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

Lol.

 

It's the second vote that counts here.

 

It's in the constitution

 

Which is one of the very good reasons for the Senate to finish the impeachment process.

 

The Dems aren't bitter so much as they are angry. You would be, too, if you had been with them in the Capitol on Jan. 6. And in some rare cases, like this one, they can and should do everything in their power to make sure that Donald J. Trump, Sr. can never again hold a public position of any power whatsoever.

And please try to refrain from the arrogant assumption that you know anything about what I do or do not know. Ask, and I'll tell you, but lose the pomposity, please. That goes for your assumption of what I imagine, too.

As for what most Americans want regarding this issue: unlike you, I don't assume such things. Instead, I look at polls, I follow elections, I read articles and see interviews with enough everyday folks like myself to know that I am certainly not in the minority where holding Trump's feet to the fire is concerned. And you are also wrong about how I feel: I don't hate Trump, I simply find him repulsive, dusgusting, dishonest, and entirely self-centered, which in my opinion made him unfit for office.

If you want my opinion, just ask, but assuming that you already know what someone else thinks is like claiming that you can read minds. ESP does not exist on this forum.

 

A strict constitutional conservative would only interpret this to mean removal from office is an inescapable consequence of being impeached and convicted, where applicable. It's sad to see Senator Rand Paul join with other phony conservatives in what is LITERALLY a liberal interpretation of the constitution to try to justify the Senate abrogating their constitutionally mandated duty to follow through on what the House did while the accused was still in office.

At this point, I think the Republicans know they're screwed either way. The Trumpers will never forgive them for not illegally "stopping the steal" to keep their orange messiah in office, and the rest of the country will not forget if they let Trump's insurrectionist actions stand without meaningful consequences.

Senator Paul is apparently acting the way he is because he knows the voters in his state will definitely vote him out in the next primary if he doesn't, and he cares about that than his principles.

 

Not that he could suffer no consequences, but rather it will be the Senate who suffers a political consequence(lack of legitimacy in the eyes of the voters) by having this dog and pony trial. As far as the consequences he's suffered, he lost the Presidency there may be future legal liabilities, and effectively he's ex-communicated from the GOP.

Which is why I said it's beating a dead horse at this point. It's not even vengeance for the capitol, it's just pathetic. Let it die, it's too late and let Trump rot away into the abyss of nothingness.

 

I'm speaking in generalities. The founding fathers didn't create a situation where any president could go on a consequence-free crime spree, shortly before leaving office, because there wouldn't be time to impeach and have a trial.

 

That depends on if it's an actual crime(and that should be at this point determined by the DOJ.). What's being done, is going to damage the Senate for all time. Beyond Trump. Dog and pony show trials are best left for third world countries, not for the United States.

 

I'm not debating the merits of the case.

The claim is that once a president (any president,) is out of office, there is no way to hold him accountable. Utterly ridiculous notion.

 

Articles 3 & 4 in blah blah didn't save it. doesn't mean any rule still stands these days.

 

More of your Big Lie. He is as lawless as they come. And he is the Executive for the purposes of being called to account for his actions as the Executive.

LOL. You're so sure about that, we should find out in court.

More of your Big Lie. Naturally when the corrupt are called to account, for them it's a "show trial." Sorry, but trying Trump on the Impeachment charges is thoroughly legal. If it isn't, it's incumbent on you to show how - and demonstrate it in a venue that can get your "show trial" stopped. If you don't have that, spare us your squawking.

False. A current office-holder is not required - neither by the text of the Constitution, nor by the logic of the Constitutional provision.

Incitement to insurrection amply qualifies as treason against the United States.

Only a narrow reading of the text suggests that the Chief Justice is not to preside. And even if you make such a (politically motivated) reading, that does not imply that the presence of the Chief Justice presiding is a necessary condition for the proceedings. Some other presiding officer will do.

Stop with your Lies, please. And it is simply a fact: allowing federal officials to escape Impeachment (& all possibility of conviction) if they are already out of office, is a huge boon to Executive Supremacy. For the stability of our system, the Congress clearly needs all the available tools to call a rogue and lawless Executive to account. Not surprising at all that an Authoritarian like yourself wants to avoid this.

Yeah, as a precaution against your Authoritarian fellow-travelers who threatened to decapitate a large part of the national government. Imagine that.

You and your fellow Authoritarians have taken us giant steps down the road to overthrowing the democracy already. You know it, I know it, The American People know it.

 

False comparison.
If trump stole $117,000 while in office, he could be criminally charged and convicted for it after he leaves office.

And so...
If the Democrats are -so- sure Trump committed incitement of violence, sedition, whatever, the correct course of action is for the DoJ to conduct an investigation with the intent to seek an indictment.
The Democrats won't do this, however, because they know there's nothing to their claim.

 

False.
Presidents can be charged for crimes they commit in office after they leave office

 

There is?
In what tangible way does the senate trial and conviction of a President who no longer holds office serve the public interest?

 

he's going down for more and worse than this paltry graft

 

Most reps and senators care more about keeping their cushy, profitable, powerful jobs than they do about doing their jobs with honor.

 

More of your Big Lie.

Re: The January 6th riots at the US Capitol:
Specifically, which law did Trump break? Cite the relevant section of the US code and copy/paste the text of same
Specifically, what did Trump say that violates this section of the code? Cite the source, copy/paste the text, and demonstrate that the words so noted violate the law.

 

Do you deny the existence of criminal statues against incitement to riot, sedition, and insurrection?

Trump can be indicted on the basis of such statutes.


And of course he can be convicted in his Impeachment trial on accusations of same, without needing to meet the threshold of criminality per se.

 

^^^^^
A pathetic, and yet, "maximum effort", attempt to avoid the issue put to you

Lets try this again:
Re: The January 6th riots at the US Capitol:
Specifically, which law did Trump break? Cite the relevant section of the US code and copy/paste the text of same
Specifically, what did Trump say that violates this section of the code? Cite the source, copy/paste the text, and demonstrate that the words so noted violate the law.

 

Look, if the statutes don't exist, you can simply assert the fact.

 

And thus, you not only admit, but demonstrate, your inability to:
- Specifically, cite the relevant section of the US code Trump violated re: the Capitol riots, and copy/paste the text of same
- Specifically, cite the source and copy/paste the text Trump's statements to that effect, and then demonstrate how said words so noted violate the law.

Look, if the words don't exist, you can simply assert the fact.

 

Sorry, blah blah doesn't answer my question.

In #4 you stated "fortunately there are other safeguards against him attempting that goal"

I'll ask again, what other measures?

 

obviously I can't recall the article or any assurance Articles would hold up under pressures. today everything is fluid, grab more popcorn

 

Alright I can't tell who's shilling who anymore. Actual authoritarians are not Republicans anymore, and they're not even Trump voters. This is clear to me.