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

ROBERTS RULES

Today comes word via Senator Rand Paul that Chief Justice Roberts will not preside over any Senate impeachment trial of President Trump: the text of the Constitution only requires the Chief Justice to preside over the trial of “the President.” Trump is not “the President.” Trump is a private citizen at this point.

We have a criminal and civil justice system for cases and controversies, but the Dems want to have Political Show Trial Circus and Justice Roberts will not be their carnival barker.

Impeachments of former appointed official took place once in the eighteenth century and once in the nineteenth. Former Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig argues in this Washington Post column that a Senate trial of Trump would be unconstitutional.

Article II, Section 4:

“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.”​

A lost vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent.

The strength of the argument based on the text of the Constitution will provide sufficient basis for Republican Senators to vote against a Senate conviction. If Trump committed any crime, civil or criminal, he no longer has presidential immunity, any court is free to try him. This leaves Dems gasping, because once again, they want Trump charged and convicted but they have no criminal or civil basis for doing so.

What a great way to kick off the Biden-Harris era with a failed political show trial of the former President.

 

Trump was impeached as President, this is already settled law

had he been impeached after he left it would be a different story, but in this case Trump was impeached while he was still President

regardless if he is removed or not, Trump was impeached, Trump is a twice impeached President, I am good enough with that, though would be nice if he could never run again

 

the is just a word any President is afforded, even this fake one we just tossed out, if he ain't THE President in question then don't ever refer to him as anything other than the traitor trash he is and enjoy all the American justice Patriots can heap upon his rotting waste of flesh.

 

fortunately there are other safeguards against him attempting that goal

 

good point, I guess republicans are saying unlike previous Presidents, Trump should not retain the title

 

if he gets a felony in one of the States, that would do it

 

As President of the Senate VP Harris can preside over the Impeachment TRIAL of the biggest *LOSER*.

That would ENSURE that the GOP Senators would be FORCED to go on the RECORD as being SUPPORTERS of the INSURRECTION.

This is way too IMPORTANT to allow it to NOT be tried.

If the OP's biggest *LOSER* is allowed to get away with his treasonous insurrection then that sets a really terrible precedent for the future.

For Roberts to ABDICATE his RESPONSIBILITY on the matter of INSURRECTION is a VIOLATION of his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution and he could be IMPEACHED himself on those grounds.

That would help to reset the SCrOTUS so what Rand Paul is spouting is NOT necessarily what Roberts himself might be thinking.

 

the books say anyone who incites blah blah can't run for office. he's toast there.

 

It's a bit of a mish mash from legal experts on whether impeachment can be practiced after leaving office. The argument against impeaching after leaving office obviously is the phrasing in Article II, Section 4

However, the argument for impeaching after leaving office is the phrasing in Article I, Section 3, which specifies that an impeachment trial can be used for the removal from office, as well as the "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"

The other argument in favor of impeaching after leaving office is the historical precedence. Note that the articles of impeachment isn't just specific to the presidency, but any civil officer of the US federal government. Well, it just so happens that impeachment after leaving office has been practiced before back in 1876 against president Grant's Secretary of War.

 

I've no doubts there is all kinds of party politics being played here but isn't there a practical issue with this position? If acts taken while in office are out of scope of the normal legal system, which is why the impeachment system exists in the first place, and impeachment can't continue if the accused leaves office before it is complete someone could legally get away with pretty much anything at the end of a term.

 

Justice Roberts never said that.... fake news

 

Literally anyone who doesn't buy into the newthink must be impeached.

 

He was impeached with the knowledge that they would not complete the trial before he left office. The sole purpose of the trial is so they can then vote on not letting him run for office again.

The decision on whether he should run again should not be up to a bunch of politicians from the opposing party. That is our decision.

I am glad Roberts is taking that position. He recognizes it for what it is.

 

it's in the constitution, so the founders believed it should, but of course we would need 17 republicans to vote to make that happen

 

It is in the Constitution. However, the purpose of the impeachment was not to remove him from office and prevent him from running again. The sole purpose was to keep him from running again. I doubt that the founders intended the Constitution to be used that way.

 

it was both, but Republicans refused to do the Senate piece earlier

our founders would have approved of impeaching Trump

 

The law is the LAW..sorry, you guys can't make the law whatever you want when its convenient. DEAL!

 

If I work for a company and I embezzle $147,000 and then I lose my job does that mean that I can not be charged, or tried, or convicted?

 

IMO, it's silly to suggest that the FF intended that a president could go on a high crime/misdemeanor spree shortly before leaving office and suffer no consequences, simply because Congress didn't have time to do due diligence before acting.

 

Republicans refused? It would have been impossible to adequately prepare for a trial and then conduct a fair trial before Trump left office. Key word being "fair".

What makes your think the founders would have approved of impeaching Trump if they knew it would not result in removing him from office?

The problem with impeaching him with no chance of removing him from office is that it would likely affect how the senators voted which completely circumvents the primary purpose of impeachment.

 

Trump was what impeachment was designed for

 

Any "impeachment" of Trump that is now a private citizen is illegal. It would be simply a hate filled dog and pony circus lead by democrats. Tell me please how that would unite the country.

If Biden had any balls he would tell the old witch Pelosi to forget the illegal nonsense.

 

and the law allows Trump to be impeached

 

Not after he left office.

 

and if he did that you would favor unity?