re: Leahy, not Roberts, to preside over impeachment trial

quote:

---

It will finds it way there. The Senate does not have the power to take away the constitutional rights of any citizen. This is why congress refers criminal cases to the DOJ for prosecution. The Democrats are very clear that the purpose of the impeachment trial is to prevent Trump from being able to run in 2024 and that is taking away a constitutional right that they do not have the authority to do. Only a court of law can do that.

---

In other words... who in the hell do they think they are to try and tell us who we can and can't vote for? Because that's exactly what they'd be doing.

Referring back to your comment about this potentially making its way to SCOTUS, it very possibly could if Trump suffers any actual, measurable loss, particularly the ability to run for future office. Basis of such a Constitutional challenge being the heretofore abysmal due process that's been afforded Trump. Unless I'm wrong about that. But it seems pretty obvious given the fact that the record for the actual Senate trial is composed and certified complete within the House impeachment proceedings, and it certainly didn't seem like there were any even halfway reasonable allowances for Trump's attorney(s) to compose and fully submit their own additions to the record. Definitely seems to be severe constraints put upon due process by the Democrats.

Obamacare was a tax as they wrote it, so he was right on that one. Pennsylvania though is mysterious

quote:

---

quote:

---

Much like filing a lawsuit the day before limitations expire. You still get to try the case AFTER the SoL.

---

But it doesn't alter who hears the case.

---

True. The two issues are utterly independent of one another.

quote:

---

Either this is an impeachment of a President or it isn't.

---

You are falling into the trap of thinking of “impeachment” as being the entire process. Trump WAS “impeached” by the House, and he was sitting POTUS at that time.

The House “impeachment” is over. Next comes the trial before the Senate. It FOLLOWS the impeachment, but is distinct. Just as a criminal trial to a petit jury is related to (but distinct from) indictment by a grand jury.

If the trial had proceeded while Trump remained POTUS, it is axiomatic that Roberts as CJSCOTUS would be required to preside.

But it won’t. The TRIAL will be of a person who is no longer POTUS, and CJSCOTUS is thus NOT required to preside.

Analogizing the process to a criminal prosecution, the judge who presided over the grand jury indictment need not preside over the trial to the petit jury.

If I were re-drafting the Constitution, I would likely draft these impeachment-related provisions differently. But I am a Strict Consttuctionist, and the wording on this point is not remotely ambiguous.

quote:

---

We should then look to what it provides when the defendant is a former President. Surely it's covered because it's not like it's some farfetched, alien concept.

---

It IS addressed.

Anyone subject to trial on articles of impeachment who IS the sitting President at the time of his trial ... gets the CJSCOTUS as presiding officer.

Anyone who is NOT the sitting POTUS at the time of trial ... doesn’t.

Again, all this presupposes that a former POTUS can be so-tried. Again, THAT is an open Constitutional question.

Fair enough. But Hankster, where you been baw? Haven't seen you in a few months of Sundays it seems.

Anyhow, the Constitutional issue I'm most keen on is the apparent lack of due process in the House, which should taint any subsequent loss or penalty directed at Trump at any point thereafter. The potential losses that I believe would be most "challengeable" are of course loss of post-Presidency benefits and the loss of ability to run for future office. But that's a lot of speculation, as I truly don't believe it'll get that far.

quote:

---

But Hankster, where you been baw?

---

He was logged into his alter account Mickey Goldmill

All of this is unconstitutional. The President can be impeached, tried by the Senate, and if found guilty removed from office.

Donald J. Trump no longer holds the office of POTUS.

The Chief Justice presides over a Senate Impeachment trial per the Constitution. Leahy is a Democrat puppet advancing Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Schumer's partisan vendetta by putting on a Stalinist show trial.

Senate Republicans should refuse to participate in an unconstitutional proceeding.

This is very bad opera with vengeance its motive and its end game the total destruction of Donald J. Trump, his populist nationalist supporters, and the Republican Party he invigorated and expanded.

We need to open our eyes and recognize the hard reality of the total war being waged against us by and in Congress, the Courts, Film and Television, Social Media, the Press, and large corporations. The totalitarian nightmare people envisioned ensuing over the next few years is already here, undisguised, walking upright among us.

The ridiculous arguments put forth for the ability to have this proceeding by some posters boggles the mind.

As for an impeachment of a president, the constitution is silent on this issue and any strict constructionist should understand why. The power of the congress is limited to removal from office and...possibly prevention from running again.

Let’s pretend this was the end of his second term. He could not run again and is already out of office. What is the remedy? And where does it say who gets to try impeachment for a president?

While this is a wholly political process, the power to hold it is, probably, subject to review. The question is when.

ETA. Can’t wait for plaintiff initial disclosures as required. My guess is that it is woefully inadequate