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:
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.