I am concerned about CJ Roberts not presiding over the impeachment trial.

[dutch508]

Star Member TomSlick (5,847 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215006304

I am concerned about CJ Roberts not presiding over the impeachment trial.

I have read several stories about CJ Roberts not presiding over the upcoming impeachment trial. I have seen references to CJ Roberts not wanting the job. What I cannot find is whether CJ Roberts affirmatively declined to preside. According to CNN, both CJ Roberts and Senate pro temp Leahy are declining to answer the question.

I understand the argument that since Trump is not the current president, the constitutional requirement that the CJ preside over impeachment trials does not apply. I am uncertain of that argument. Moreover, it undermines the argument in response to the Trumpster's argument that an impeachment of a former President is somehow improper that the Senate trial is a continuation of an impeachment process that began in the House while Trump was still President

I think that CJ Roberts should recuse from the impeachment trial because it seems likely that, at some point or other, Trump will challenge the constitutionality of the impeachment trial. However, I hope CJ Roberts was invited to preside and affirmatively declined.

 

Sham impeachment presided over by a DEM hack..., sent to the Senate to officiated by a DEM hack. What's to be worried about?

Star Member hlthe2b (83,415 posts)

1. Precedent. No Excutive Official impeached after leaving office has had a Chief Justice officiate.

Only a Senator--typically the Senate President Pro Tempore, as will be the case with SPPT Leahy.

Star Member SheltieLover (17,884 posts)

7. Do you expect dump to be subpoenad to testify?

No. The Dems can't risk having Trump being able to talk and defend himself.

servermsh (597 posts)

3. I have no concerns. It is 100% the correct decision. I hope the Senate didn't ask him.

Why should they? The trial is of a former Federal official, not the President. It couldn't be more clear.

Star Member The Velveteen Ocelot (91,624 posts)

8. Under the Senate rules the Chief Justice presides only over trials of presidents.

Trump is not the president. If the trial is of anyone other than the president, the presiding officer of the senate does it, and this will be the president pro tem of the senate. This is just the normal rule and it has nothing to do with whether the trial will go to the Supreme Court, which it probably won't anyhow because the Constitution gives it no role in impeachments. Other officials have been convicted in impeachment trials after leaving office without challenge (look up William Belknap), so there is not likely to be any question about the constitutionality of that process. Even the Federalist Society thinks it's OK.

 

[DLR Pyro]

The only way this would be a legitimate impeachment would be if Beijing biden were to resign making heels up harris as potus.  She would then select President Trump as her Vice President and then she would resign making President Trump, well making him President again. The democrats would royally cock up the proceedings causing President Trump to be acquitted and allowed to finish out this term and run for a 2nd full term in 2024 which he would win in a landslide after a string of executive orders would permanently abolish the dirty tricks (such as ballot harvesting,  universal mail in voting, no signature verification,  etc)used by the democrat party on 2020 causing liberal heads all over the country to explode as President Trump continues to Make America Great Again.

I have a PowerPoint presentation that details the above scenario available if anyone is interested.

[Drafe Hoblin]

The reason Incoherent Leahy is presiding, rather than the VP, is that the 'impeachment charge' would be vacated if the VP didn't recuse herself...  Providing she runs for President against a likely non-impeached Trump.

But since election integrity won't be fixed, there's no point in voting anymore anyway.