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

WHILE being president

 

There's been no trial yet.

 

Trump was impeached while he was President

 

That is the issue. Apparently Roberts says "No

 

I always viewed impeachment is for removal from office. That's what the Constitution states. Trump is gone which makes this upcoming impeachment trial irrelevant. A political show as you stated. We do have the federal court system and if a federal prosecutor thinks Trump has incited the riot, sedition and insurrection, that federal prosecutor can present his evidence to a grand jury. I would much rather see this later route as it would provide punishment if Trump is found guilty. The impeachment trial means nothing to me as you can't remove anyone from office who doesn't hold the office. Who is gone, the trial just became a moot point on 20 Jan 2021.

Since the trial in the senate is totally irrelevant at this point, they can't remove someone who doesn't hold the office and is a private citizen, I won't be watching. It's time for the DOJ to take a look at this, not congress.

 

So can he be tried as a private citizen? Once again supporters are looking for a legal technicality to bail him out without considering whether he is guilty or innocent.

 

The Senate can also prevent him from running again.

 

No. Former presidents are immune from prosecution for anything that they did while in office.

Impeachment/trial is the only mechanism.

The argument that a president can go on a crime spree shortly before leaving office and suffer no consequences is utterly ridiculous.

 

The Law of the Land is NOT "newthink" except to those who are gullible enough to SUPPORT their biggest *LOSER* and his CRIMES.

 

I wasn't aware you could impeach a "private citizen'.. you guys are hilarious. I think your trump hate has clouded your common sense.

 

Only if Trump is convicted. The federal court system can do the same. Trump stands a better chance of being convicted in the court system than in the senate. There were 3-5 GOP senators who were thought probably would vote to convict, perhaps a handful more of maybe's. But from what I've been reading those maybe's have become no voters due to the fact they think impeaching someone after they leave office is unconstitutional. So reaching 67 is an impossibility. Without conviction, the senate can't vote on holding office. Chief Justice Roberts probably won't preside either.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/23/sen-r...ustice-roberts-wont-take-trump-impeach-trial/

How much stock to put into that, I suppose we have to wait and see. The trial has become irrelevant at this point. If true, if, that means VP Harris or Senate Pro Tem Leahy would president. Having the judge and prosecutors on the same team might be bad optics.

 

I didn't say "impeach" I said "try" You are avoiding the issue. The issue is that I don't believe the founding fathers intended to set up a catch 22 where someone can potentially commit a crime and not face consequences. That is what you and others are claiming here; you are not saying that he did nothing wrong, you are not saying he should be found not guilty, you are saying that you think you have found a loophole which does not allow the consideration of guilt or innocence. Perhaps you are correct, but I think there should be a court test to see if that is so.
The Constitution also draws a line between Impeachment and conviction it states: "removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason" etc. Since he was impeached while he was still President one could argue that the process had begun and needed to be completed.

 

The problem is that the constitution is a bit vague on the concept. Since the Article of Impeachment was resolved upon by the House before Trump left office, there is a good argument for completing the Senate's conviction portion of the process.

I don't see this as a show, but as holding Trump accountable for once in his life. I want him stripped of his presidential pension and any other post-presidential perks provided by our tax dollars, and barred from holding public office. It's important.

And btw, Trump is not the only elected politician in need of accountability for his part in inciting sedition.

 

Such as what? Got a link?

 

No, it wouldn't.

https://www.jobsforfelonshub.com/can-felons-run-public-office/

Sorry, but only if the Senate portion of the impeachment process results in a conviction would Trump be barred from holding office.

 

Roberts certainly is going with the narrowest possible reading of the text. Both with this as well as his particular duties when it came to "presiding" over the trial. He pretty much makes the Judiciary purely ornamental to these proceedings.

The Founders did not limit impeachable offenses to statutory crimes, and with good reason. You cannot make prior legislation against all possible forms of the abuse of power, including abuses egregious enough for the public, through their representatives, to act to summarily separate man and office.

Look, given the rarity of impeachment in general, any precedent established on this matter should strongly guide action, if not in fact be dispositive.

No, it doesn't. It does give a convenient pretext though. In the grip of Factional politics, Republican Senators are throwing away Legislative power to call a lawless Executive to account. The precedent they are setting is just another chapter in the rise of Executive Supremacy in the United States. It is a precedent which will haunt the future of democracy in America.

Well, that's false. Whether Trump is guilty of incitement to sedition and insurrection is something that will be decided in a court of law.

 

He was still president when he was impeached! The trial as no such rules that the person has to be still in office.

 

These peoples idea of unity is to continue passing their policies and doing what only they want. Thats not happening, our side is in charge now and if we nuke the filibuster we can finally ignore anything their side has to say.

 

And that would be our constitution.

That follows removal, and refers to appointed offices the United States, not elected officials. While the Senate has the authority to confirm appointed officials, it is the Electorate that seats elected officials, not the Senate.

An appointed, not elected office, and it failed precisely on this point of jurisdiction. He no longer held office, so many in the Senate voted against removing him from office, because he no longer held office. There was no doubt about his guilt, he openly and repeatedly admitted it, but, the Senators felt that he was no longer accountable to them as he was now a private citizen, once again accountable to our civil and criminal courts.

Once articles are delivered, the Senate can conduct no other business until the matter is resolved. In a presidential impeachment, all 3 branches, including both Houses of Congress are brought to a standstill. The last time the House took over the Senate's calendar, the President's time and attention and the Chief Justice, COVID was quietly establishing itself in the United States.

Now Biden is trying to seat his cabinet, and Congress is supposed to be working on COVID relief for the American People as well as assist in vaccine distribution. CA ranks 50 out of the 50 states, utilizing less than 40% of their vaccines, the largest state in the Union doing the very worst job. Pelosi's home state. Why haven't Dems removed her from the Speakership?

She has found a way to shut down every branch of government and she is going to misuse it twice in just over a year? And because she fears that the voters will return Trump to the Presidency, and she wants to try to remove the voters ability to do so?

And no Democrats, other than Tulsi Gabbard, are standing up to her? What is wrong with these folks?

 

They are badly over-reaching. I don't see this going well for them.

Joe Biden And The Death Of Free Speech: The president’s first day was marked by a harsh crackdown on the right to protest. So much for a return to normalcy.

There will be no stopping them, so let's go. They will put on their show trial and just like the riots, they will continue to support them until the polls crash and then quickly pretend that they really had little to do with it.

 

Not listening to anyone outside your tribe, isn't that what "unity" conformity is all about?

 

He's not "lawless" and he is not The Executive. If he committed any violations, criminal or civil, our criminal and civil court system is there to adjudicate the matter. This is only unsatisfactory to you because you know that he has committed no violations, civil or criminal, and you want a Show Trial, so a Political Show Trial it is. Now you imagine, just like the riots, that this will be wildly popular with the American People. Well, we'll know shortly, won't we?

We aren't the ones putting on the second show trial.

Now that Justice Roberts has told you to take a walk, you do not have yet another necessary element for your show trial.

Missing elements:

1. An Office holder subject to the impeach clause.
2. Bribery, treason, high crimes ...
3. The Chief Justice to preside.

And the folks trying to put the former occupant of the WH on "trial" in a political show trial, are suddenly hand wringing over the precedent this establishes? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. The same folks who just had a swearing in a capitol flooded with troops and razor wire? What other elements do Dems need to finally turn our Constitutional Democracy into an obvious banana republic, complete with show trials for the previous administrtion?

Exactly. So why the Political Show Trial when we have both Civilian and Criminal Courts he is now accountable to? And little hint, he doesn't come within a country mile of violating the law on incitement. You know it, I know it, The American People know it.

 

Justice Roberts is a big boy when is he letting little Randy Paul speak for him??? And is he really or is this just more of Paul's bullshit which he has been spewing a lot of recently???

 

guess I was wrong, I thought felons could not run for President, Guess Trump would be able to then

 

For elected officials, that's up to the voters, not these bitter partisan democrats in Congress who clearly do not trust elections to the American People.

If they still hold office, impeach them. If they no longer hold office, let the Article III Courts deal with them. Your problem is you know full well that none come within a country mile of violating the laws on these matters, so, you want a Big Political Show Trial. And you imagine that the American People share your obsessive hate for Trump, and just like you found out with the riots, I think you will find they most definitely do not like:

• Our Capitol flooded with 26,000 troops and a swearing in behind 12 feet high razor wire.
• Political Show Trials of the outgoing administration.

But hey, you won't be stopped, so, let's git 'er done!