classified information, Americans should be afraid — very afraid. On Wednesday, Sen. Leahy — or, as he’s known inside the Beltway, “Leaky Leahy” — rapped FBI Director Robert Mueller for refusing to show how the has curbed terrorist activity in the United States. Mueller...
Democrats’ Secret Weapons
11/24/2006, 11:44:15 PM · by FairOpinion · 21 replies · 1,816+ views
Investor’s Business Daily ^ | Nov. 24, 2006 | IBD
Intelligence: Senate Democrats are focusing their new powers on one thing above all else: wrenching as many national security secrets as possible from this White House and using them for political assassination. Giving Leahy and his staff secrets would, quite simply, be a security risk. Since the 1980s, Leahy’s nickname inside the Beltway has been “Leaky Leahy” because of his willingness to provide the press with juicy secrets to be used against Republican presidents. “The American people,” Leahy wrote in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, “deserve to have detailed and accurate information about the role of the Bush...
Leahy: President censored warming research
10/29/2006, 4:46:56 AM · by proud_yank · 20 replies · 574+ views
Rutland Herald ^ | Oct 29, 2006 | Kevin O’Connor
BURLINGTON — U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., joined the world’s leading researcher on global warming Saturday to charge that the Bush administration’s use of censorship to foil terrorism is hurting the fight against climate change and other environmental threats. “If you have information that points out a problem, the only way you’re going to make a correction is if you find out about it,” Leahy said. “I have never seen an administration, either Republican or Democratic, as secretive as this one. It has become absolutely farcical, except that the country has been damaged by it.” Leahy, speaking in Burlington, punctuated...
Pat “Leaky” Leahy Aided NSA Phone Taps
5/19/2006, 1:11:40 PM · by Dog · 83 replies · 5,993+ views
newsmax.com ^ | May 19 2006
In 1994 Sen. Pat “Leaky” Leahy co-wrote a law that forced telecommunications carriers to build convenient wiretap features into their networks enabling the kind of telephone records collection now at the heart of the controversy over the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance operation. In recent days Leahy has called the NSA’s actions troubling and potentially illegal - saying they show that the Bush administration is treating Americans like terrorists. “’The secret collection of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans?” he exclaimed after USA Today blew the lid off the program last week. “Are you telling me that...
Senators steam over new report of N-S-A phone calling scrutiny (Specter-Leahy
5/11/2006, 11:44:43 AM · by hipaatwo · 204 replies · 2,959+ views
KGBT4/ AP ^
A Republican senator says it’s time to “find out exactly what is going on.” A Democrat senator is asking, “Where does it stop?” The furor on Capitol Hill is over a U-S-A Today report that three big phone companies have turned over the records of tens of (m) millions of calls to the National Security Agency, as part of a government effort to compile a complete database of phone calls. Chairman Arlen Specter says he wants A-T-and-T, Verizon and BellSouth to appear before his Senate Judiciary panel to explain. The ranking Democrat on the committee, Patrick Leahy, says he’s angry...
Access to Memos Is Affirmed
2/23/2005, 1:13:59 AM · by Former Military Chick · 369+ views
Washington Post ^ | February 23, 2005 | R. Jeffrey Smith
The Justice Department has backed away from a court battle over its authority to classify and restrict the discussion of information it has already released, handing a local advocacy group a victory by granting it explicit permission to publish letters written by two senators that contain the contested information. The case was considered a potential test of limits to the government’s power to restrict access to information in the public domain on national security grounds. Former attorney general John D. Ashcroft had strongly defended the practice in this case by likening it to putting “spilt milk” back in a jar...
Nobody. Roberts has the sense not be caught up in a comic opera sham trial which his presence would legitimize.
Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7
The Senate shall have the 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 Impreachment 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.
It lets the younger more dangerous communists escape criticism.
“Eitherway the article of impeachment is concerning POTUS or Former POTUS. They need to pick and decide but they cannot have him POTUS and NOT_POTUS.
Good point. Also, the House impeaches the POTUS; the Senate tries the POTUS. House just sent article to Senate today - after Trump left office - no longer president. Senate tries President, but Trump is no longer president. It appears the house is impeaching a non-president, and Senate will try a non-president. ??
Alan Dershowitz was just on Newsmax and confirmed they announced that Leahy would be presiding.
Of course he pointed out that was unconstitutional.
And even bringing impeachment after Trump left office is unconstitutional.
Dershowitz predicted that the Senate would vote themselves jurisdiction over the case and have the trial, but that Trump would be acquitted. Because they won’t have the 2/3 majority vote.
He also pointed out that if they did convict Trump it would cast a pale over the 2024 election. Because the American public would have been denied the right to vote for a candidate. And sets a terrible precedent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.