Not to be a dick, but.... The Article of Impeachment (delivered to Senate from Congress) is the indictment, the Senate trial is the due process granted before conviction or acquittal based on those article(s).
A former president cant be impeached. If that was the case, Bill Clinton should be impeached right now for the prolific pedophile island scandal; visiting that island while he was a sitting president. I think Robert's dirt is coming to surface, he would want to spite Trump but it would only make his predicament worse.
Just a long way around to see Biden as not the president. Roberts only needs to preside over an actual impeachment of the president. No one has ever tried to impeach a former prez before. So its a bit murky. However their articles have already been disproven by timeframes and the FBI unwittingly. So how this goes is almost anyone's guess. Seems to be leaning in Trumps favour though. Since the "insurrection" happened before he finished his speech. Like I said, anyone's guess at this point.
The answer to the question you pose in your title is no.
Quite the contrary, if Roberts did preside it would more likely be a sign GEOTUS is indeed still POTUS. The constitution prescribes the Chief Justice preside over impeachment trial of a "sitting President", just imagine what we would be posting if he decided to preside and what that meant. Unfortunately, Roberts actually following the Constitution (in this case he is) in this instance works against our cause.
There is an outside chance Roberts has decided to "recuse" (without actually saying so) because there are cases pending on the SCOTUS docket that could prove outcome determinative to the election result. A solicitor with a monster amount of BDE could seek to have Roberts recuse in those cases if he displayed bias by presiding over a clearly unconstitutional impeachment trial of an "ordinary" citizen.
Here is where I diverge from fact and incorporate opinion; Trump welcomes this trial. His popularity will continue to rise and Dem apparatus will continue to fall. Trump team understands there is zero chance of the 67 vote supermajority Dems will need. Trump more than most comprehends the value of the earned media he will garner during the trial. Trump representation will push the envelope with the evidence they present so far they are going to force the presiding officer to shut down their defense making Trump the poor victim of the swamp, again. This is likely to turn into a major blunder by Dems if they actually follow through. I suspect the plan is a scripted last min Biden intervention to scrap the proceeding in the name of 'Unity'. If Biden team was actually smart they would announce a Pardon of Trump and his family, even if refused it would be optically devastating.
Biden would then be forced to make a nomination......
Someone else would then become chief justice. ...
But the problem indeed, I think, lies in the fact that impeachment can only be brought against a sitting president. Which was done in due course. The House impeachment against Donald Trump was done during him being in Office. Rushed, but done.
The only thing is that a former President now has to stand trial in the Senate.
So, the object of impeachment and trial, to determine whether removal from office is warranted, may be impeded by the fact that Donald Trump no longer is President.
Except, perhaps, one could argue that another objective might be in play, and that is preventing such a person found guilty of the charges, to ever hold office or trust under the US.
It would, however, be a platform to get the word out, and exactly show who and what is going on. Especially, to those who are still hooked to MSN.
It would totally destroy the tradition of leaving a former President alone.
So, what prevents a next step, to unseal filed indictments against former Presidents, and other office holders?
Would normies then be up in arms against it, or given the limited exposure they have had to certain anomalies, or would they also insist on opening the Pandora Box. Public Opinion might indeed sway to that side.
Does anyone else think that we’ve been focusing for too long on how crumbs and bit data points fit into a “legal” framework? Like, “these three things must be done in a certain order, else the media will say x,y or z — exposing a loophole.”
This is all a lie. We want to do things the “right” way, but when it all hits the fan, our man made interpretations of laws and process won’t mean a damn thing. Be ready for shit going down in very unexpected and “un-procedural” ways.
I don’t want to play logic games any more — this is life and death.
Nothing says that Roberts has to preside over the impeachment (or rather indictment) of a former president.
Not to be a dick, but.... The Article of Impeachment (delivered to Senate from Congress) is the indictment, the Senate trial is the due process granted before conviction or acquittal based on those article(s).
But the impeachment process specifies being currently in office.
Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6
Read the frigging SCOTUS blog on the subject. Learn to research and COMPREHEND.
Way too many people with access to keyboard and interwebs.
"I want to be a warrior!" Google search warrior...... "I have a keyboard!"
A former president cant be impeached. If that was the case, Bill Clinton should be impeached right now for the prolific pedophile island scandal; visiting that island while he was a sitting president. I think Robert's dirt is coming to surface, he would want to spite Trump but it would only make his predicament worse.
If you think the law applies anymore, I have bad news.
Just a long way around to see Biden as not the president. Roberts only needs to preside over an actual impeachment of the president. No one has ever tried to impeach a former prez before. So its a bit murky. However their articles have already been disproven by timeframes and the FBI unwittingly. So how this goes is almost anyone's guess. Seems to be leaning in Trumps favour though. Since the "insurrection" happened before he finished his speech. Like I said, anyone's guess at this point.
Joe Xiden is President of a studio audience
The answer to the question you pose in your title is no.
Quite the contrary, if Roberts did preside it would more likely be a sign GEOTUS is indeed still POTUS. The constitution prescribes the Chief Justice preside over impeachment trial of a "sitting President", just imagine what we would be posting if he decided to preside and what that meant. Unfortunately, Roberts actually following the Constitution (in this case he is) in this instance works against our cause.
There is an outside chance Roberts has decided to "recuse" (without actually saying so) because there are cases pending on the SCOTUS docket that could prove outcome determinative to the election result. A solicitor with a monster amount of BDE could seek to have Roberts recuse in those cases if he displayed bias by presiding over a clearly unconstitutional impeachment trial of an "ordinary" citizen.
Here is where I diverge from fact and incorporate opinion; Trump welcomes this trial. His popularity will continue to rise and Dem apparatus will continue to fall. Trump team understands there is zero chance of the 67 vote supermajority Dems will need. Trump more than most comprehends the value of the earned media he will garner during the trial. Trump representation will push the envelope with the evidence they present so far they are going to force the presiding officer to shut down their defense making Trump the poor victim of the swamp, again. This is likely to turn into a major blunder by Dems if they actually follow through. I suspect the plan is a scripted last min Biden intervention to scrap the proceeding in the name of 'Unity'. If Biden team was actually smart they would announce a Pardon of Trump and his family, even if refused it would be optically devastating.
What if Roberts Resigns?
Biden would then be forced to make a nomination......
Someone else would then become chief justice. ...
But the problem indeed, I think, lies in the fact that impeachment can only be brought against a sitting president. Which was done in due course. The House impeachment against Donald Trump was done during him being in Office. Rushed, but done.
The only thing is that a former President now has to stand trial in the Senate.
So, the object of impeachment and trial, to determine whether removal from office is warranted, may be impeded by the fact that Donald Trump no longer is President.
Except, perhaps, one could argue that another objective might be in play, and that is preventing such a person found guilty of the charges, to ever hold office or trust under the US.
It would, however, be a platform to get the word out, and exactly show who and what is going on. Especially, to those who are still hooked to MSN.
It would totally destroy the tradition of leaving a former President alone.
So, what prevents a next step, to unseal filed indictments against former Presidents, and other office holders?
Would normies then be up in arms against it, or given the limited exposure they have had to certain anomalies, or would they also insist on opening the Pandora Box. Public Opinion might indeed sway to that side.
Does anyone else think that we’ve been focusing for too long on how crumbs and bit data points fit into a “legal” framework? Like, “these three things must be done in a certain order, else the media will say x,y or z — exposing a loophole.”
This is all a lie. We want to do things the “right” way, but when it all hits the fan, our man made interpretations of laws and process won’t mean a damn thing. Be ready for shit going down in very unexpected and “un-procedural” ways.
I don’t want to play logic games any more — this is life and death.
you ask inciteful questions. updoot for your insight