Posted on 01/25/2021 10:18:35 AM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The Circus has a new ring master. Bring in the clowns.
No, Roberts has decided (quite properly, IMO) that as Trump is not a sitting President is is not appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to preside over such an event.
++++
I haven’t heard confirmation yet that Roberts has declined but you are absolutely correct that, since Trump is now a private citizen, he is not required to preside over the trial. The Constitution is quite clear on that.
But who chose Leahy? What was the process?
Just a heads up. The real thing to watch here regardless of who presides over the trial is the ADMIISSION OF EVIDENCE AND SELECTION OF WITNESSES. I am still convinced that the Dems, because they are the Senate majority, are the ultimate decider of what evidence is admissable and what witnesses can be called.
Someone should correct me if I’m wrong about that but it how I read the Senate rules for the conduct of the trial.
The president of the Senate is the Vice President. The Constitution specifies that the VP does not preside over the trial of a President because the VP has an obvious conflict of interest. But since Trump is a former President, I don't see why Kamala is not going to preside over the trial.
Leahy is as demented as Joe..........
You are correct. They are trying to convict a PRIVATE CITIZEN of impeachment for the EXPRESSED reason to PREVENT Trump from running for office again. Clearly unconstitutional because the Congress could impeach and convict ANY US Citizen to prevent them from running for office in the future. This is the way for the Swamp to guarantee that only SWAMP CREATURES can run for office. The constitution CLEARLY spells out what the requirements are for Federal Office, and Congress cannot over rule that. At least not in a Old Republic. As for the current USSA...anything goes.
I frankly don’t see how they can have a trial WITHOUT the SCOTUS involved this stinks to high heaven!!
Not only is it an attempt by the democraps to pass an unconstitutional bill of attainder against President Trump, but it is also based entirely on the pretext of punishing President Trump for speech that was clearly protected under the First Amendment.
I would like to see President Trump file suit in a carefully selected conservative district court in a conservative federal circuit (most likely the 5th) seeing to enjoin the Senate from proceeding with the democraps' show trial based on these Constitutional grounds.
from a lawyer here who has some expertise in the Senate side of the law
To: kaehurowing
No bill of attainder involved. Congress is empowered to impeach without involvement of a court. The narrow definition of “attainder” is legislature actinng without a court. By that definition, all impeachment would be bill of attainder. Impeachment is “okay” cause the penalty is limited and the penalty is not criminal.
No ex post facto violation. There is an issue about whether or not the alleged offience is impeachable, but that standard is up to Congress. What constitutes impeachable has no grounding in principle, other than purely academic arguments on both sides.
23 posted on 1/21/2021, 5:45:51 PM by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Senator Grassley is 87 years old snd sharp as a tack. He’s doing a good job overall except none of them is calling out the duplicitous, cheating, conniving, odious, vile, treasonous, criminal Democrats for what they really are. Even I can’t go the whole way because I can’t post expletives.
Impeachment is not a bill of attainder because it is the sole means set out in the Constitution for Congress to remove a President or other federal official from office. A Senate show trial of a former President is not an impeachment, it is a bill of attainder.
The reason is simply optics.
She knows that the MSM will hammer the point that she is presiding over the barring of her future rival in 2024, and that has the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Also, I suspect that those around her know that she comes off as shrill and unlikeable, and are moving to minimize her public appearances in cases like this. She never performed well in committee meetings, so there is no reason to believe she'd be any better here.
-PJ
Because even that Never-Trumper knows it is unconstitutional.
and while searching out age's of Congress members and others, I read where Dick Cheney will roll over to 80 yrs. old on Jan. 30, 2021 just one week away...smh
Pat Leahy, works with a scrambled brain like Nancy who also rolls over to 81 on March 26.
IN MY EYES, AGE MATTERS...enough said..
A frivolous impeachment is sedition
I've heard it at least once in a professional environment as employee telling the other to go plant some seeds, it was justified, the recipient could be a real weenie. Rumors of it more in private in aerospace when someone is truly being a Richard Cranium when they put the Dept in a no win situation by volunteering their services to do more than manpower allowed.
At times it is appropriate to get the message across.
I was in commercial construction management so I heard that phrase handed out in a serious manner about once a week — LOL.
I think they know that any cj worth more than a nickel of salt is gonna dismiss the case in the first 2 minutes because there’s no such thing as removal of an Ex-president.
Wow! At least the Sanhedrin was a legal court!
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.