Constitution says Chief Justice must preside over impeachment. Dems say NO!!

[Text-Drivers R Killers]

The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats are saying to hell with the constitution.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/535700-leahy-roberts-to-preside-over-impeachment-trial

jan 25 2021 Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over former President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, which is scheduled to begin in earnest on Feb. 8.

Instead, Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy (Vt.), the most senior member of the Senate Democratic Conference, will preside over the trial.

Leahy on Monday confirmed he would wield the gavel and promised to administer “impartial justice.”

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<2efa655f-76ce-454e...@googlegroups.com>,

Text-Drivers R Killers <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the united
> states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats are saying to
> hell with the constitution.

What do you want? The senate to send out the police and drag him
into the senate?

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Dope Smoking Michelle Obama]

Its angry payback because Cunt Pelosi had her feelings hurt. Its all a shame and Leahy is more demented than Joe is. He is mentally challenged by far

[Text-Drivers R Killers]

On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 6:16:43 PM UTC-8, Siri Cruise wrote:

> What do you want? The senate to send out the police and drag him
> into the senate?

I didn't write the constitution. You want to change it go thru the amending process.

[Text-Drivers R Killers]

Trump should welcome this impeachment trial since it will prove the dems and the media lied. There was nothing in his jan 6 speech that could be construed as incitement to violence. Dems say telling his supporters to "fight like hell" qualifies but that is nonsense. It's a very common expression.

The full quote is " And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. " WTF is wrong with saying that.?

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<b01e441d-2813-4040...@googlegroups.com>,

Text-Drivers R Killers <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Actually that's a good idea. Impeach and convict justices off the
court until one agrees to preside. Then Biden can refill the
court.

[Text-Drivers R Killers]

On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 6:44:46 PM UTC-8, Siri Cruise wrote:

> Actually that's a good idea. Impeach and convict justices off the
> court until one agrees to preside. Then Biden can refill the
> court.

Constitution says it has to be the one and only chief justice.

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<09aaf8c4-97ad-42d5...@googlegroups.com>,

Text-Drivers R Killers <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Not to try a judge, idiot.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/25/2021 6:02 PM, Text-Drivers R Killers wrote:
> The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats are saying to hell with the constitution.

Trump isn't the president.

[AlleyCat]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:16:41 -0800, Siri Cruise SAYS...

> > The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the united
> > states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats are saying to
> > hell with the constitution.
>
> What do you want? The senate to send out the police and drag him
> into the senate?

Who said Justice Roberts WOULDN'T, by choice, preside over this impeachment.

I wish you fuckers could get this into your stupid fucking heads. I told you
fuckers LONG ago about this.

=====

Date: 03/13/14 04:48 PM

> Why cant this criminal be Impeached?

Because:

Even if all the natives KNEW that all an impeachment is, is an accusation,
they'd STILL have a bongo party, the likes in which we have NEVER seen.
Our cities would burn from the torches of the WORLD'S most violent
"people".

=====

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 07:39:43 -0600, David Hartung says...

> I would say that Obama needs to be impeached, but that would leave Biden
> in charge.

And in charge of 100's of cities going up in smoke and looted till there's
nothing left except dead people, because their Messiah was "wrongfully"
charged.

THAT'S the only reason I can see, as to why he hasn't been at LEAST
impeached. Remember... impeachment is just the "charge" or accusation...
sort of like an indictment... it's neither proof of guilt or innocence and
is only the "setup" to removal.

=====

Impeachment, is merely an "official" address of an accusation or indictment. It
has NOTHING to do with the following trial, if the Senate votes for one.

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body addresses legal charges
against a government official. - wikipedia

============================================================================

Democrat Bahney Fwank's $10 Trillion Crash

That's right, shut-in.

Fwank's Fingerprints Are All Over The Financial Fiasco

http://tinyurl.com/Fwanks-Prints-All-Over-Crash

************************************************

Key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act
of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory
body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie - a move that the
Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report.

************************************************

Barney Frank And Democrat Party Most Responsible For 2008 Economic
Collapse

It's beyond asinine that Democrats blame Bush for ruining the economy, and
praise Clinton as having the mostest wonderfulest economy ever, when it
was a Clinton program that ruined the Bush economy. But that's the
mainstream media narrative for you.

************************************************

'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us
out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts
Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is
the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty
only of failing to rein the capitalists in.

The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by
people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits
today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows
best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his
inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems;
government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this
present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government
is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same
thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of
private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how
pitiless the private sector's discipline can be -- they weren't the ones
who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points
notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to
junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised
loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say
they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that
they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was
when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing
mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being
denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

************************************************

Only people can who understand how politics and the economy work know
this.

Whose Fault was It?

By far the most dangerous myth is that deregulation is the root cause of
the problem.

The culprit was a system geared toward loaning money to people who were
not in a position to pay it back. Two policies underpinned that system:
easy money by the Federal Reserve and the government-induced lowering of
standards for approving loan requests.

In a recent paper for the Independent Institute, University of Texas
professor Stan Liebowitz argues that "in an attempt to increase
homeownership... virtually every branch of the government undertook an
attack on underwriting standards starting in the early 1990s... the
Clinton era."

Starting with the creation of the Federal Housing Administration in 1934
and all the way to the norms that made Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae acquire
substantial loans given to people with weak credit.

Not surprisingly, once the Fed expanded credit, astronomical amounts of
capital poured into a housing market that people assumed was protected by
the government. What came next was a consequence of the original sin.

Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, H.U.D., Bahney Fwank, Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo.

Who is responsible for the crash?

Democrats' lobbyist-induced denial to regulate Housing, led to Wall Street
collapse:

Barney Frank: I don't see anything in this report that raises safety
and soundness problems.

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee.

"The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there
is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."

************************************************

Anatomy of a bubble

Step 1. The intoxication: "My house is worth millions!" From 1995 -
2005, the number of sub-prime mortgages skyrocket. So did the house
prices.

Step 2. The hangover: "Oh my God, my house isn't selling. What went
wrong?"

WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE TRY TO STOP IT?

Someone did:

********* "The Bush administration today recommended the most
significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since
the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." - The New York Times,
September 11, 2003. ***************

But someone intervened to stymie the Bush administration. Who? The
New York Times reports:

Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders
tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans
for lower-income families. . . . "These two entities - Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on
the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these
problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we
will see in terms of affordable housing."

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago."

"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
industry."

http://tinyurl.com/6lp5qu

"McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"

"Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN
EVENTS learned."

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 1/25/21 9:18 PM, Dope Smoking Michelle Obama wrote:
> Its angry payback because Cunt Pelosi had her feelings hurt. Its all a shame and Leahy is more demented than Joe is. He is mentally challenged by far
>

Because TRUMP was following the evidence that linked Pelosi's son to
corruption like the Corruption of Hunter Biden.








--
That's Karma


*Mama'says*
230 - Why is it that Liberals and the Media are upset about the words
Trump used 11 years ago but they are alright with Adult men using the
Ladies Room with your Wives and Daughters?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

By NOT having the Chief justice there, Nancy Pelosi is violating the
Checks and Balances of the Constitution.



In the end this will mean TRUMP will be able to get the impeachment
annulled by the Supreme Court when they hears the case on it being
unConstitutional to usurp the power of the Supreme Court by the Speaker
of the House and the Senate.

The Constitution requires the Chief Justice preside and without the
Chief Justice it's an unconstitutional act of sedition by the Congress
that will need to all be arrested for their crimes of insurrection.





--
That's karma

*THE FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR, IS THE TRUTH*

How can we TRUST THE GOVERNMENT certified VACCINE when we can't TRUST
THAT SAME GOVERNMENT'S certified ELECTIONS or justice system? The
Democrats and the BIG TECH CARTEL are against WE THE PEOPLE.

Use of the words PRIVILEGED and RACIST is prejudicial hate speach and it
promotes Marxist-DEMOCRATS *FRACTIONAL SLAVERY* .

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The what holding of office is the Impeachment based on?

Where is the power to impeach a NON FEDERAL EMPLOYEE?

Can they impeach me for being a CITIZEN? And if so then why is the
CHIEF JUSTICE REFUSING TO SHOW UP at an unconstitutional impeachment
proceeding?

And isn't the fact that the Constitution requires the Chief justice, a
process in the CHECKS and BALANCES of the Constitution that the Congress
is supposed to respect.

Time to arrest the Congress for seditious activity and undermining the
Constitution and indict all of them participating in the illegal and
treasonous process of abusing their power and targeting citizens with
threats and HATE CRIMES.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/26/2021 5:20 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 1/26/21 12:38 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 1/25/2021 6:02 PM, Text-Drivers R Killers wrote:
>>> The constitution says re impeachment  "When the president of the
>>> united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats
>>> are saying to hell with the constitution.
>>
>> Trump isn't the president.
>
> The what holding of office is the Impeachment based on?

He was president when he was impeached.

[Jonathan]

It was Roberts that declined to preside, since
Trump isn't the president anymore Roberts is
no longer required by the constitution to
preside. And he doesn't want to do it.








--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On 1/26/2021 4:40 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his
scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 1/25/21 9:18 PM, Dope Smoking Michelle Obama wrote:
>>    Its angry payback because Cunt Pelosi had her feelings hurt. Its all a
>> shame and Leahy is more demented than Joe is. He is mentally challenged by far
>>
>
> Because TRUMP was following the evidence

No.

[AlleyCat]

On 1/26/2021 5:20 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his

scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 1/26/21 12:38 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 1/25/2021 6:02 PM, Text-Drivers R Killers wrote:
>>> The constitution says re impeachment  "When the president of the united
>>> states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats are saying to
>>> hell with the constitution.
>>
>> Trump isn't the president.
>
> The what holding of office is the Impeachment based on?
>
> Where is the power to impeach a NON FEDERAL EMPLOYEE?

Trump was president when he was impeached. He was impeached for high crimes and
misdemeanors he committed while in office. The Senate trial can proceed
regardless of whether he is in office. The trial, like the impeachment, will be
for crimes he committed as president.

The fact is, impeachment has occurred in the past for offenders who were already
out of office. This is a good thing.

[Text-Drivers R Killers]

On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 4:48:19 AM UTC-8, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>
> In the end this will mean TRUMP will be able to get the impeachment
> annulled by the Supreme Court when they hears the case on it being
> unConstitutional to usurp the power of the Supreme Court by the Speaker
> of the House and the Senate.
>
> The Constitution requires the Chief Justice preside and without the
> Chief Justice it's an unconstitutional act of sedition by the Congress
> that will need to all be arrested for their crimes of insurrection.

Except the press will never say that. They will side with the dems on this.

[Text-Drivers R Killers]

On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 8:56:19 AM UTC-8, AlleyCat wrote:

> Trump was president when he was impeached. He was impeached for high crimes and
> misdemeanors he committed while in office. The Senate trial can proceed
> regardless of whether he is in office. The trial, like the impeachment, will be
> for crimes he committed as president.
>
> The fact is, impeachment has occurred in the past for offenders who were already
> out of office. This is a good thing.

HAHAHA. You stupid dems are gonna go down as the party that impeached a president twice and LOST both times.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Then the Constitution requires the Chief Justice, it's part of the
Checks and Balances to keep the likes of the Democrats from abusing
their power.


We knew the Democrats were Fascists and they knew some day that there
was going to be a Hiallry and Nancy Pelosi and Schumer who would want to
abuse the power they were stealing if they could steal it from the other
two branches of Government.

Once again the Founders from 250 years ago prove to be smarter than the
"highly educated" Democrats of today.

NO chief Justice NO impeachment of the President. If you suggest he's
only a citizen and doesn't need the Chief Justice you're in a paradox
because there is no power to impeach someone who is NOT part of the
Federal Government. The U.S. Congress can't impeach a State
Governor.... or a NON U.S. government person. The U.S. constitution
gives the power to impeach Federal workers/officials by the U.S.
Congress, Congress has no ability to delegate powers and no power to
impeach anyone outside their jurisdiction. And TRUMP being in that
JURISDICTION ended on January 20th.

Too bad Democrats aren't smarter. ;)

--
That's Karma


*Mama'says*

81 - Now we are milking a dead cow.....

[BeamMeUpScotty]

NOT being President means he's NOT under the U.S. Congresses
jurisdiction of the Federal Government... the U.S. Constitution doesn't
delegate any power to impeach States Governors or employees because it's
outside their jurisdiction as is person who as of January 20th is NO
longer President or under the Jurisdiction of the Federal government.

The U.S. Congress has no authority over anyone who isn't part of the
Federal Government. They can't impeach me....

And unless TRUMP or I become PIRATES or the indictment Charge is TREASON
they can't hold a trial.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 1/26/21 11:56 AM, AlleyCat wrote:
> On 1/26/2021 5:20 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
> rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
> and lied:
>
>> On 1/26/21 12:38 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 1/25/2021 6:02 PM, Text-Drivers R Killers wrote:
>>>> The constitution says re impeachment  "When the president of the
>>>> united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats
>>>> are saying to hell with the constitution.
>>>
>>> Trump isn't the president.
>>
>> The what holding of office is the Impeachment based on?
>>
>> Where is the power to impeach a NON FEDERAL EMPLOYEE?
>
> Trump was president when he was impeached.  He was impeached for high
> crimes and misdemeanors he committed while in office.  The Senate trial
> can proceed regardless of whether he is in office.

No they can't proceed... what they can do is show it to a Federal
Prosecutor and see if they will prosecute the case in a Federal Court.
Since he's out of office and that's why he would have been impeached, so
he could be tried for a crime....

So the Congress should either hand it over to the proper authorities or
just drop it.

They can't impeach a person who is not President W/O the Chief Justice
and unless the party is part of the Federal Government... and as of
January 20th TRUMP is a private citizen. That means the legal system is
all there is to deal with him. Congress has no power delegated to
impeach people who are NOT in their Federal jurisdiction.

--
That's Karma


*Mama'says*

102 - What if your next abortion is the one fetus that would evolve into
a new human adult life that is immune to Ebola AIDS or CANCER or Covid-19?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 8:56:19 AM UTC-8, AlleyCat wrote:
>
>> Trump was president when he was impeached. He was impeached for high crimes and
>> misdemeanors he committed while in office. The Senate trial can proceed
>> regardless of whether he is in office. The trial, like the impeachment, will be
>> for crimes he committed as president.
>>
>> The fact is, impeachment has occurred in the past for offenders who were already
>> out of office. This is a good thing.

They weren't the President were they? And if they were did the Chief
Justice preside?

The unique case of a President being out of office combined with the
refusal of a Chief Justice to Preside means that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL
due to the CHECKS and BALANCES that require a Chief Justice. SO when a
President is tried as a President and is NOT a President the Congress is
either violating the Checks and balances of the Constitution or they are
trying to impeach a PRIVATE CITIZEN....


So which is it? You can't have it both ways you have t choose to
impeach a private citizen, or you have to choose to IMPEACH A President
which will require a Chief Justice.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When
sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the
President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall
preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office
of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial,
Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."












--
That's karma


"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When
sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the
President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall
preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office
of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial,
Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

[NoBody]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:16:41 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article
><2efa655f-76ce-454e...@googlegroups.com>,
> Text-Drivers R Killers <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the united
>> states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats are saying to
>> hell with the constitution.
>
>What do you want? The senate to send out the police and drag him
>into the senate?

I expect the Constitution to be followed. If the Chief Justice will
not participate, there can not be a trial. There is NO provision in
the Constitution for a replacement with a clear conflict of interest.
Our descent into third world status continues.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:21:25 -0600, AlleyCat <a...@aohell.com> wrote:

>
>On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:16:41 -0800, Siri Cruise SAYS...
>
>> > The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the united
>> > states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats are saying to
>> > hell with the constitution.
>>
>> What do you want? The senate to send out the police and drag him
>> into the senate?
>
>Who said Justice Roberts WOULDN'T, by choice, preside over this impeachment.

Wow, MSN really twisted itself into a pretzel to try to explain this
one:


"Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution
states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.
When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the
Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only
when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president,
there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved."


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-did-chief-justice-roberts-refuse-to-preside-over-trumps-impeachment-trial/ar-BB1d5hIA?ocid=uxbndlbing

By that same logic, the trial can't take place as Trump is NOT
President. The dumbing down of America continues.

[NoBody]

So then you admit the trial is invalid since you can't put a citizen
on trial for removal from office if they aren't in office. You
lib-toons have gone batty.

[NoBody]

And the fact that he's no longer in office negates the
trial...duh...duh...DUH!

[NoBody]

Libs always want to have it both ways. An impeachment trial is to
remove a President in office. He's not in office, thereby negating
the trial.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

Since Trump is no longer POTUS , there can be no Senate
trial without the Chief Justice presiding as required by
Art. I, Sec. 3, cl6.
https://tinyurl.com/y4zvd9t8

To go forward as the Democrats demand with Leahy acting as
the "presiding officer" in place of the Chief Justice, is but an
attempt to convict (and potentially bar) Trump, now a private
citizen, with the potential intent of preventing him from running
for an elected office in the future, would also be unconstitutional.

Rand Paul's move was brilliant by forcing a vote, showing 95%
of the GOP agree the Senate trial would be unconstituional and
would probably acquit. Calling the Senate trial "dead on arrival",
while showing the American public the true RINOs that need to be
voted out of any future office. https://tinyurl.com/y5arf8el

IMSHO, regardless of the outcome, should a Senate trial proceed,
Trump should sue Congress and specifically call out Pelosi, Schumer
and Leahy...and add to their involvement, a hate crime.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/27/2021 5:40 AM, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 11:22:47 AM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 1/26/2021 5:20 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 1/26/21 12:38 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/2021 6:02 PM, Text-Drivers R Killers wrote:
>>>>> The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the
>>>>> united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats
>>>>> are saying to hell with the constitution.
>>>>
>>>> Trump isn't the president.
>>>
>>> The what holding of office is the Impeachment based on?
>> He was president when he was impeached.
>>
> Since Trump is no longer POTUS , there can be no Senate
> trial without the Chief Justice presiding as required by
> Art. I, Sec. 3, cl6.
> https://tinyurl.com/y4zvd9t8

Nothing in the Constitution precludes a trial of a former president and
the Chief Justice is not required to preside when a former president is
on trial.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Trump is on trial in order to bar him from holding office in the future.
Since trump is not the president, the Chief Justice need not preside.

[M I Wakefield]

It is well established that former officials can be impeached.

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

Literally nothing in that says the trial cannot take place.

Trump was impeached WHILE president, and that means a senate trial is
mandated, but he is not NOW president.

[andy_f...@hotmail.com]

So how are they going to implement the Constitutional requirement
"shall be removed from Office on Impeachment?"

[Gronk]

On 1/27/2021 4:24 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:16:41 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <2efa655f-76ce-454e...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Text-Drivers R Killers <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the united
>>> states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats are saying to
>>> hell with the constitution.
>>
>> What do you want? The senate to send out the police and drag him
>> into the senate?
>
> I expect the Constitution to be followed. If the Chief Justice will
> not participate, there can not be a trial.

That is simply false. If the chief justice is too ill, or if the office is
vacant, it does not mean the trial cannot proceed. Stop being such an idiot (if
you can stop).

[Josh Rosenbluth]

It's not required because Trump is not the president.

[Gronk]

On 1/27/2021 4:30 AM, NoBody wrote:

This isn't about removal from office. It's about disqualification.

The trial is not invalid.

[Yak]

On 1/27/2021 4:30 AM, NoBody wrote:

No, it does not. This has already been done.

[Gronk]

It's also to disqualify a former federal officer from future office.

[andy_f...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 09:23:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

It's a Constitutional requirement... "shall be"

[NoBody]

It's not. If the chief justice is incapable, or the position is vacant, it
doesn't mean the trial cannot be held.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Since Trump is not the president, vice president or a civil officer, if
Trump is convicted, there is no requirement to remove him from office.

[andy_f...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 09:34:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

So you say, but it's a Constitutional requirement... "shall be"

[Josh Rosenbluth]

It appears you are having difficulty comprehending the antecedent to
"shall be."

[andy_f...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 09:41:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

<LOL> Nice try (actually, a poor one) It clearly states that removal
comes "on" conviction of.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Are you really that stupid that you don't understand the requirement to
remove from office only applies upon conviction of the president, vice
president and all civil officers of the United States?

[andy_f...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:01:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Of course I understand that. It's exactly my point. You cannot remove
a person from an office he/she does not occupy

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Bingo! Which is why the Constitution does not require Trump to be
removed from office if he is convicted.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <rus7l3$1vcb$1...@neodome.net>,

Gronk <inva...@invalidate.invalid> wrote:

> This isn't about removal from office. It's about disqualification.
>
> The trial is not invalid.

States handle who gets on ballots not the senate. If conviction
and disqualification do happen, whether this is really valid
might not be recognised by states and federal courts until
challenged over a ballot. Senate rules decide what the senate
does, but not rest of the country.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

[andy_f...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:36:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Exvept the Senate has no right to "try" a private citizen for
anything.

[Ubiquitous]

On 1/27/2021 5:40 AM, UnOriginalNoInfoJunk, a shit-4-braincell Google Groups
shitbag loser, lied:

> On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 11:22:47 AM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 1/26/2021 5:20 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 1/26/21 12:38 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/2021 6:02 PM, Text-Drivers R Killers wrote:
>>>>> The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the
>>>>> united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats
>>>>> are saying to hell with the constitution.
>>>>
>>>> Trump isn't the president.
>>>
>>> The what holding of office is the Impeachment based on?
>> He was president when he was impeached.
>>
> Since Trump is no longer POTUS , there can be no Senate
> trial without the Chief Justice presiding as required by
> Art. I, Sec. 3, cl6.

The Constitution has no such "requirement," even if the disgraced felon *were*
still president. This is settled.

[Ken]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> On 1/25/2021 9:38 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 1/25/2021 6:02 PM, Text-Drivers R Killers wrote:
>>> The constitution says re impeachment  "When the president of the
>>> united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats
>>> are saying to hell with the constitution.
>>
>> Trump isn't the president.
>

> It wouldn't matter if he were.  In no way does the Constitution "say"
> that if the chief justice is too ill to preside, or if the position is
> vacant, then a Senate impeachment trial of a president cannot go
> forward.  That is an absurd conclusoin.  "Shall" does not mean
> "absolutely must, or else it can't happen." We know this.
>
> The 12th amendment reads, in part:
>
>    The President of the Senate *shall*, in the presence of the Senate
> and House
>    of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then
>    be counted
>
> The count has been presided over by the president pro tem of the senate
> in the past.  No one raised any objection that doing so was
> unconstitutional.

>
> Here is what the Article I clause says:
>
>    When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
>    shall preside
>

> And here is what it *means*:
>
>    When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice,
>    if there is one and if he or she is capable, shall preside
>

Based upon what you just wrote, there can be no trial. He (Trump) is
not the president. You just contradicted yourself.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/27/2021 11:07 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <rus7l3$1vcb$1...@neodome.net>,
> Gronk <inva...@invalidate.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This isn't about removal from office. It's about disqualification.
>>
>> The trial is not invalid.
>
> States handle who gets on ballots not the senate. If conviction
> and disqualification do happen, whether this is really valid
> might not be recognised by states and federal courts until
> challenged over a ballot. Senate rules decide what the senate
> does, but not rest of the country.

The Constitution explicitly empowers the Senate to disqualify Trump from
federal office and the Supremacy Clause preempts any state who puts
Trump on the ballot.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The Constitution is silent on that issue.

[andy_f...@hotmail.com]

Only if he is in office. The Congress has no juisdiction over private
citizens.

[Byker]

No.

[andy_f...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 12:40:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Indeed, it lists their power and nowhere does it give them any
judicial jurisdiction over private citizens. In fact, that power is
stated in Article 3 and belongs to the court system.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Nowhere does it deny them the power to convict a private citizen who has
been impeached.

> In fact, that power is
> stated in Article 3 and belongs to the court system.

Article 3 says nothing about the power of courts to convict a private
citizen who has been impeached. To the contrary, Article 1 gives the
Senate the exclusive power to try impeachments. Therefore, either the
Senate has the power to convict a private citizen who has been impeached
or no one does.

[Just Wondering]

On 1/27/2021 12:13 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> On 1/25/2021 9:38 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 1/25/2021 6:02 PM, Text-Drivers R Killers wrote:
>>> The constitution says re impeachment  "When the president of the
>>> united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats
>>> are saying to hell with the constitution.
>>
>> Trump isn't the president.
>

> It wouldn't matter if he were.  In no way does the Constitution "say"
> that if the chief justice is too ill to preside, or if the position is
> vacant, then a Senate impeachment trial of a president cannot go
> forward.  That is an absurd conclusoin.  "Shall" does not mean
> "absolutely must, or else it can't happen." We know this.
>
> The 12th amendment reads, in part:
>
>    The President of the Senate *shall*, in the presence of the Senate
> and House
>    of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then
>    be counted
>
> The count has been presided over by the president pro tem of the senate
> in the past.  No one raised any objection that doing so was
> unconstitutional.
>
> Here is what the Article I clause says:
>
>    When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
>    shall preside
>
> And here is what it *means*:
>
>    When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice,
>    if there is one and if he or she is capable, shall preside
>

> That is what it necessarily means.
>
> The Constitution does *NOT* say that the chief justice "must" preside
> over the impeachment of a president, or of a former president.  The
> claim to the contrary is bullshit on its face.  Case closed.

Chief Justice Roberts "is one" and "is capable". He won't preside
because he refuses to participate in an unconstitutional proceeding.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 11:25:19 AM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 1/27/2021 5:40 AM, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 11:22:47 AM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >> On 1/26/2021 5:20 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >>> On 1/26/21 12:38 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>> On 1/25/2021 6:02 PM, Text-Drivers R Killers wrote:
> >>>>> The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the
> >>>>> united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats
> >>>>> are saying to hell with the constitution.
> >>>>
> >>>> Trump isn't the president.
> >>>

> >>> The what holding of office is the Impeachment based on?
> >> He was president when he was impeached.
> >>
> > Since Trump is no longer POTUS , there can be no Senate
> > trial without the Chief Justice presiding as required by
> > Art. I, Sec. 3, cl6.
> > https://tinyurl.com/y4zvd9t8
> Nothing in the Constitution precludes a trial of a former president and
> the Chief Justice is not required to preside when a former president is
> on trial.
>

As you've admitted, the trial of a POTUS requires the Chief Justice preside,
but Trump is a private citizen. You're assertion is a conviction means Trump
can be barred from future office. There is NO delegated constitutional authority
or legal precedent that a private citizen can be convicted by the US Senate and/
or barred from holding an elected office IAW Art. 1, Sec. 3, cl6.

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does
not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now."
SC v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)
https://tinyurl.com/y5zzavr3

If there was a shred of evidence to the contrary, you'd have provided a legal
reference to that precedent, not your opinion based on woulda, coulda shoulda
concepts that have no basis in reality.

[Jonathan]

Trying to overthrow the US govt? What's the big deal
happens all the time.


--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1

[Ubiquitous]

On 1/27/2021 2:14 PM, UnOriginalNoInfoJunk, a shit-4-braincell Google Groups
shitbag loser, lied:

> On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 11:25:19 AM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 1/27/2021 5:40 AM, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 11:22:47 AM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/2021 5:20 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> On 1/26/21 12:38 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/25/2021 6:02 PM, Text-Drivers R Killers wrote:
>>>>>>> The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the
>>>>>>> united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats
>>>>>>> are saying to hell with the constitution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trump isn't the president.
>>>>>
>>>>> The what holding of office is the Impeachment based on?
>>>> He was president when he was impeached.
>>>>
>>> Since Trump is no longer POTUS , there can be no Senate
>>> trial without the Chief Justice presiding as required by
>>> Art. I, Sec. 3, cl6.
>>> https://tinyurl.com/y4zvd9t8
>> Nothing in the Constitution precludes a trial of a former president and
>> the Chief Justice is not required to preside when a former president is
>> on trial.
>>
> As you've admitted, the trial of a POTUS

Trump is not president.

> requires the Chief Justice preside,

No, a Senate impeachment trial of a sitting president — which Trump is not —
does not require that the chief justice preside. I have instructed you on this
already.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:41:21 -0700, Just Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

>> Here is what the Article I clause says:
>>
>>    When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
>>    shall preside
>>
>> And here is what it *means*:
>>
>>    When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice,
>>    if there is one and if he or she is capable, shall preside
>>
>> That is what it necessarily means.
>>
>> The Constitution does *NOT* say that the chief justice "must" preside
>> over the impeachment of a president, or of a former president.  The
>> claim to the contrary is bullshit on its face.  Case closed.
>
>Chief Justice Roberts "is one" and "is capable". He won't preside
>because he refuses to participate in an unconstitutional proceeding.

Rudy is too short to reach the legal dictionary. If he wasn't, he'd
know what "shall" means.

He's not, so he doesn't.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:50:40 -0800, Rudy Canoza <j...@phendrie.con>
wrote:

> It is beyond
>question that the Senate trial is constitutional.

It's not, and you know it's not.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 08:56:25 +1100, Dechucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>snip

>
>>> The Constitution does *NOT* say that the chief justice "must" preside
>>> over the impeachment of a president, or of a former president.  The
>>> claim to the contrary is bullshit on its face.  Case closed.
>>
>> Chief Justice Roberts "is one" and "is capable".  He won't preside
>> because he refuses to participate in an unconstitutional proceeding.
>

>Are you suggesting that Roberts is shirking his Constitutional duty?

Where does it specify that his duty is to preside over an
unconstitutional trial?

[Dechucka]

what unconstitutional trial?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:32:02 +1100, Dechucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Did you just get here?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The Congressional Research Service has a nice discussion of the text and
precedent:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10565

[andy_f...@hotmail.com]

<LOL>The swamp.

[Dechucka]

If it is unconstitutional why is it going ahead. Surely your courts
would stop it if it wasn't.

[Dutch]

On 2021-01-25 6:02 p.m., Text-Drivers R Killers wrote:
> The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats are saying to hell with the constitution.
>

> https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/535700-leahy-roberts-to-preside-over-impeachment-trial
>
> jan 25 2021 Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over former President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, which is scheduled to begin in earnest on Feb. 8.
>
> Instead, Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy (Vt.), the most senior member of the Senate Democratic Conference, will preside over the trial.
>
> Leahy on Monday confirmed he would wield the gavel and promised to administer “impartial justice.”
>

It doesn't matter, Roberts did nothing in the first impeachment.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <BPSdnV8rSvT5kY_9...@westnet.com.au>,

Dechucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If it is unconstitutional why is it going ahead. Surely your courts
> would stop it if it wasn't.

If it's challenged in courts, it could make its way to the
Supremes who would then have to rule if the Chief Justice
violated the constitution. Those would be fun conferences to
eavesdrop.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/27/2021 7:33 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <BPSdnV8rSvT5kY_9...@westnet.com.au>,
> Dechucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If it is unconstitutional why is it going ahead. Surely your courts
>> would stop it if it wasn't.
>
> If it's challenged in courts, it could make its way to the
> Supremes who would then have to rule if the Chief Justice
> violated the constitution. Those would be fun conferences to
> eavesdrop.

SCOTUS will hold that the courts have no jurisdiction.

[Just Wondering]

Because the Senate is split 50-50 and the Majority Leader who
controls such things is a Democrat, and Democrats don't care
much about the Constitution when it stands in the way of what
it wants. 45 of the Republican Senators joined in dismissing
the impeachment because they know it is unconstitutional.

> Surely your courts would stop it if it wasn't.

Because another part of our Constitution is separation of powers.

[Just Wondering]

On 1/27/2021 8:33 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Dechucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If it is unconstitutional why is it going ahead. Surely your courts
>> would stop it if it wasn't.
>
> If it's challenged in courts, it could make its way to the
> Supremes who would then have to rule if the Chief Justice
> violated the constitution. Those would be fun conferences to
> eavesdrop.

Interesting that you think it's fun to eavesdrop on
private conversations.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <rutc2d$de2$4...@dont-email.me>,

Extremely likely but it would still be fun to see someone
sacrificial argue to the court that senate did impeachment wrong
because of the chief justice you're arguing to.

[Dutch]

They know no such thing because it's not. The consensus of legal
opinion, common sense, AND precedent says it is not.

The Republican Senators are opposing the trial for political reasons,
not constitutional ones, that's a smokescreen. I believe they are making
a big mistake. They have this chance to make a clean break from Trump
and they're not taking it. Do it now and the party could be back in play
by 2028 at the latest. As long as Trump is leading the party Republicans
are going to continue to flounder at the polls. Trump couldn't win
against an old shoe in Joe Biden BEFORE he incited an insurrection.

>
>> Surely your courts would stop it if it wasn't.
>
> Because another part of our Constitution is separation of powers.

If he were to be convicted, as he should be, then it would undoubtedly
go before the SCOTUS and I predict it would be upheld.

[Dutch]

What a petty, childish remark. He didn't mean it literally.

[Dechucka]

One or the reason Courts are there is to stop Congress/Legislatures
overstepping their powers

[Siri Cruise]

In article <WbqdndwgXZwTx4_9...@westnet.com.au>,

Dechucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> One or the reason Courts are there is to stop Congress/Legislatures
> overstepping their powers

And Congress is there to stop courts overstepping their powers.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:59:14 +1100, Dechucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>

Good God you're stupid.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:45:26 -0500, M I Wakefield <no...@present.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 07:28:37 -0500, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:21:25 -0600, AlleyCat <a...@aohell.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:16:41 -0800, Siri Cruise SAYS...

>>>
>>>> > The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the united
>>>> > states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats are saying to
>>>> > hell with the constitution.
>>>>

>>>> What do you want? The senate to send out the police and drag him
>>>> into the senate?
>>>
>>>Who said Justice Roberts WOULDN'T, by choice, preside over this impeachment.
>>
>>Wow, MSN really twisted itself into a pretzel to try to explain this
>>one:
>>
>>
>>"Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution
>>states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
>>When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.

>>When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice

>>shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the
>>Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
>>
>>The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only
>>when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president,
>>there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved."
>>
>>https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-did-chief-justice-roberts-refuse-to-preside-over-trumps-impeachment-trial/ar-BB1d5hIA?ocid=uxbndlbing
>>
>>By that same logic, the trial can't take place as Trump is NOT
>>President. The dumbing down of America continues.
>
>It is well established that former officials can be impeached.

When has it been established that a former President can be impeached?

[NoBody]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 08:51:51 -0800, Alan Baker
<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:

>On 2021-01-27 4:28 a.m., NoBody wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:21:25 -0600, AlleyCat <a...@aohell.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:16:41 -0800, Siri Cruise SAYS...
>>>
>>>>> The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the united
>>>>> states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats are saying to
>>>>> hell with the constitution.
>>>>
>>>> What do you want? The senate to send out the police and drag him
>>>> into the senate?
>>>
>>> Who said Justice Roberts WOULDN'T, by choice, preside over this impeachment.
>>
>> Wow, MSN really twisted itself into a pretzel to try to explain this
>> one:
>>
>>
>> "Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution
>> states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
>> When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.
>> When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
>> shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the
>> Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
>>
>> The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only
>> when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president,
>> there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved."
>>
>>
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-did-chief-justice-roberts-refuse-to-preside-over-trumps-impeachment-trial/ar-BB1d5hIA?ocid=uxbndlbing
>>
>> By that same logic, the trial can't take place as Trump is NOT
>> President. The dumbing down of America continues.
>>
>

>Nope.
>
>Literally nothing in that says the trial cannot take place.
>
>Trump was impeached WHILE president, and that means a senate trial is
>mandated, but he is not NOW president.

I love how you libs play both sides. Putting him on trial when not in
office is fine but Roberts (who is Constitutionally required to
preside) refusal to be there is also fine. Complete contradiction.

[Scout]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QsWdncn9gcJpaoz9...@westnet.com.au...

So you admit there wont be one.

So much for trying to impeach Trump again.

Have to say it's amusing to see how ineffective Democrats are. 4.5 years,
illegally spying, false accusations, two impeachments, and they still can
not show the man has ever down anything illegal.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:egv31gd03ser72c5i...@4ax.com...

It was time for his mental reset, the cumulative cognitive errors were
getting to be too obvious.

[Scout]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:BPSdnV8rSvT5kY_9...@westnet.com.au...

Democrats has established a history of ignoring the Constitution.

Further until it's put before the courts, they have nothing to say on the
matter.

The Court has already signaled that if it goes to trial in the Senate they
will shut it down.

[Scout]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:WbqdndwgXZwTx4_9...@westnet.com.au...

Exactly, and here you are bitching about how Chief Justice Roberts won't
rubber stamp an unconstitutional activity by appearing.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in

message news:9v651ghpk0b1njgiq...@4ax.com...

Yep, he was just bitching about how Roberts is stopping it, and then admits
why Roberts is doing so.

[Scout]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:rutldu$pm1$1...@dont-email.me...

legal opinion is meaningless
Common sense usually isn't.
And the is no consensus on precedent if anything precedence would seem to
lean the other way.

What can't be denied is that you can't remove someone from office who isn't
holding office. As such on it's very face, impeachment would be a
non-starter against a private citizen.

Congress has no authority to try a private citizen.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote in

message news:ujt31gts53aoe9pta...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:41:21 -0700, Just Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

>
>>> Here is what the Article I clause says:
>>>
>>> When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
>>> shall preside
>>>

>>> And here is what it *means*:
>>>
>>> When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice,
>>> if there is one and if he or she is capable, shall preside
>>>
>>> That is what it necessarily means.

>>>
>>> The Constitution does *NOT* say that the chief justice "must" preside
>>> over the impeachment of a president, or of a former president. The
>>> claim to the contrary is bullshit on its face. Case closed.
>>
>>Chief Justice Roberts "is one" and "is capable". He won't preside
>>because he refuses to participate in an unconstitutional proceeding.
>

> Rudy is too short to reach the legal dictionary. If he wasn't, he'd
> know what "shall" means.
>
> He's not, so he doesn't.

Heck, Democrats don't understand "and" either. They treat it as if it meant
'or'.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 6:08:24 PM UTC-5, Ubiquitous wrote:
> On 1/27/2021 2:14 PM, UnOriginalNoInfoJunk, a shit-4-braincell Google Groups
> shitbag loser, lied:

> > On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 11:25:19 AM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >> On 1/27/2021 5:40 AM, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 11:22:47 AM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>> On 1/26/2021 5:20 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/26/21 12:38 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/25/2021 6:02 PM, Text-Drivers R Killers wrote:

> >>>>>>> The constitution says re impeachment "When the president of the
> >>>>>>> united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside". Democrats
> >>>>>>> are saying to hell with the constitution.
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Trump isn't the president.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The what holding of office is the Impeachment based on?
> >>>> He was president when he was impeached.
> >>>>
> >>> Since Trump is no longer POTUS , there can be no Senate
> >>> trial without the Chief Justice presiding as required by
> >>> Art. I, Sec. 3, cl6.
> >>> https://tinyurl.com/y4zvd9t8
> >> Nothing in the Constitution precludes a trial of a former president and
> >> the Chief Justice is not required to preside when a former president is
> >> on trial.
> >>
> > As you've admitted, the trial of a POTUS

> Trump is not president.
>
Correct...so no US Senate trial of a private citizen would be constitutional.

>
> > requires the Chief Justice preside,

> No, a Senate impeachment trial of a sitting president — which Trump is not —
> does not require that the chief justice preside.
>
There is no delegated authority to the US Senate to hold a trial
that bars a private citizen from pursuing/holding an elected office
at the local, state or federal level.
>
>I have instructed you on this already.
>
You've proven your not qualified to "instruct" anyone.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

Interesting read, thank you. The issue closest to today is that of
Secretary of War William Belknap. Yet three points were not addressed
wrt differences between the two scenarios:

1. As Belknap was an appointed position and never a POTUS, ergo, the
President Pro Tem Senator Ferry presided over Belknap's Senate trial.
https://tinyurl.com/y6y7hbz8

This is the standard procedure when the US Senate conducts impeachment
trials for non-POTUS individuals:
“The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment
trials of non-presidents." Senator Patrick Leahy
https://tinyurl.com/y3gt35mm

2. Art. 1, Sec 3 , cl6 has a specific point wrt a POTUS, NOT an
appointed position.

3. "...(T)he Chief Justice SHALL PRESIDE" is not an option as it falls
outside the constitutional bounds set down for a Senate trial of a
POTUS.

The differences between the Senate trial of Belknap and one Democrats
want for Trump are clear...unless you insist of blurring-the-lines as they
opt for revenge, not any made-up claims of "justice".

Democrats want Trump tried because the HoR impeached Trump
AS POTUS. Now, they want to change the rules and have the Senate
convict and disqualify Trump AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, dismissing the
REQUIREMENTS of Art 1, Sec 3, cl6 as it pertains to a POTUS.

IOW, Democrats wish to play the game, "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose",
but at least 45 Senate Republicans acknowledge and have decided
a Senate trial of private citizen Trump is unconstitutional.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

Unless of course, it notes a member of the Court is DIRECTLY
involved in the process.

[M I Wakefield]

1) Trump was not a former President when he was impeached by the
House.

2) The only special thing about trying "the" impeached President in
the Senate is that the Chief Justice presides, there is nothing
special about impeaching a former President.


“So you just want to let him off scot-free for insurrection because
he’s no longer in power? That’s like acquitting Jeffrey Dahmer because
he’s full.” — STEPHEN COLBERT

[Gronk]

It is established that a former federal officer can be impeached. See Belknap.

[Lee]

Nope. It is false that the trial cannot proceed if the chief justice doesn't
preside.

[Ubiquitous]

On 1/28/2021 4:57 AM, UnOriginalNoInfoJunk, a shit-4-braincell Google Groups

False, of course. We know that former officers can be tried pursuant to
impeachment because it has already been done, and the Constitution does not
prohibit it, neither explicitly nor implicitly.

>>
>>> requires the Chief Justice preside,
>> No, a Senate impeachment trial of a sitting president — which Trump is not —
>> does not require that the chief justice preside.
>>
> There is no delegated authority to

You tried that gag already, fuckwit. The Senate can, of course, hold an
impeachment trial for someone who is impeached for the high crimes and
misdemeanors he committed while in office. This is settled, fuckwit.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/28/2021 4:41 AM, Scout wrote:

{snip}

> The Court has already signaled that if it goes to trial in the Senate
> they will shut it down.

When, and how did the Court send that signal?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The CRS paper addresses the question of whether an ex-president can be
tried by the Senate. Assuming the answer is yes, a separate question is
whether the Chief Justice must preside. The CRS paper does not address
that question.

The Constitution says, "When the President of the United States is tried
the Chief Justice shall preside." You interpret "the President" to mean
"current or former President" I interpret it to mean "current
President." The resolution is not settled law, but both readings of the
text are possible.

[Bill Flett]

It didn't. scooter is lying. The court has not said or signaled anything about it.