flash mob impeachment -no Presiding SCOTUS / no Hearings

[Controlled Opposition]

Roberts has no real say in it. If the Senate orders him to preside, he can either show up, or resign from the Supreme Court.

Can you elaborate on that? You are aware of the separation of powers, aren't you?

[CASPER]

Patrick Leahy presiding !!!

True, trump is no longer President so the SC steps out of the way and allows the Senate to run the show, all legal. There will be hearings, but don't forget the entire Senate were eye witnesses to the events.

[Walt]

Can you elaborate on that? You are aware of the separation of powers, aren't you?

Yup, and the Senate has the check on the other branches of having the sole power over impeachment trials.

[Althea]

It was a cermonial position. he did not want to waste time with the first one. The seat has no power.

Yep. Typically the VP is the president of the Senate. It's considered improper for a member of the President's party to serve as manager, so they delegate to the SC.

As you say, it's a powerless seat. Otherwise, Roberts could have suggested witnesses during the first fake Senate trial.

[anatta]

True, trump is no longer President so the SC steps out of the way and allows the Senate to run the show, all legal. There will be hearings, but don't forget the entire Senate were eye witnesses to the events.

WTF?
how many times have we impeached a former president? never.
Besides the fact a POTUS impeachmnet proceeding is about removal ( see the language) the fact Trump isn't a president so doesn't need a Chief Justice, makes about less sense then impeachment to remove him

Its so crazy twister just trying to describe it without turning into gobbledegook.

Also Leahy is a presiding officer and a juror,,WTF is that crazy dual role??

[anatta]

The Chief Justice only presides over impeachment trials of the President. All other impeachment trials, the Chief Justice does not preside. There is a question over whether trump should be considered "the President." He was definitely "the President" when he was impeached, but during the trial he would be the ex-President.

As with all questions of the trial, the final say is the Senate, and they have decided trump is not considered the President in this trial.

It's a pig circus. impeaching a president is about removal -right in the text.
So when you start dithering if Trump is impeached as POTUS or ex-POTUS - and the Senate railroading thru a Democratic controlled Senate proceeding has any legitimacy, check your illogic

[anatta]

(Sen Leahy presiding -no Roberts and no Hearings and no one to "remove from" Office

[Walt]

It's a pig circus. impeaching a president is about removal -right in the text.

The text lists two possible punishments in impeachment, removal from office, and banning from future offices:

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

So when you start dithering if Trump is impeached as POTUS or ex-POTUS - and the Senate railroading thru a Democratic controlled Senate proceeding has any legitimacy, check your illogic

This is the first time the question has been asked, so it has to be decided. The Senate decided it, so now we move on. I am sorry you feel the Constitution lacks legitimacy.

[Walt]

Also Leahy is a presiding officer and a juror,,WTF is that crazy dual role??

A judge both presides, and is in effect the jury in any bench trial. It is quite common, and not crazy at all.

[anatta]

The text lists two possible punishments in impeachment, removal from office, and banning from future offices:

great Buddha -read the text:

extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification

there cannot be any banning without a removal fist.. the actions are conjoined by "and"
they are not separable findings (removal or banning)

[Hawkeye10]

why do I care?All I care about now is keeping Russia and china as far apart as possible

That ship has sailed.

[Walt]

great Buddha -read the text:
there cannot be any banning without a removal fist.. the actions are conjoined by "and"
they are not separable findings (removal or banning)

"No one shall be allowed to vote, except the men and women of the USA." Does that mean that voters must be both men and women at the same time? Of course not. If you meet one of the two qualifications, either a man or a woman, you qualify. Obvious, if you are both a man and a woman, you also qualify.

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

So there are only two possible punishments. It is already established that the Senate can pick one punishment and not the other. They have several times removed a person from office without going on to ban them. They could do the reverse this time.

[anatta]

That ship has sailed.

you have said that before.
you would be surprised how quickly Putin would leave Xi's clutches if he had access to the western economy.
He desperately wants to grow Russia economy in his last years of rule #1 priority

If you want to say that ship has sailed -considering rabid Russiaphobia, i would not disagree

[anatta]

"No one shall be allowed to vote, except the men and women of the USA." Does that mean that voters must be both men and women at the same time? Of course not. If you meet one of the two qualifications, either a man or a woman, you qualify. Obvious, if you are both a man and a woman, you also qualify.



So there are only two possible punishments. It is already established that the Senate can pick one punishment and not the other. They have several times removed a person from office without going on to ban them. They could do the reverse this time.

not at the POTUS level has there ever been an impeachment to ban without removal
Im not even sure if an impeachment conviction solely to ban without removal is even possible.
I think that is a 2/3 vote,but again AFTER REMOVAL

Hey! Lets get Leahy to rule on that! ROFL @Presiding Officer

[Hawkeye10]

you have said that before.
you would be surprised how quickly Putin would leave Xi's clutches if he had access to the western economy.
He desperately wants to grow Russia economy in his last years of rule #1 priority

If you want to say that ship has sailed -considering rabid Russiaphobia, i would not disagree

Leaving the Empire is a lot like leaving a gang...the penalty is so high that it will rarely happen.