Live Updates: Biden weighs in on Trump impeachment, says Dems won't have the votes to convict

[oeb11]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ct/vi-BB1d5ZRv


My, My , My - fiden got something correct for once.
referring to the nazi pelosi revenge hatefest for former president Trump.

she has made a mockery of the Constitution, and a joke of our governmental system.

All to feed her own hatred and need for revenge for 2016!

[Ripmany]

This is as bad a google feeds no has time to read all you post it clear you a communist spammer.

[rexdutchman]

Its illegal without the head justice.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Its illegal without the head justice.

Says whom. Read a constitution before posting.

[gnadfly]

I like how they were delivered in the dead of night. I thought they were supposed to be delivered Feb 7?

Too much time to organize a demonstration? No Justice Roberts. Again, seems unconstitutional if SCCJ Roberts doesn't attend. Read the constitution.

[nevergaveitathought]

its apparent chief justice Roberts saw it as the vengeful political attack that it is and he wants no part of it

one that had no due process nor any fact gathering

I wonder how far back republicans, when they get the power, can impeach past dimocrat presidents?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Says whom. Read a constitution before posting.

Here you had the opportunity to back up what you say but you declined after telling us you would in the future back up your statements. I guess it was just to much trouble for you.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

The Constitution requires the involvement of the chief justice only when the president is on trial. Since Trump no longer is president, there is no requirement for the chief justice to be involved.

"The" President is not on trial. The "former" President is on trial and to my knowledge, the SC has never ruled on the Constitutionality of trying a former President. While former public officials have been tried out of office, the SC has never said it was either constitutional or un-constitutional and isn't prone to such declarations without a full court hearing brought by a party with standing.

I can't imagine that Republicans wouldn't bring a legal action to find out.

Obviously Roberts is saying the Constitution does not oblige him to preside because "the" President isn't being tried. Hard to imagine that our SC wouldn't settle this matter once and for all.

But it's merely another show trial that will end in acquittal. The only question is, will any Democrat vote to acquit? Romney will almost certainly vote to convict but will any Republican join him? My guess would be 4 or 5 at the most but certainly not 17.

Republicans don't even have to argue his guilt. They will argue the Constitutionality of trying a former President and that will be an interesting legal debate.

[GastonGlock]

I guess this is the other side of the coin.

Can't hardly get SCOTUS to sit a 2A case because they're afraid to touch it, now they don't want to touch the impeachment.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

its apparent chief justice Roberts saw it as the vengeful political attack that it is and he wants no part of it

one that had no due process nor any fact gathering

I wonder how far back republicans, when they get the power, can impeach past dimocrat presidents?

They would certainly have all the legal arguments they would need to try Obama for killing killing four US citizens without due process. No guarantee they would win but they would have as much authority and evidence as this bunch.


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...trikes-3-were/

[1blackman1]

Did you not read the post I made to Gonad specifically quoting the constitution. I guess you missed it.

Anyway. Ya can’t have it both ways. The Chief is only necessary if the President is the defendant (not really the right word but it will work for now). Ex-President is not the president so no Chief Justice is required.

As I noted in my prior post, that you missed, I’m not sure that you can start an impeachment proceeding in the house for someone no longer in govt. the language of the constitution doesn’t appear to preclude it but the court could say no I suppose. As for the trial, as I posted prior, which I guess you missed, once the house sends over article(s) the senate must take it up. Whether the defendant is still in office or not is not germane.

As I also noted before, which maybe you missed, the rules governing the impeachment and trial of anyone by the house and senate doesn’t matter whether it’s a judge, cabinet member or president are all the same (except in the instance where the president -of which we only have one at a time - where the Chief Justice presides). Historically on at least 2 occasions they have tried someone that was no longer in their position. The precedent is that it’s constitutional to do so. Just because the ex-president is the defendant makes no difference under the constitution.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Here you had the opportunity to back up what you say but you declined after telling us you would in the future back up your statements. I guess it was just to much trouble for you.




"The" President is not on trial. The "former" President is on trial and to my knowledge, the SC has never ruled on the Constitutionality of trying a former President. While former public officials have been tried out of office, the SC has never said it was either constitutional or un-constitutional and isn't prone to such declarations without a full court hearing brought by a party with standing.

I can't imagine that Republicans wouldn't bring a legal action to find out.

Obviously Roberts is saying the Constitution does not oblige him to preside because "the" President isn't being tried. Hard to imagine that our SC wouldn't settle this matter once and for all.

But it's merely another show trial that will end in acquittal. The only question is, will any Democrat vote to acquit? Romney will almost certainly vote to convict but will any Republican join him? My guess would be 4 or 5 at the most but certainly not 17.

Republicans don't even have to argue his guilt. They will argue the Constitutionality of trying a former President and that will be an interesting legal debate.

the esoteric problem is:

if he is the president the chief justice shall preside

if he is not the president there is no provision granting the senate the power to try him

so if the chief justice can withdraw how can the senate try him?

the dims cant have it both ways

the house sending over impeachment documents doesn't negate the issue, but only highlights the conflicts and places them squarely at the supreme court's doorstep

[1blackman1]

Just because they can’t convict doesn’t mean the trial shouldn’t happen. In our country we’ve sadly operated that way. There was a time when white racists committed murders and DAs didn’t try them because no jury would convict. That didn’t make it right. There was a time when gangsters weren’t tried because DAs and police were crooked.

There’s little question that Trump was part of the cause (sole cause, I wouldn’t say) through his actions both on the day of and over and over between the election and leading to the Jan 6 insurrection. If that’s not impeachable then very few things are.

55 senators decided (that’s the body that mattered) that trying the ex-president is constitutional. I doubt the court will intervene.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the esoteric problem is:

if he is the president the chief justice shall preside

if he is not the president there is no provision granting the senate the power to try him

so if the chief justice can withdraw how can the senate try him?

the house sending over impeachment documents doesn't negate the issue, only highlights the conflicts

Read the constitution

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Read the constitution

ha, you read it

[WTF]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Its illegal without the head justice.

Holy shit...are you still believing QAnon?