Leahy To Preside Over Trump's Senate Trial, Not John Roberts
So, the impeachment isn't really an impeachment? If Chief Justice John Roberts isn't obligated to preside over the trial then is the trial even Constitutional?
Will Patrick Leahy be allowed to vote as a juror since he is presiding over the trial? Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? Or have Democrats given up a vote?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., will preside over former President Donald Trump's trial in the Senate, a Senate source tells NPR. Leahy, 80, is the president pro tempore of the Senate, a constitutional role given to the longest-serving lawmaker in the majority party. The president pro tempore is third in the line of presidential succession, after the vice president and House speaker.
"I have presided over hundreds of hours in my time in the Senate," Leahy told reporters. "I don't think anybody has ever suggested I was anything but impartial in those hundreds of hours."
Leahy added: "I'm not presenting the evidence. I am making sure that procedures are followed. 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."
Chief Justice John Roberts presided over President Trump's first impeachment trial, but now that Trump is a former president, Roberts is not constitutionally obligated to preside.
House impeachment managers will deliver the article of impeachment to the Senate Monday evening, and the trial is scheduled to begin the week of Feb. 8.
On Jan. 13, Trump became the only president in U.S. history to be impeached twice by the U.S. House of Representatives. House Democrats brought one article of impeachment — "incitement of insurrection" — related to remarks he made to a crowd loyal to him Jan. 6 that resulted in a fatal riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Trump, the first one-term president since George H.W. Bush in the 1990s, lost the November election to Biden, but has repeatedly and baselessly challenged the results citing little or false evidence.
Tags
Who is online
467 visitors
This all-too-obvious political stunt will provide Trump a lot of fodder for legal challenges. Pursuing impeachment in this manner for political reasons opens a can of worms that raises a lot Constitutional questions about separation of powers and the authority of Congress over private citizens.
The dim witted lefties always seem to forget that whatever they are attempting to do can also be turned about and applied to them at some point under the right circumstances.
Oh, may the curse of unintended consequences be upon their empty heads.
Once again they will look like idiotic fools when the Senate doesn't vote to convict.
Meanwhile, the American citizens who gave the Dems full authority are probably are beginning to have voters remorse.
10 Republicans in the House voted for impeachment. If it were only a partisan action unfairly taken , that never would have happened. These Republicans had nothing to gain and everything to lose by voting against Trump. They did it because he is obviously guilty and they want to sleep at night. .
Biden carried independents by 13%. They thought they were getting "normalcy." Those first 30 executive orders are about as radical as if Bill Ayers were president.
It won't take long even with Gov Newsom opening up his state suddenly or Amazon suddenly offering to help with vaccinations. We have censorship, blacklists and another faux impeachment. Everybody is getting a good taste of it.
We warned them!
Nope. They were pretty much expected by what he ran on. Not all them will hold up when challenged, and some of them are just window dressing. Just like every other President ever.
Show me where he made a campaign pledge to scrap the Keystone Pipeline?
May 18, 2020
The members of the House--Democrat or Republican--have absolutely no say in guilt or innocence.
SP already answered for me. Personally I don't agree with that decision, but it was expected.
How many people were listening to Stef Feldman?
Well according to you, Mr Trump.
Right?
So we have to keep the infrastructure in place so that in four years we can resume construction and complete it in the next four years. The same for all oil and gas projects on federal land.
Wrong!!! They thought they were getting a RETURN to "normalcy". To return to it, you must 1st remove the ABnormalcy.
Curious, why don't you. Not only does the US not get anything out of that pipeline (it is purely for export from Canada), but it could seriously damage our aquifer and even push up gas prices.
Nope, it just means that like Senator Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War of War Belknap in 1876
you don't get off Scot-free after being expelled, resigned or riding out one's term.
Nope, it just means that Democrats are as full of shit now; as they were the other times they attempted this stunt.
They aren't interested in following the Constitution, Senate rules, or anything else. They want to impeach Trump; and that is what they are going to do! Everything else be damned.
As for unity. Fuck them forever. They can take any calls for unity and cram them where the sun won't shine an rain won't go. Time to fight them until they are back out of power. They aren't for anything but themselves. Give them power and they will abuse it as much as possible to stay in it.
Hey, I'm curious, where you were on January 6th, 2021?
What rules have they broken? Specifically.
The chief justice presides when the case involves a sitting president otherwise a congress member presides. It's pretty basic, no "stunts" involved.
This whole thing is a stupid partisan political stunt. I'm puzzled why the Dems want to continue to beat the deceased equine.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES TO CONVICT!!! THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR THIS SITUATION!!!
American people are more concerned about getting their Covid vaccine and getting back to work and be able to support their families than having any interest in this partisan shit show.
It's over, move on Democrats, govern or get the hell out of the way.
It's just come out that Chief Justice Roberts decline to preside over this impeachment. Maybe give breaking news a little time to settle before jumping to conclusions.
But doesn't Don deserve his day in Court? A chance to defend himself? Achance to see whoo defends him and who votes which way?
Sure there is, you just don't want to hear it.
Many are interested in both. By the way, does any of this affect you personally?
This isn't a court, and you damn well know it! This is a political body filled with shithole Democrats that have been trying to impeach Trump since before he took office. Anyone not suffering from rampant TDS can see it.
Maybe there would be if the Democrats track record of Trump wasn't so obvious. But TDS sufferers are blinded by hate.
This affects every US citizen. Or will you be happy if the Republicans try and get pay back on Biden/Harris when they take the House and Senate? I am sure many of Biden's rampant EO's (more will be coming I am sure from China Joe will be challenged in court); maybe the Republicans will remind him that he is not a king by impeaching him? Since Democrats have turned impeachment into nothing more than a political stunt. Would you be happy to see that? Biden would get, "The same chance to defend himself in court". Of course the Republicans would set the rules in the House and Senate- so that defense might by be diminished quite a bit.
Because Roberts has more brains than all of the Democrats combined. He already knows how history will judge this latest bullshit impeachment attempt. Why should he preside over what obviously is a Democratic political stunt?
There is no such things as TDS.
There is only escalating vile behavior by Trump, which culminated , so far, in him trying to fix the election in his favor and trying to orchestrate an overthrow of his own government.
Roberts is simply following protocol. Get a grip for gods sake.
Show the protocol John. Yeah, I'd like to see where the Constitution sez a non-SCOTUS, the Chief Justice in fact, can just "hand over" the impeachment process to a Senate lackey.
IF there is to be an Impeachment Trial over a Former President - then it won't be an Impeachment Trial without Roberts making the decision.
I love that you and others make the conclusion that because Trump isn't president, the Chief Justice is not required. That is a presumptive guess on your part. How about that just maybe the reason why the Chief Justice is supposed to preside is to ensure that the one overseeing this TRIAL is actually, in fact, an impartial judge. There is no language in the Constitution offering an alternative...probably because there is not meant to be one.
I think it's fair to say that Roberts didnt want to preside over the first impeachment either. If it was a Democratic president being impeached he wouldnt want to preside over that either.
He sat for the first one because that is the protocol demanded by the constitution. The second one doesnt have that requirement. It has nothing to do with him thinking Trump is innocent.
John - If you could show me and the rest of NT where Roberts made the decision not to preside - please do so.
Schumer made the decision - not Roberts.
Remember, Trump WAS President when the House rushed to charge him with Impeachment. That carries over and carries with it the requirements of the Constitution to be adhered with - it's a continuous action, not a smattered action.
A Senator was expelled in 1799 and then impeached.
The Secretary of War was impeached after he resigned in disgrace in 1876.
They are following the precedent from those impeachments of private citizens for their behavior/crimes as government officials.
We can argue semantics vs common sense, but precedent will prevail because a former POTUS is a private citizen now...
BUT - he was charged WHILE SITTING as President - THAT established the precedent. They WERE NOT in office when impeached.
See how easy that was?
CORRECT
And Impeachment only involves a sitting president.
Trump was a sitting president when he was impeached. Both times.
But the removal - which an impeachment actually involves - is no longer necessary. You don't think that fact will be challenged?
As for the two impeachments, they are almost meaningless but for an asterisk. Example: In 1919 the Cincinnati Reds won the World Series. There is a huge asterisk next to it.
INCORRECT
Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body addresses legal charges against a government official. National legislations differ regarding both the definition and the consequences of impeachment.
Wiki is your friend.
Wrong. There is precedent.
Senator Blount in 1799 and Secretary of War of War Belknap in 1876 were impeached after the fact.
The principle being that you don't get off Scot-free after being expelled, resigned or riding out one's term.
On January 11, 1799, the Senate voted 14 to 11 to dismiss the impeachment, arguing that impeachment did not extend to senators.
With 40 votes needed for conviction, the Senate voted 35 to 25 to convict Belknap, with one Senator not voting, thus acquitting Belknap of all charges by failing to reach the required two-thirds majority. All Senators agreed that Belknap took the money from Marsh, but 23 who voted for acquittal believed that the Senate did not have jurisdiction.
And, that's the rest of the story.
What I dont get about all of this is why are republicans and conservatives opposed to Trump being impeached and prevented from ever running for office again?
The only ones who try and get the guilty off on technicalities are the lawyers for the Mafia or drug dealers (or Jeffery Epstein).
You seriously want Trump to get off on the technicality that he's not in office anymore? He was in office when he committed the offense and when the House voted the articles of impeachment.
It's hard to believe that the conservatives in this country want Trump to escape justice from the Congress on a technicality, but I guess we are seeing it happen.
I don't believe that's what 1st is saying whatsoever. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he's making a point that following our laws is important.
But they did vote, did they not? The Senate settled it, did they not?
And this will probably end the same way, dismissed 60 to 35 or so because enough Republicans will say it's unconstitutional or he's innocent, or they will just close ranks "because".
Costs nothing to let it play out.
not exactly, naughty boy. The fact that the Senate voted on the Blount impeachment means they approved the lengthy trial although Blount refused to attend having fled to Tennessee after being caught trying to leave the country altogether.
Similarly, Beknap was charged, civilly and criminally, but the Senate case took priority
they voted to convict 35-25 but needed a majority of 40.
"let the readers decide"
To the best of my knowledge he's been an apologist for Trump from the gitgo. It would be a little odd to be worried about the laws pertaining to impeachment but to not care at all about the laws Trump has disregarded over the past 5 years.
At least I admitted that I may not be right about his thinking, but you're not even considering that what I suggested may possibly be the case.
John - we've discussed this before, but I'll remind you again.
We are a nation of laws. I upheld the laws under my purview while employed with DoD for over 30 years as an LEO, Investigating Officer and Attorney for Federal Indian Law, and firmly believe that, 90% of the time, the laws, as written and intended, apply to everyone regardless of party, color, race, religion, creed, etc., etc..
The Constitution is the basis for our laws, along with some borrowed stuff from Euro/International laws. The Constitution is very specific about what is and what isn't acceptable and all of the laws we have on our books are, believe it or not, guided by the words/meanings/intentions of the authors of the Constitution. It is the responsibility of the courts to determine whether or not laws being placed on our books are in compliance with the Constitution (Marbury vs Madison - 1803 - John Marshall argued that acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not law and therefore are non-binding to the courts, and that the judiciary’s first responsibility is always to uphold the Constitution.)
In the culture I was raised in, we don't bad-mouth an individual (which, unfortunately, I have on occasion), hence I will bad-mouth an administration, a political party, an organization - but not an individual, which is the primary reason I don't HATE Trump, Biden, Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc. with the rhetoric and intensity many on NT display.
Trump is entitled to the fullest protections of the laws of the U.S., especially in this action the House is presenting as a charge for impeachment.
Technically, he was the President when the House impeached him. The Constitution lays out the procedures/processes of the impeachment requirements - "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
The Senate will, maybe, hold hearings on 2/8/21 - BUT - he is already removed from office which is what Pelosi/Schumer wanted since 11/4/2016, so what will the process do in the Senate? It will die as he is no longer in office and is not subject to being removed from office and he is no longer President and is not subject to the charge of impeachment for an incident that supposedly/allegedly occurred while he was in office as President.
He is now a civilian - a "retired" civilian - which is covered by other various sections of the Constitution - impeachment is not one of those sections.
Blount was STILL in office when impeached. He was just AWOL but had not resigned nor had he been censured. BUT, when the charges for impeachment were drafted by the House and approved, the Senate expelled him/took his seat. He was STILL in office when impeached.
Belknap had resigned, was no longer in office, when the House listed his five charges for impeachment with an unanimous vote. The Senate's vote didn't meet the required 2/3'rds, so he was acquited.
Belknap, by then a private citizen, was impeached by a unanimous vote of the House of Representatives. Speaker of the House Michael C. Kerr wrote to the Senate that Belknap resigned "with intent to evade the proceedings of impeachment against him."
Belknap's case was constitutionally unprecedented and would serve as reference for nine other civilian officials' resignations before trial, including President Richard Nixon. None of the nine nor Nixon were impeached after leaving office. That is precedent.
Come on man, you know me better than that.
07/03/1797, Adams sends the letter as evidence to Congress
07/06/1797 The Senate committee recommends expulsion.
07/071797 The House concludes that the Senator is impeachable.
07/08/1797 Senate took up it's committee report & expels Blount by a 25 to 1 vote and orders Blount to appear on 07/10/1797
07/10/1797 Blount fails to appear.
The Sergeant at Arms tried to bring Blount back from Tennessee but was unsuccessful.
And Belnap ( we still have a major street named after him )
Precedent.
That's what the seeded article states. If the Chief Justice does not have a Constitutional obligation to preside over the impeachment then is this even an impeachment since it doesn't follow the Constitutional requirements and obligations?
A Senator (from the Democratic majority) will preside over the proceedings. There isn't any way to avoid claims that the trial is partisan. And it's not clear if Patrick Leahy will be barred from voting as a juror. If Leahy is allowed to vote as a juror then the Democratic majority becomes prosecutor, judge, and jury. If nothing else that will be a boon for Republican fund raising.
Since the judicial branch will not be involved, legal challenges can't be dismissed by citing Constitutional obligations and procedural requirements.
The impeachment trial (if it is impeachment) won't accomplish anything. And may provide some grounds for Trump to claim Presidential privileges after leaving office. The whole thing opens a large can of political worms.
That may be but so far nothing unconstitutional is happening.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Pat - you know wiki isn't the Constitution, right?
Nooooooo, really ???
This is hilarious. Do you think the longer this drags out the bigger the fonts in posts against it will get?
We will see how hilarious it is when the "trial" finally begins
I guess big fonts are better small fonts, by most accounts, lol.
Speaking of "We will see" hows that Durham investigation going ?
Still going.
Will they stop it?
"Speaking of "We will see" hows that Durham investigation going ?"
Haven't those Durham investigations been going on for about five years now? Investigating the investigators?
"Still going.
Will they stop it?"
What the hell for?
If this is how they will proceed, the whole thing just became unconstitutional.
And if you aren't impeaching the President of the United States, then you are impeaching a private citizen, which is also unconstitutional.
No, it's not. Trump isn't the President, and the CJ only has to preside if the President is on trial. The Senate pretty much has unlimited discretion in determining how other impeachments trials will proceed.
Of course, nothing prevents a Senator from believing a private citizen can't be impeached or that the trial is improper and voting accordingly.
Then who/what is there to impeach? He's a private citizen. If he's not the president or any other federal officer, the Senate has no jurisdiction.
No, the Senate does not have unlimited discretion. No branch of government has unlimited power. The Senate has whatever powers the Constitution says it does.
Think about what you are saying. Could Congress impeach me? How about you? How about Barack Obama? George Bush Jr? Sr? Bill Clinton? Ronald Reagan? Jimmy Carter? If not, why not?
What is impeachment for? I'll tell you. It's to remove a federal officer from their position. That's it. Secondarily, once that is accomplished, the Senate may also consider disqualifying a removed person from holding office again. That's the end of it as far as Congress is concerned.
There is precedent for proceeding with impeachment in the case of a judge who resigned the day before the vote to avoid impeachment. But that judge could have continued serving if he had wanted. And it was something the Senate voted to do, but was never challenged. It may well have been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Apparently, Chief Justice Roberts has already made it known that he finds it inappropriate for him to preside. That tells you what he thinks about this proceeding.
In contrast to a judge resigning when he didn't have to, Trump's term is over. He couldn't continue to be president now even if he wanted to.
The appropriate course of action is to prosecute him in a criminal court - something that would not be done if he were still president. If convicted, he would be prohibited from serving again, according to the 14th Amendment.
Well, technically a couple couldn't be because they're dead, but I don't think that was the point.
Sorry... I'm in a silly mood today.
Maybe. I don't see anything in the Constitution that says they have to be alive.
I suppose it doesn't say anything about death. However, why would anyone want to try to impeach someone that is deceased? What would be the purpose or expected result?
Probably an acquittal along party lines
Tell that to Senator Blount who was first expelled from the Senate, then impeached in 1799.
Ditto, Secretary of War Belknap, resigned thinking he would escape punishment in 1876. He too was impeached as a "private citizen".
I wouldn't put too much stock in the precedents. Those were actions taken by the Senate that many see as inappropriate, but were not challenged at the time. I guarantee you that if the Senate proceeds with impeachment and convicts, that Trump will challenge in the Supreme Court. It is already apparent what the Chief Justice thinks.
If this is all political circus with no consequences, then why are conservatives getting bent out of shape?
I don't think anyone expects otherwise. It would be foolish not to.
Another waste of taxpayer money, and the court's time, from the left. But when their ultimate goal is to totally fracture the country; it will serve them well.
What are you trying to do, blackmail the senate into going easy on your traitor hero?
I can't speak for others. From my perspective, I see it promoting more division and inhibiting healing and unity. I also see it as unconstitutional and unnecessary. Finally, if you gave me a little time, I'm pretty sure I could come up with hundreds of things more urgent for Congress to concern itself with.
Ok, I'll bite.
What is it costing us? What court?
Do you have anything to add to the sound bites from Rand Paul or Chuck Schumer?
I'm not seeing soundbites from either man referenced in the seed, so I don't know what you're referring to.
Thing is, I'm sure the Democrats can handle more than one thing at a time, like impeaching the former 'president' AND running the country and taking care of business UNLIKE the prior administration and 'president' who only seemed concerned in/about themselves.
I'm pretty sure the rules require them to focus on the impeachment trial to the exclusion of all other things. That was the case last year. When they could have been looking at the coronavirus, they were trying to impeach Trump. They did no other business. I'm not sure how they would change that. While the trial is going on, all the Senators are required to be there because they are the jury. They can't go do other things.
You didn't whine about wasting tax payer money on the 13 Benghazi hearings. Nor all the shit Trump, Inc charged the tax payers while he was in office. I think we'll be just fine.
Since the Dems are doing this, they don't seem all that concerned about it so why should you?
Further? Really? The only ones saying this are Trump supporters. None of them seem to want reconciliation anyway.
I think Gowdy spent almost his entire time in office doing investigations.
As Vlad said one time...Bless his pointy little head.
You and I aren't all that far apart on this subject. Other than I see it as more political circus which happens on both sides. Ron Johnson wants a Senate probe into voting fraud allegations. For those like you and I that are paying attention - it too is a waste of time, money and political divide. It won't accomplish to anything. I don't understand why either side continues to do this shit. All I do know is that they do it and the world keeps spinning.
They were looking at the coronavirus - unlike the former 'president
They sure were. And many of them along with democratic mayors and governors were telling their citizens to go out, enjoy the cities, ride the subway, have fun.
The way to do this is to convict Trump in a regular criminal court of insurrection (incitement to insurrection would also work, I believe). Then under the 14th Amendment, he would be ineligible to hold federal office again.
Seems pretty logical to me.
I want to see his benefits revoked such as his presidential pension and his SS detail
That might be small potatoes. I kind of doubt he would take the pension as he always donated his salary. As for the Secret Service, that benefit has been through some changes. It was limited to ten years in 1994 and then fully reinstated in 2013 by Obama. Along the way, it seems to have lost any limitations related to impeachment. The current law doesn't even mention impeachment or removal from office.
18 U.S. Code § 3056 - Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service
In other words, he'd likely be allowed Secret Service protection anyway. Assuming he'd even want it, which I also doubt. He'd probably assume they were spying on him.
I admit I'm vindictive. I just don't want the American taxpayer paying for his security for the rest of his damn life
Yeah, he's well known for his altruism
At least we only have to pay for six more months for his kids.
Like Tacos, I don't think he'd even take it, because quite frankly, his ego is too big.
I don't know what motivates it, but it's true all the same. As far as I know, he has donated every paycheck, in full, to some charity.
Hmmm....he may need that money. I wouldn't bet on him NOT taking that pension
I still think his ego is too big. He wants to be the guy that refuses presidential pension.
The senate by taking up impeachment has raised the possible defense of double jeopardy for other trials
Is that actually a 'thing' or did you just make it up?
OH... I didn't think about double jeopardy. So, is it just to sensationalize more? A "look at me" and "look what I can do" play?
Are you saying that the Senate is pursuing impeachment against Trump inciting a riot as a way for the Democratic senators to say "look at me" "look what I can do" ?
You know, your name is attached to your comments here.
No. I was asking a question. I wasn't stating that was actually what they are doing. Quite frankly, my concern is that they are creating a situation in which double jeopardy could come into play.
Yes. Why wouldn't it be?
And for your information, I was horrified with the entire situation at the Capitol, including the actions of our former president.
If the Senate does convict him for insurrection no other court can touch him for that charge.
However, all fraud, money laundering, and other charges can still go to grand juries for indictment
Thank you for answering my question.
You're welcome, but I think Tacos answered it better
That's why I thanked Tacos too.
I just appreciate it when people answer when I ask a question.
That really shouldn't be an issue here. For one thing, the impeachment trial isn't a criminal trial. Pursuant to the 5th Amendment (from which springs the concept of double jeopardy), he is not being put in jeopardy of life or limb. This is purely political. But additionally, the Constitution explicitly provides that even after impeachment and conviction, the subject of that impeachment can be tried criminally.
That was some useful information (for a change).
Okay... I don't really know the details like that; hence my question.
Thanks for further details.
That depends on what the other charges are.