would love to see some speculation as to why he refused. my thoughts are that Roberts realizes that any Impeachment is a trap and Trump benefits no mater what the outcome.
Comments (74)
sorted by:
That’s because there’s a 6’ 2” corn fed Marine from Iowa standing behind him saying “No sir. You need to get with the program.”
dont like vegetarians . we feed are solders corn fed Beef.
Fine.
Corn fed corned beef. There’s always one in the DFAC.
That is no shit. ?
Yeah. Better the corned beef than the yakisoba.
Shit always gave me heartburn.
Isn't the Vegans the evil one?
I like vegetarians. It means more meat for me :)
Reminds me of Sarah Palin's comment "There room for all of God's creatures. Mine are on the plate next to the mashed potatoes."!
My heros, frens! Saving me from being eaten by the vegans!!
Corned Beef...
Trouble is, from some legal analysis I went through early afternoon today, this could actually be bad. Very bad. Because a "judge" at that point, if Roberts says No, could be ANYONE. Including VP, Super Spreader, which is a nightmare. At least Roberts understands some legalize, this twat only knows dicks, circumcised and not. And nothing about law judging by her resume in KA. Actually, she pissed at the law every time she could.
This could be BAD.
Or it means Roberts is compromised. Remember Lin Woods posts?
I am sure he is if Lin says so, a number of times as well. But that would not stop him from presiding, would it at this point? I truly believe its a ruse by libtards to have someone even with less scruples to preside. Like Super Spreader herself.
I honestly don't know anymore.
There are some really mind-fucking games being played across the whole country.
I've tried applying, common sense, logic, rule of law, everything. Nothing adds up or makes sense.
Best Answer I have read all week!
I say have Justice Thomas preside over the trial
constitution is very direct on who presides over impeachment.
Of the president, yes, but Trump is no longer the sitting president, although he is being impeached in relation to actions while president. It's a genuinely unusual situation with no precedent.
Actually it isn't. There was a post here yesterday or the day before talking about how congress could no longer impeach an individual because they were no longer an officer of the government, irregardless of their actions whilst serving as an officer of the government.
Actually it isn’t what? Unprecedented?
Correct. There is a legal precedent for the impeachment of a former official to be discarded on the basis that they are no longer in office and therefore, the Senate no longer has the jurisdiction to impeach that former official.
It's bc of Dem spite and fear of him.
Their Constitution is null and void.
after all this nonsense, I'd love to have a book of all of Sleepy Joe's classic quotes.
Karma is a bitch...
Kamala is a bitch
Bill Clinton is a rapist
Infowars.com
If Chief Justice says No, then its not SCOTUS' pick, its Senate's pick. Extremely bad in all respects. I guess they may bypass any SCOTUS judge at that point to reach their goal. Not good. And maybe why Roberts saying No is part of their plan.
He is my favorite.
Of course Impeachment is a trap! There is no legal precedent for impeaching a president POST TERM
What happens? Does another SCROTUM member take it? Or they are going to leave it be because they know Trump will show all the election proof.
dont know what happens just found out this is breaking news
Not necessarily, but you are right that its Senate's pick at that point. Part of their plan, I bet. And yes, it could be VP, or anyone else of their choice. This may be very bad all around.
Impeachment of civilians before they enter office or after they leave office is a huge mistake. I wouldn't be surprised if the SC do not want to be anywhere near this cluster.
Watch the fireworks from this... This is the way to get the evidence out in to the public.
Yeah, it's almost like: dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
Either these people start doing the right thing and get killed by DS
or do the wrong thing and get killed in a civil war.
Thats my best guess.
No offense but with what's happened lately, I'm no longer taking anyone at their word.
Do we have multiple sources for this?
Roberts actually did refuse to preside over impeachment?
I don't see even one source on this post am I missing it?
Because you can’t impeach a civilian.
Because there is evidence he adopted his children through Epstein and probably a lot of other Eptsein related crimes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3QBx5Uh1nk&t=660s
https://nypost.com/2021/01/23/sen-rand-paul-says-chief-justice-roberts-wont-take-trump-impeach-trial/
Can anyone give a definitive answer WTF was up when Sen. Graham asked Kavanaugh at his confirmation hearing about Military vs. Civilian law?
Bc he may have to rule on the case once it gets appealed to the SC
if Roberts does not do it I dont think it can proceed unless he steps down and some one else becomes chief justice.
Exactly so they think Kamala will reside over the impeachment which only happens if it isn't the president or congress. This contradicts bc Trump isn't president but the impeachment was while he was pres.
All these comments and upvotes Source Please?
Maybe he's afraid Giuliani will ask him to recuse himself, citing Lin Woods' accusations
Giuliani already said he will not part of impeachment defense. Dershowitz volunteered earlier in the week, but so far no one was actually announced.
Is he not wanting the evidence from the election to come out? Is this more of them trying to shut down all evidence again?
In comes Russell-Jay: Gould
Screw kamala
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kamala-harris-trump-impeachment-justice-roberts-b1789692.html
He's in enough trouble as it is.
Because it is a lose lose situation for that piece of shit.
No go on Kamala, conflict of interest https://bigleaguepolitics.com/what-happens-if-john-roberts-decides-not-to-preside-over-trumps-post-presidency-impeachment-trial/