Impeachment Round Two (1 Viewer)

[Yggdrasill]

I am in the camp that Trump must -not should- be impeached. If not this President, for this behavior, then what bar would have to be cleared to merit impeachment?

Impeachment not only sends a signal to the country and the world that fomenting a coup is unacceptable and will be punished, but it also removes much of the threat Trump could pose going forward as, I understand it, he would lose his pension, his access to daily security briefings, free medical care and other amenities and benefits afforded to former Presidents. If impeached, he would not meet the definition of a Former President under the Former Presidents Act. I don't think it is clear whether he would continue to receive Secret Service protection.

 

[DaveXA]

That's what they should've done...the temperature was just right for an impeachment conviction in the days immediately following the insurrection. What they should've done was immediately following their certification of the EC tally, like literally the same night, the House should've drafted up a simple impeachment article based on the actions of the day, voted on it then passed it to the Senate where all of the conveniently outraged GOP senators might have had a stomach for going through with it. Meaning that through the proper procedures, trump should've been out on his arse Jan 7.

Now that they've given it some time, it allowed the GOP to tuck in their morals and pretend that 1/6 didn't happen....or that it did and that it wasn't that bad because BLM rioted in Bermuda.

Bermuda?!?! You ask? Yeah, in my newly found pastime of trolling conservative social media outlets I've seen this meme being circulated:

Well, it couldn't be that the Senate is the seat of the American government, right? On a date when the electoral votes are officially certified? Coincidence, right?

 

[wardorican]

This feels like a dumb move.

Leahy, not Roberts, to preside over impeachment trial

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over former President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, which is scheduled to begin in earnest on Feb. 8.Instead, Senate Presiden…

thehill.com

 

[DaveXA]

This feels like a dumb move.

Leahy, not Roberts, to preside over impeachment trial

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over former President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, which is scheduled to begin in earnest on Feb. 8.Instead, Senate Presiden…

thehill.com

I don't understand this. Why wouldn't you have the Chief Justice presiding? I mean, I get from the article that it's up to the leaders but this doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

[Taurus]

I don't understand this. Why wouldn't you have the Chief Justice presiding? I mean, I get from the article that it's up to the leaders but this doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Yeah.

I mean

“I don’t think there’s any senator who over the 40 plus years I’ve been here that would say that I am anything but impartial in voting on procedure,” he said.

Jeezus H Christ, man! How dense are you? You know who's going to say you're not impartial? Every Republican, that's who. It's already started.

The Dems are effing this up..even this, as dead-certain a case as you could possibly ask for, they're screwing it up.

Unless, of course, they did ask Roberts and he said "No."

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah.

I mean

Jeezus H Christ, man! How dense are you? You know who's going to say you're not impartial? Every Republican, that's who. It's already started.

The Dems are effing this up..even this, as dead-certain a case as you could possibly ask for, they're screwing it up.

Unless, of course, they did ask Roberts and he said "No."

Yeah, to be a fly on the wall, but if Roberts said no, I think Congress has to push back on that. There's no way you can have a truly impartial judge from a Senator. It's not even that he voted to convict Trump already, but he has self preservation and party interests and influence. Congress has to convince SCOTUS to mediate this process otherwise it just gives an out for anyone who might be a little skeptical of the process.

Now it's possible that SCOTUS may not want to weigh in on a President who is already out of office. I wonder if that's part of the equation.

I suspect Roberts isn't a fan of having to go through another impeachment trial. No telling though.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Can Roberts refuse? He is not constitutionally obligated?

 

[DaveXA]

Can Roberts refuse? He is not constitutionally obligated?

That's a question I have as well. I didn't think it was optional. I think the view of the court might be that they can't weigh in on a President not currently in office.

 

[PurpleReign]

Trump isn’t President anymore. He doesn’t get the honor of having the Chief Justice preside over his impeachment trial. He gets the old dude from the Batman movies.

 

[wardorican]

Honestly, I don't think the 'judge' of the trial does much in this case, because it's a political action. I think Roberts mostly just stayed out of it.

 

[DaveXA]

Honestly, I don't think the 'judge' of the trial does much in this case, because it's a political action. I think Roberts mostly just stayed out of it.

Maybe, but this pretty much ends any possibility of a conviction. At least with Roberts in the chair, a conviction might possibly happen.

 

[bdb13]

Why on Earth would the Democrats not be attempting to force Roberts to preside over the case if he really did say no?

You immediately give Republicans ammo on politicizing this.. forking dumb as shirt unless we're missing something.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Maybe, but this pretty much ends any possibility of a conviction. At least with Roberts in the chair, a conviction might possibly happen.

The only possibility of a conviction was while Trump was still office, and that ship has sailed. You could have any judge you want run the proceeding--John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, RBG, Judge Judy, whoever--and you're never, ever, ever going to get 16 Republican Senators to vote to impeach a Republican President.

 

[wardorican]

Why on Earth would the Democrats not be attempting to force Roberts to preside over the case if he really did say no?

You immediately give Republicans ammo on politicizing this.. forking dumb as shirt unless we're missing something.

I think they both just agreed that since he's not a current president, other non-presidents were presided by the president pro tempore.

Might also be that Roberts is busy and doesn't want to, but they're not going to sell him out.

It might also be a negotiation ploy, with so many other things in play.

 

[MT15]

Guys, Roberts cannot be forced to preside because Trump is no longer in office. He was asked and declined.

He said no, and their only option is the one they have chosen. At least this is my understanding. If the Chief Justice declines, then it goes to the Senate President Pro-temp.

 

[superchuck500]

Guys, Roberts cannot be forced to preside because Trump is no longer in office. He was asked and declined.

He said no, and their only option is the one they have chosen. At least this is my understanding. If the Chief Justice declines, then it goes to the Senate President Pro-temp.

Do we know that he said no?

I think you're 100% right that the Constitution compels the Chief Justice to preside when the trial is of the president. Trump, no longer president, can be tried with the Senate president pro temp presiding, which is what happens with all other impeachment trials.

So did they even ask him or decide it wasn't appropriate? Did they ask and he said no? Did he communicate to them not to ask him?

I can see good reason for each of these scenarios, so I wonder which it was?

 

[MT15]

IIRC, Schumer said during an interview that Roberts didn’t want to preside. Heard it on tv so can’t provide a link and going from memory.

 

[RobF]

IIRC, Schumer said during an interview that Roberts didn’t want to preside. Heard it on tv so can’t provide a link and going from memory.

Fox News has an article confirming that:

Schumer told MSNBC that the decision was up to Roberts.​

​

"The Constitution says the chief justice presides for a sitting president. So it was up to John Roberts whether he wanted to preside with a president who is no longer sitting, Trump, and he doesn't want to do it," Schumer said.​

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ro...-over-trumps-second-impeachment-trial-schumer

 

[FullMonte]

Why on Earth would the Democrats not be attempting to force Roberts to preside over the case if he really did say no?

There is another thing to consider. There is the realistic possibility that the SCOTUS may be asked to rule on whether or not this trial is constitutional. Roberts being the presider of the trial could have impacted that issue.