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

[taildragger]

LOL! Oh man I bet you got some stories to tell about jobsites, stress, and incompetent boobs, as well as rockstars who getrdone. I bet some are really hilarious....

[littleharbour]

I know there are many here not fans of Mark Levin, but I respect hao legal analysis. His conclusion is that an impeachment trial after the President leaves office is not constitutional:

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/01/14/mark-levin-pelosi-destroyed-separation-of-powers-by-the-use-of-the-impeachment-power/

[KC Burke]

spent over fifty years in that business so I saw it all

bad accidents, near misses, great triumphs and amazing events — I could fill a book

biggest things are that it is not the great and fun business it once was and I miss a lot of people now gone.

bye the way, my best buddy built a tail dragger — still has it as his second plane.

[kiltie65]

Right on. Term limits AND age limits. I used to be smart as a whip...now I am 80 and sometimes can forget which day it is. Sigh. I think the max. age for running for president should be 60, if you got two terms, out of office at age 68-69 depending on what month you were born. Some people hang on to their brain power until they die, some don’t. Biden at 78 has lost his marbles and is just a figurehead for powers that be who were not voted in to office. P.S. Trump wuz’ robbed.

[ldish]

WTF - THIS IS WHAT THE CITIZENS SHOULD RIOT OVER! Sorry but this kind of sh*t is becoming outrageous - our government has gone stark raving MAD! They need to all be arrested before sundown! EVIL LOONY and crazy as hell! Unsafe and unwise Bastards!

[RummyChick]

This is an area of the law where Constitutional Lawyers have differing opinions.

Step back and imagine Nixon but pretend he is a Democrat.

Articles of impeachment were approved by the House Judiciary Committee but he resigns before the Full Vote. (assume not pardoned)

He wants to run again but resigned just so there wouldn’t be a trial.

Should Congress be able to hold the trial.

The founders gave Congress a mechanism to deal with this.

[freddy005]

The 117th Congress is the most corrupt Congress in the history of The United States of America.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Hence why they feel the need to have 25,000 National Guard Troops in DC...

[Political Junkie Too]

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.

You are correct.

However...

There are some unique dynamics at play here.

1. If Harris presides, she will have the appearance of a conflict of interest because she will be ruling on the admissibility of evidence that bars her 2024 rival from running.
2. If Leahy presides, he will not be sworn in as a juror. In that case, it would be a 50R-49D Senate that is trying Trump. Leahy would not be allowed to preside AND vote.
3. If Harris ignores the conflict of interest and presides, she will also not be sworn as a juror, and it would be debatable as to whether she gets a tie-breaking vote in this matter. Therefore, a 50-50 vote will not pass.

With that said, Republicans should push for Leahy to preside, because they will then have a majority vote on the jury.

-PJ

[freddy005]

If by some chance they were to convict him there would be a huge case for the SC. And they would just about have to take it and rule it unconstitutional. He gets cleared of it about 3 years. The truth comes out and he runs again and gets 85 million vote
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Is that the SAME SCOTUS that will declare that Trump has “no legal standing”....asking for a friend :(

[AFret.]

Roland Freisler

---

Thanks...Googled him...that’s the guy... “Roland Leahy”

[Captain Compassion]

Only if they are impeaching the president.

[Celerity]

I don’t believe Trump will ever run got an office again.

Isn’t everyone watching what happened
? It’s all a sham.

If trump ran for any office they would just provide 80,000,000 votes to his opponent. In 2 hours.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Chief Justice Roberts declines to preside, for the logical reason that this is an “impeachment” (scare quotes) of a private citizen, not an actual impeachment of an actual president.

There is nothing constitutional about the procedure; it merely is a marker that the Democrats are laying down that if Mr. Trump were to run and win again, they would not yield the WH to him. Entirely lawless. It’s also intended as a political cudgel against Republican senators.

But it’s kind of an honorary second term, in the sense that the only natural born citizens of America over the age of 35 and not eligible to be elected president of the US are two-term presidents and, in the conceit of this “impeachment,” Donald J. Trump.

[patriotspride]

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.

::::::

Robert’s speciality. Just defer everything back to Congress and never let them know the founders formed the constitution to prevent political games like this trial

He should be lowering the boom on them along with all other justices

[HamiltonJay]

This is a ridiculous jump.

IF this were the purpose of impeachment, then any private citizen could be impeached to simply prevent them from holding office... So whichever party was in power could simply start and impeachment against them, try and convict them and prevent them from running for office...

If this were the purpose of impeachment in the US constitution, then it would be used routinely to prevent candidates.

This is not remotely what the framers had in mind. Impeachment exists as a way to remove an abusive office holder, no more.

[InterceptPoint]

Thanks for that input on the evidence and witness selection process. I have to agree that you are very likely correct that Harris or Leahy or any other Dem Senator cannot be sworn in as both judge and jury.

But doing so would seem to provide a scenario where Leahy (for example) as Judge rejects some evidence favorable to Trump, the Republicans object, a vote is held and, at least theoretically, it could a 50R - 49D vote and that would reverse the Leahy decision,.

Since Romney and a few other Trump hating Republican Senators can and probably will vote with the Dems the 50-49 outcome is admittedly unlikely. But would the Dems take the risk of naming a sitting Dem Senator as the Presiding Officer of the trial. I’m not so sure they would. An ex-Senator would seem to be a better choice for the Dummies.

[Political Junkie Too]

But would the Dems take the risk of naming a sitting Dem Senator as the Presiding Officer of the trial. I’m not so sure they would. An ex-Senator would seem to be a better choice for the Dummies.

I don't think that's possible.

There are strict rules about who is allowed on the Senate floor, and whether those allowed are allowed to speak.

Normal Senate rules would apply. The President of the Senate would preside. If the President of the Senate is not there, the President Pro Tempore presides. If the President Pro Tempore is not available, a designated Senator presides over the day's proceedings. That's why you always see different people at the gavel on different days.

So, one way or another, without Harris presiding there must be a Democrat Senator who steps up, because no Republican would agree to do it -- not even Romney, I suspect, unless he is signaling his intent to switch parties by doing so. If he did, he would be finished as a Senator from Utah.

-PJ

[HamiltonJay]

if they allow a secret ballot, they will almost certainly get them

[kenmcg]

Load up on the diapers!

[Baldwin77]

U-N-C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L

The Constitution specifies that the Chief Justice shall preside over impeachment trials.