---------
OK. Then I'll tell John to take that trial, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways and stick it straight up Schumer's candy ass!
Posted on 01/23/2021 9:39:44 PM PST by conservative98
As Democrats plunge ahead with a post-term impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, a key question remains: Will Chief Justice Roberts take the case?
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky says he won’t — making the exercise “a fake, partisan impeachment,” the lawmaker told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Friday.
Paul claimed Roberts has “privately said he’s not supposed to come unless it’s an impeachment of the president.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I don’t think it is within their jurisdiction to decide that...but even if it was, it would have to be challenged after it has already been done to be actionable.
Senators are not eligible for impeachment.
-PJ
And distract from outrageous executive orders.
Where in the Constitution does it say the VP shall step in if the Chief Justice will not?
She’s hardly knowledgeable for this job.
We already know that
But he's not president now. The Constitution says the chief justice shall preside over the trial of a president, not a former president. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. Since Trump is no longer part of the political framework of the U.S. government there's no constitutional mechanism to try him. The entire "trial" in the senate will be an extra-constitutional sham. The Constitution doesn't list a mechanism to try a private citizen on impeachment charges. If they wanted to try him their opportunity was when he was in office, that time is now past.
If Roberts has any balls he'll tell them the whole process is illegal and he's not having anything to do with it. He hasn't shown any balls so far, so I'm not betting on it. Let them hold their sham trial, it'll be a farce and mean nothing.
If they want to go after private citizen Trump, they should use the criminal justice system which is set up for this purpose - not impeachment. Of course, that makes too much sense, and they would have a hard time convicting him in a court of law. Whatever they do will just make Trump more of a martyr. They are idiots.
Robert’s is using the Lindsey strategy.
---------
OK. Then I'll tell John to take that trial, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways and stick it straight up Schumer's candy ass!
I’m not buying this for a second. Beijing just needs to snap their fingers and the compromised justice will make it happen. Count on it.
It doesn't.
The Chief Justice presiding is the exception case, otherwise normal Senate rules apply.
The exception is that the Chief Justice presides in the impeachment trial of the President so as not to have the appearance of partisanship.
In all other cases, the person being impeached has already been confirmed by the Senate, so partisanship is already assumed from their confirmation votes.
Since the President is elected via the Electoral College and not through appointment confirmation, the Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial.
-PJ
Roberts looked the other way on ALL of those district court injunctions against Trump EOs
By Jove I think you got it! I Thought the plan was to have some anti terror law overturned being the excuse for packing the court but your plot sounds better. This way the anti terror law keeps all it's evil parts.
Good to know. The commentator mentioned those problems but did not say it definitely wouldn’t happen. I got the impression it would be up to Trump to object and the issue would be who would determine it. Given Nancy’s concept of fairness I was a bit worried.
1787-1800
February 5, 1798
To Arrest an Impeached Senator
When barely nine years old, the Senate confronted a crisis of authority. An impeached senator refused to attend his trial in the Senate chamber. Unlike the House of Representatives, or the British House of Commons, the Senate lacked a Sergeant at Arms to enforce its orders. On February 5, 1798, the Senate expanded the duties, title, and salary of its doorkeeper to create the post of Sergeant at Arms. It then directed that officer to arrest the fugitive senator — the Honorable William Blount of Tennessee.
A signer of the U.S. Constitution, William Blount in 1796 had become one of Tennessee’s first two senators. A year later President John Adams notified Congress that his administration had uncovered a conspiracy involving several American citizens who had offered to assist Great Britain in an improbable scheme to take possession of the Spanish-controlled territories of Louisiana and the Floridas. Blount was among the named conspirators. He had apparently devised the plot to prevent Spain from ceding its territories to France, a transaction that would have depressed the value of his extensive southwestern land holdings.
On July 7, 1797, while the Senate pondered what to do about Blount, the House of Representatives, for the first time in history, voted a bill of impeachment. The following day, the Senate expelled Blount — its first use of that constitutional power — and adjourned until November. Prior to adjourning, the Senate ordered Blount to answer impeachment charges before a select committee that would meet during the recess. Blount failed to appear. He had departed for Tennessee with no intention of returning.
On February 5, 1798, as the Senate prepared for his trial and still uncertain as to whether or not a senator, or former senator, was even liable for impeachment, it issued the arrest order. The Sergeant at Arms ultimately failed in his first mission, as Blount refused to be taken from Tennessee. A year later, the Senate dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction — and possibly for lack of Blount.
Reference Items:
Melton, Buckner Jr. The First Impeachment: The Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator William Blount. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998.
Occasional Cortex could bring up charges against President Madison for being the Father of the Constitution but never paying child support.
That is a controlled hate filled hand shake if ever there was one. Trump was trying to charm while Roberts was controlling his inner rage .
That argument isn’t without merit, obviously.
But the counter argument that he must preside can be that Trump was impeached as President and the trial is related to that impeachment.
All you need to know is Justice Roberts is a fag. This is why he does what he does. Along with his fraudulently adopted children from Ireland via South America. This is the threat hanging over him and his wife
Since truth is the ultimate defense proving the vote fraud during the trial is the obvious choice for the defense. Harris , however , will brush it aside , claiming 50 courts have already looked at this and decided the election was fair killing any chance of the fraud actually getting a real trial. It will also make the sham trial go quicker so the Senate can get back to its work of destroying America.
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.