Dem hypocrisy?Sen. “Leaky” Leahy demands independent prosecutor to target Trump. Now he's going to be a judge?

Conservative Base ^ | April 1, 2017 | Jim Kouri

[The Pack Knight]

I was answering the question of who administers the oath to a senator who is presiding over an impeachment trial. What does Trump’s current status as a private citizen have to do with that?

[Reily]

Sorry
I thought we were discussing this travesty in general.

[The Pack Knight]

That particular issue--whether a former officer can be tried on articles of impeachment--has been the subject of debate since the very first impeachment in 1797. That debate probably won't be resolved this time unless Trump is convicted, which is seeming less and less likely as time goes on.

[Cuttnhorse]

Leahy has no, zero jurisdiction over an impeachment trial:
The US Constitution, Section 3:

“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.”

I can’t find where the Constitution says if the Chief Justice declines to preside, the senate can pick some third rate hack senator to step in.

I think squishy judge Roberts just told the dummycrats that the trial is a farce...without really telling them.

[RummyChick]

Trump is not President.

You need to read this if you think there can’t be a trial
Leahy will act as President Pro Tempore

THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF WILLIAM W. BELKNAP.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/html/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3-26.htm

[The Pack Knight]

Case in point on the likelihood of conviction: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3929028/posts. 45 Senators just voted in support of Rand Paul's constitutional point of order that the trial is unconstitutional. Making the relatively safe assumption that none of those 45 are likely to vote to convict, Trump will be acquitted.

[The Pack Knight]

There will certainly be a trial, although the question of whether the trial is permitted by the Constitution is debatable and has always been the subject of controversy. The only way we are likely to get an answer from any court is if Trump is convicted and then sues for a declaration that the conviction is unconstitutional and void. But a conviction seems pretty unlikely when 45 Senators just voted that the proceeding is unconstitutional.

I suppose if the Senate attempted to subpoena Trump to compel his attendance at the trial, a court might have to weigh in on the constitutionality of the proceeding. But barring that, no judge is going to issue an order stopping the Senate from proceeding regardless of his or her view on its constitutionality.