Justice Roberts: Hell No! I Won't Go! To The Senate Impeachment "Trial"

Or silenced...



The Left is fundamentally transforming the United States into its beloved Soviet Union. It won't be long before we have to communicate and share information through underground samizdat networks...

 

But without a conviction, there will be no second vote.

 

I know the Left hates the election system, but, in our system whether or not someone holds an elected position is a decision in the hands of the voter. This dog and pony show trial crap is an insult to all of us. Good for Chief Justice John Roberts for refusing to participate in this obvious farce.

 

According to the morons in Fake News, but, not according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

It's not us who refuse to trust the Justice System or the Election system to deal with him.

It's not us who are trying to remove from office a guy who is no longer in office, and not for a crime, but for stating and holding positions that the Left does not agree with, and they are on this tangent that can criminalizing political speech and disagreement. And they know they can't make a civil or criminal case, so they want to misuse their impeachment power to put on a political show trial. Well, you guys have lost all control, you will not be stopped, so, get on with it. Show the whole nation how crazy the Left is.

Yes it is, and you don't have one, which is why the Chief Justice flipped you the bird.

No it doesn't. Treason is a Capital Offense, that was so misused by the Monarchy which we declared corrupt, foul and illigitimate when we formed our Constitutional Liberal Democracy. There is only ONE crime defined in the US Constitution, and that Crime is Treason. Forever, and for all time, absent Constitutional Amendment, that is the ONLY definition of Treason in our Great Republic. And, this doesn't contain ANY of the carefully prescribed elements. In fact, we tightly defined Treason, exactly for this attempted misuse. Whenever the folks in power wanted to kill someone for their views, or speech, or just because they didn't like them, they accused them of Treason, just like you just have. See, you were anticipated and cut off at quick 243 years ago. Now THAT has to smart!

By the Chief Justice's reading, this does not meet the Constitutional elements for an Article II Trial.

The Chief Justice presiding is clearly stated in the text. Since when is a clear statement an "implication", is this "fun with words" day and I wasn't told?

That's a complete fabrication that conflicts with the clear text, but, since you are making this up as you go along, WHO, for example, would be another suitable presiding officer?

He is: Not rogue, Not Lawless, Not the executive. You are 0-3 on your own criteria.

I'm a Constitutionalist which prevents Authoritarianism, it's not us who are subjecting the previous office holder to a 3rd world dictator style political show trial.

They won't be stopped, so get on with it already. I want the American People to see just who exactly these folks are.

 

True, but that's the plan.

 

He has not been tried and if Leahy presides then he should not be allowed to vote that would be a conflict of interest and make it even more a sham and that gives the Republicans a majority who can vote a dismissal on Constitutional grounds.

So here we are with yes President means Trump and he can be tried because of that and no Trump is not President so they don't need the Chief Justice to preside. They duplicity and hypocracy just blaring as the Dems continue to spit on the Constitution.

 

the process started when he was President, he needs to be held accountable for his actions

that said, republican are still the deciding vote in the Senate, so regardless, my guess is they will let him off, say he has learned his lesson or something like that

I think it's great he was twice impeached, but I am doubtful he will ever be held accountable by republicans

past presidents have always retained the title President, should Trump not?

 

Where does the Constitution say the VP will president over the impeachment of the President which your side still applies to Trump and why there can be a trial. Roberts is holding UP his Constitutional duty to ONLY sit at trials for THE President. Where does the constitution authorize this trail of a private citizens former President?

 

He's NOT President NOW and it seems the Chief Justice agrees so the Constitution be damned the Dems will just make it up as the go along the illegitimacy of this just multiply exponentially. The Republicans should refuse to participate in this unconstitutional ruse. How can YOU stand for it?

 

They have to vote to remove first. And they can try THE President not ex-President which is what Roberts must have politely informed them. Time for the Democrats to try and find a way out of this they just ramped up how illegitimate is this whole affair,

 

You keep pretending that, but the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states that Congress has SOLE authority in matters of impeachment.
Not the Courts. Not the Internet. Congress makes the rules on this one issue. End of story.

 

Where in the Constitution is the part that says the President Pro Temp shall preside over Senate trials of private citizens and also vote in that trial?

 

Yeah and states what those impeachment are limited to. Congress can't change the Constitutional stipulations without passing an amendment. And in a presidential impeach the Judiciary is given a prime function and authority. His presence is REQUIRED.

 

When the Constitution says that Congress has SOLE authority over the issue of impeachment, that doesn't mean what
YOU "feelz" about the issue matters in the least. There is precedence for Congress to finish an impeachment after the
person has left office, and on this on issue, Congress has the final say as to the rules of how that will be accomplished.
SOLE authority. Period. End of story.

 

That's already been explained you haven't heard. They impeached him so the evidence could then be presented in the Senate trial. See you don't need evidence and witnesses and rebuttal by the defense anymore to impeach. Just impeach whenever a person subject to it does something the House doesn't like.

 

When that VP is the likely nominee in 2024 and whole purpose of the Sham Trial is to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024?

Gee, "Conflict of Interest? What Conflict of Interest!?!"

And, as another noted, if she is presiding, she can't also be the tie breaker, and so the Dems do not have a majority with which to put on their Soviet Style Political Show Trial.

 

It says the House will have the sole power of impeachment, the Senate nor Judiciary nor Executive branch can impeach. It says the Senate shall have the sole power to conduct the trail, the House, nor the Judiciary nor Executive branch can hold the trial. It doesn't give them free reign to do whatever they want to do. And it clearly states who is subject to impeachment and who presides when it is a presidential impeachment and trial. That cannot be changed by rule. Nor can the Senate pass a rule saying they can try and sanction private citizens. Where is that in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution is the part that says the President Pro Temp shall preside over Senate trials of private citizens and also vote in that trial which includes sanctions and denial of a persons rights?

And do you agree that it is ethical and proper justice for one person to be judge AND jury?

Do you realize the pretzel those including you who support this are having to twist themselves into. And the only answer is just ignore the Constitution Congress can do ANYTHING it wants to do.

 

If LEAHY is presiding does he get to be judge AND jury and also vote to convict which I am sure is how he will vote? If he forfeits that vote as he should then the Republicans have a majority. They can by acclimation dismiss it as their first act.

The pretzels the left will twist itself into without seeing the outcomes.

 

Conflict of interest didn't stop Pence from presiding - hell, the VP always has a conflict of interest. He could be making
himself President if the current one is impeached. So that's a failed argument.

And there are already several Republican Senators on board with impeachment, so they may not need Harris.

 

So you are asserting the Congress can pass unconstitutional rules and they trump the Constitution? Congress can try and sanction anyone, private citizens included? That in fact they could try Trump and decide to fine say ten million dollars and 5 years in jail because they have sole authority, which is not what the Constitution says.

 

The process was already started before Trump was booted out of office - there is already precedence for finishing a
trail that was already started. And Congress has SOLE authority over that process.

 

Oh geeze, well then don't let that whole "2/3rd thing to convict" thing prevent conviction, after all, by your reading you can change that to whatever the hell you want. And while it says President, if it can be a private citizen, why can't Senators impeach each other? If you have "sole" and unbridled power, then you can impeach anyone for anything at any time. As soon as the opposing party selects a nominee, the Senate can just impeach them and bar them from holding office, on your reading.

One guy, a hundred and fifty years ago, who was appointed, not elected and the impeachment failed precisely on this point, over the jurisdictional argument. Looks like you have learned how to write a new word, "precedent" but are not doing a great job using it correctly.

Since the Chief Justice, who the Constitution assigns the role of Administering the trial will not lend his prestige to your third world banana republic dog and pony show, who is going to fill that role that the Constitution assigns ONLY to the Chief Justice for a trial of the President?

 

Apparently they don't need to abide by that whole 2/3rds vote to impeach, either. Too bad Trent Lott didn't figure that out!

 

If Pelosi transmits the articles, they have to deal with it, even if it's only a vote to dismiss, and they can't do that without being sworn in by the Chief Justice as an Article II Court of impeachment.

 

Where is the precedent for trying the President without the Chief Justice presiding?