What SHOULD have sparked constitutional concerns is how the SCOTUS wouldn't even look at obvious, severe, connected foreign meddling and national cheating in an election, seating and confirming a president who the vast majority of the country didn't vote for.
DS is desperate—all rules of law are being ignored and explained away. Only difference is that we are watching....
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has been vocal in his opposition to the second impeachment, used Roberts’ planned absence from the trial as a point in favor of dropping the trial.
“The Constitution says two things about impeachment — it is a tool to remove the officeholder, and it must be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” the Kentucky senator wrote in an op-ed Sunday for The Hill.
“Neither one of those things will happen. President Trump is gone, and Justice John Roberts, properly noticing the absence of an officeholder being impeached, is declining to preside,” he continued. “That settles it for me.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which plays a critical role in the impeachment process, also hoped Roberts would attend.
“I think he should because it will be a straightforward, simple trial. I would think that the chief justice lends the dignity and seriousness it requires,” he said, noting that he was “not required by law to do it.”
Total constitutional ignorance, and playing into optics.
Hmm. No, not really.
What SHOULD have sparked constitutional concerns is how the SCOTUS wouldn't even look at obvious, severe, connected foreign meddling and national cheating in an election, seating and confirming a president who the vast majority of the country didn't vote for.
But let's not worry about any of that.
?????? these crooks are so full of shit and are going to get fucked 8 ways to Sunday.
Hope so.
DS is desperate—all rules of law are being ignored and explained away. Only difference is that we are watching....
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has been vocal in his opposition to the second impeachment, used Roberts’ planned absence from the trial as a point in favor of dropping the trial.
“The Constitution says two things about impeachment — it is a tool to remove the officeholder, and it must be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” the Kentucky senator wrote in an op-ed Sunday for The Hill.
“Neither one of those things will happen. President Trump is gone, and Justice John Roberts, properly noticing the absence of an officeholder being impeached, is declining to preside,” he continued. “That settles it for me.”
Their constitution is pretty much null and void now...1776 Constitution is coming soon.
The cracks me up:
“I think he should because it will be a straightforward, simple trial. I would think that the chief justice lends the dignity and seriousness it requires,” he said, noting that he was “not required by law to do it.”
Total constitutional ignorance, and playing into optics.
What a mess these dems make.
Just let Bozo the Clown preside over this circus of a fake impeachment.
Roberts is compromised. He bought two kids from Epstein. We don't want him in there anyway, Clarence Thomas will do just fine.