flash mob impeachment -no Presiding SCOTUS / no Hearings
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
61, you’re a moron, still believing alternative facts, seek help.
I don't think the Senate can order the Chief Justice to do anything.
The Constitution orders him to preside over Presidential impeachment trials. If he fails to do such, he is failing in his oath of office, and should resign. If he does not resign, the House should impeach him, and the Senate should vote to convict.
Patrick Leahy presiding !!!
flash mob impeachment -no Presiding SCOTUS / no Hearings
Has any impeachment trial included hearings?
hearing are done in the House. the Senate holds a trial with witnesses
I think that is a real stretch. While "shall" sounds like an order the courts have not always interpreted it as such (example, extradition).
Also, based on that reasoning the VP should be impeached for not presiding over the Senate.
there was evidence it was called "irregularities". a commission would have RELIEVED doubt
Not to worry, the SP will identify those "irregularities" along with those that actually tried to Steal the Election, civil and criminal cases will be getting filed, thinking you will disappointed in who gets sued and charged.
incomplete text.
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future.
~~
there can be no disqualification without removal as well
there is no possibility of removal from Office "and" disqualification without removal
also where is the Chief Jusstice?? it's right IN THE TEXT
you are mixing a criminal investigation with a fact finding commission
Roberts would have to sit if Trump was a sitting president. However, that is not required when he is not in office during the trial. When Judge Porteous was tried in 2010, the senate pro tem sat. That was Inouye.
Your assumption that Roberts is saying something about the trial is incorrect. He was not happy spending all that time the first time. It is a ceremonial position that confers no power. You are making up what he is thinking.
This is all that is in US Constitution Art 2.
Let's examine it -
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. Trump was impeached while President so they can try this impeachment since it is included in all impeachments. There is no requirement that they not try an impeachment if the person impeached is no longer in office. All impeachments must include any impeachments where the person leaves office before they are tried since that is still an impeachment.
When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. Here we see that the Chief Justice presides at the time the President is tried not if he is President at the time he was impeached. Trump is no longer President so the Chief Justice is not required. While Trump was President while impeached he is no longer President during his trial so clearly this no longer applies.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor. Judgement can only occur after conviction. Here we have 2 choices for judgement 1) removal from office and 2) disqualification to old office. But the reality of the English language is that this sentence only sets the upper limits of penalties. There is no requirement that both happen or even that one happen. It is safe to assume that in most cases removal is the desired effect and will be the result of any conviction but if the person has already left office then conviction can't result in that judgement. It is possible to convict and not render any penalty since no penalty would not exceed the limit set in the Constitution. The conviction will itself still be a matter of history. The maximum judgement can at maximum only be 1 and 2 but that leaves us with lesser penalties which can be 1 or 2. If someone is disqualified from holding office but not removed from office then the judgement has not exceeded the Constitutional limit and is Constitutional.
The Constitution does not say the VP has to preside, where as it does say the Chief Justice does have to.
The election facts are already there and the election was certified by Every State. The criminal deeds done by some has not been addressed, we had active attempts at voter suppression, we had polling places and drop off points closed, we had States fight tooth and nail to keep people from voting by mail due to the Pandemic, we had 80 plus fraudulent lawsuits filed, we had a President trying to strong are States to overturn their own elections, we had a Congress that even though they knew the results were valid still tried stopping the certification of the Election, and we had those that instigated an insurrection and overthrow of a Democratically elected administration, All of that plus some needs to be addressed and those guilty of interfering in an election need to be held accountable. No One Is Above The Law, No One.
get back to me when there are formal criminal investigations on these to support your claims
good gawd. what a massive strawman.
Impeachment requires the Chief Justice
Leahy is acting as a judge ( presiding officer) and juror
Removal is needed for sanctions - i've gone over this 50 times- not wasting more bandwith
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Patrick Leahy presiding !!!
Roberts refused to do it, and the Democrats are too dumb to understand why.
What is the function of the presiding officer of the Senate?
I will definitely keep you updated, count on it, just remember investigations take time and they may take a backseat to what some States are already ready to file and their cases. Should be interesting to watch.