Leahy, not Roberts, to preside over impeachment trial
(www.google.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (133)
sorted by:
So they're giving up on even the appearance of impartiality.
and Constitutionality... but we know how they've always felt about that.
When I explained all of this last night, even to the "practicing law for 25 years" account, a bunch of people didn't like the info I posted by referencing both SCOTUS blog and Senate impeachment rules. Some even hit "minus" button while, very obviously, not paying attention to what I posted nor making an attempt at reading Senate impeachment rules, nor SCOTUS blog I provided a link to.
Its all a kabuki theater right now. Per SCOTUS blog (repeating what I posted last night) it is absolutely irrelevant who presides since that person has absolutely no input into proceedings, just an observing part and nothing else. The ONLY thing that is relevant is the final vote, one per senator, with 67+ required to convict.
Right now there are only 5 GOPe critters I can count that will vote against Trump, and this includes McConnell for good measure, leaving Chucky and McConnell well short of the required number. So, I have no idea why they are proceeding, but then libtards had no votes to proceed last time and still moved to trial.
What if McConnell has been given a deal and his "going along" with an impeachment trial was to draw more swamp out? By deal, his malfeasance might not be made public, he's allowed to resign over health reasons but is not prosecuted. Just a thought.
That’s fine I guess, as long as they seize every penny of his ill gotten money too. I’m not okay with letting them slink off quietly into the night while still being millionaires. Let the family keep the “good name” but the last thing this country needs is yet another generation of silver spoon shitheads living off inheritance.
Could be. With all the shenanigans going on for months now I am not sure what to think anymore. On the one hand we saw McConnell so easily go against Trump. Now I see him fighting Chucky over giving up nuclear option going forward. And McConnell seems eager to get to trial, pointing out that you may be right and he's just playing a role knowing full well there are no GOPe votes to convict Trump, all the while egging Chucky and rats on to get this over with. Not only will Trump be the first POTUS to stand 2 impeachment trials, one even as a civilian now (which is more than dicey under the Constitution from what I read), but first POTUS not to be convicted in the process.
I am still trying to understand what it is that Chucky is trying to achieve when he doesn't know there are no GOPe votes there. Unless, and again, as you say, McConnell somehow has convinced Chucky that he'll whip enough GOPe votes in due time. While GOPe resolve seems to be growing by day.
Like I said, I call kabuki theater right now with difficult to read tea leaves. None of it makes any sense. For any normie, that is.
Apparently, not sure how this is even lawful. Inventing whatever rules they want.
This is why I'm only abiding by laws that I want to until the government gets unfucked
That's the spirit!
I keep telling the people around me about the lockdowns: "Yeah, so? You know what I hear when they say '2 more weeks'? I hear '2 more weeks not paying taxes on my income'. I'm not working, am I? ;D"
The Calvinball impeachment
Ahhh fellow men of culture I see. Comics are just not made the same anymore. So glad I own all those books.
Anyone caught without a mask has to go to 3rd base touchdown zone
First Trump has to hop on one foot blindfolded to 32nd base, then the trial can begin
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6:
It's not. It's yet another reason to try for treason.
Chief Justice choosing not to preside over this process is proof that this is unconstitutional. But most of us know how to read the Kings English at an 8th grade level. So we knew it was unconstitutional already.
Had to mess up that beautiful number 17 to upvote but I figure some douche downvoted it once so I canceled that out and now it's actually 17
Even I can understand this. But I'm not a lawyer.
Anyone got a leaderboard of who committed the most amounts of treasonous acts at this point? Who's our front runners?
If anything, you can interpret that the Chief Justice does not need to preside BECAUSE it is not the President (current) being tried. Furthermore, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments" gives cover to proceed even though Trump is "out of office" because he was impeached. Seems like there is cover that it is not treason, just an unprecedented occasion.
What does seem short-sighted is that supposedly Trump or his representative(s) would be able to bring up election fraud evidence and / or the real story of the Capitol "insurrection". Will be interesting to see if there is an avenue for this or if it turns out to be a railroad trial where the "rules" prevent either from happening.
That's a good point, actually. Fits with the gun salute conundrum, where they apparently didn't treat Biden as POTUS, too.
Agree; I can't yet see that happening, too.
Makes you wonder when the Military will step in on this rogue government.
That's IF they do. Sorry, I'm having a bad day.
Since Pres. Trump is no longer the President of the United States, Article 1, Section 3's stipulation that the Chief Justice must preside at the trial of a POTUS is no longer applicable.
The presiding officer in impeachment trials for non-presidents (judges, mainly, but apparently now ex-presidents too) is "whoever the Senate picks," and "oldest member of the Senate from the majority party" is pretty standard.
Whether or not Article 1 Section 3's "Chief Justice presides" requirement applies to this impeachment or not has been somewhat in dispute for the past few days -- since he was President when impeached but is no longer at trial -- and apparently it's on the cusp of being settled. (My guess is that Roberts wants to wash his hands of the whole thing and said "please no.")