Report: Sen. Patrick Leahy Expected to Preside over Second Trump Impeachment Trial

Breitbart ^ | 01/25/2021 | Joshua Caplan

[ChicagoConservative27]

Sen. Patrick Leahy, President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, is expected to preside over the upper chamber’s second impeachment trial of President Donald Trump — not U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts — according to CNN and NBC News

[M Kehoe]

The democrats need 17 republicans senators to convict in a sham trial.

No secret ballots. I want to know their names.

This trial is probably moot if CJ Roberts has read the Constitution.

5.56mm

[Political Junkie Too]

The counter argument is that Article I Section 4 says:

Judgment 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, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Since judgment "shall not extend further than to removal from office" and Trump is no longer in office, the impeachment becomes moot.

The Democrats want the second judgment (disqualification), but they must first obtain the first judgment, which is now moot. Removing someone who is already removed from office is like a double jeopardy, it's holding a trial after the judgment has already been rendered.

Pelosi and Schumer are just miffed that they won't get the chance to exercise the second penalty of impeachment because the Electoral College beat them to the first penalty.

-PJ

[PhiloBedo]

or, a Soviet show trial.

[Jim Noble]

Impeachment is for office holders, to remove them from office

Well, impeachment by the House of Commons was invented to PREVENT private citizens whom the King wished to appoint to Ministries from getting appointed. The Founders surely knew this, which is why they included the disqualification option in the power granted to the Senate when it tries "ALL impeachments".

[lurk]

No evidence. No House hearings. No Chief Justice.

Other than that, it’s totally legit.

[RummyChick]

I don’t know why you think the majority of the Senate would argue they have no jurisdiction with the current make up of the Senate. They most certainly will use Belknap as an ‘excuse’.

[richardtavor]

We have caught up with Venezuela.

[bobcat62]

Roland Freisler

[grateful]

If they want to go with the whole “he was President when he was impeached by the House” argument, then for this trial, would he not also be considered President and therefore, the chief justice should preside? If they’re now stating he’s a private citizen and since the chief justice won’t preside, they can appoint someone, well... the senate doesn’t have the authority to try private citizens. I don’t see how, by any logic, this is constitutional.

[dware]

How is this constitutional?

If you still think the Constitution is relevant to these thugs, you haven't been paying attention. The Founders would have been stacking bodies by now, but hey, let's keep talking about how horrible the left is.

[richardtavor]

Roberts said not legit so he doesn’t need to reside. Trump did not know he was on double secret probation and could be kicked off campus. Dean Worker is presiding.

[bobcat62]

Yes

[Riley85]

It’s going to be fun when Trump lawyers show clips of Maxine, Pelosi, Squad inciting violence against Trump supporters.

[BiteYourSelf]

This👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌

[Political Junkie Too]

But the Senate could come back and designate him giving him the authority

The Senate doesn't have that authority. The requirement that the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried is in Article II of the Constitution, which is Supreme Law of the Land. The Senate cannot override the text of the Constitution.

That said, the Senate could certainly request his presence, but it would be an admission that the Senate feels it cannot be fair and impartial on the matter. The Chief Justice cannot decline when the President is tried, but the Constitution doesn't say the Chief Justice cannot preside over lesser impeachments at the invitation of the Senate. If invited, he could still decline.

-PJ

[tophat9000]

So they just made crap up And use the Constitution is toilet paper....

We are in a Orwellian Dictatorship aren’t we?

Big Brother Biden...B3

[tophat9000]

So they just made crap up And use the Constitution as toilet paper....

We are in a Orwellian Dictatorship aren’t we?

Big Brother Biden...B3

[Bubba_Leroy]

I don’t know why you think the majority of the Senate would argue they have no jurisdiction with the current make up of the Senate.

I never said that I do.

The Belknap case stands for the proposition that each house of Congress can do whatever the hell they want whenever they want. It is up to the courts (and ultimately to the states) to decide whether what they are doing is Constitutional. So far, no court has ever ruled on the issue.

The courts do not like to get involved in the inner workings of Congress, but that is not what is at issue here. This is the democrats trying to effectively pass an unconstitutional bill of attainder against President Trump based upon the pretext of punishing what was clearly constitutionally protected speech.

[NonValueAdded]

I suspect we'll see it played out in court. To your point, Cal, one could argue that since he was Impeached as President, he must be tried as President. And to your point, Rummy, yes, once the Impeachment fuse was lit, the trial becomes a must. In fact, if the Senate tries to dodge, xPDJT would be within his rights to demand it!

In the final analysis, SanFranNan et al failed to heed Yamamoto's admonition and the Giant is awakened.

[crz]

It-IS-A-Bill-OF-Attainder.

You understand that? It-IS-A-Bill-OF-Attainder