Report: Sen. Patrick Leahy Expected to Preside over Second Trump Impeachment Trial

[mystery-ak]

Report: Sen. Patrick Leahy Expected to Preside over Second Trump Impeachment Trial

Joshua Caplan 25 Jan 2021

Sen. Patrick Leahy, President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, is expected to preside over the upper chamber’s second impeachment trial of President Donald Trump — not U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts — according to CNN and NBC News.

Leahy’s office would not confirm the reports, instead saying the matter is up to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to decide.

“Leaders have been negotiating all process issues about the trial, and all along we have deferred to them for any announcements about this and all other process matters,” an aide told The Hill.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is among various Republicans who have called the upcoming impeachment trial unconstitutional and questioned whether anyone but Roberts should preside over the trial.

“There’s only one constitutional process for impeachment and it is of the president, not a president,” Hawley said. “It requires the chief justice to preside.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/25/report-sen-patrick-leahy-expected-to-preside-over-second-trump-impeachment-trial/

[Ghost Bear]

Also unconstitutional. The plain language of the Constitution says that the Chief Justice shall preside. If he isn't presiding, it's not a real impeachment, although because Pres. Trump is no longer in office it isn't a real impeachment anyway. All of this is unconstitutional.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul

If Chief Justice Roberts can’t be bothered to come over for the so-called  impeachment, makes you wonder if this exercise is constitutional at all.

3:51 PM · Jan 25, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1353807633879363586

[skeeter]

Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul

If Chief Justice Roberts can’t be bothered to come over for the so-called  impeachment, makes you wonder if this exercise is constitutional at all.

3:51 PM · Jan 25, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1353807633879363586

Rand Paul jumped several increments on the respect scale after handing cupcake Stephanopolous his candy *ss yesterday.

[libertybele]

Rand Paul jumped several increments on the respect scale after handing cupcake Stephanopolous his candy *ss yesterday.

Though I haven't always agreed with him, I like Rand and thought he'd make a decent president; I just was never thrilled with some of his viewpoints on foreign policy.

[Bigun]

Also unconstitutional. The plain language of the Constitution says that the Chief Justice shall preside. If he isn't presiding, it's not a real impeachment, although because Pres. Trump is no longer in office it isn't a real impeachment anyway. All of this is unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional? You've GOT to be kidding me!  Don't you know that nothing is unconstitutional now.  Unless it is done by someone they don't like that is.

[Cyber Liberty]

Unconstitutional? You've GOT to be kidding me!  Don't you know that nothing is unconstitutional now.  Unless it is done by someone they don't like that is.

You know how some of our brilliant Constitutional Scholars on TBR like to elevate SCOTUS decisions over the Constitution itself?  Well, there was a 1993 SCOTUS decision that specifically states it must be the Chief Justice, and nobody else!

[libertybele]

Unconstitutional? You've GOT to be kidding me!  Don't you know that nothing is unconstitutional now.  Unless it is done by someone they don't like that is.

Exactly.  The DEMS will flaunt the Constitution if it favors their agenda, otherwise anything they want is theirs.

[Bigun]

You know how some of our brilliant Constitutional Scholars on TBR like to elevate SCOTUS decisions over the Constitution itself?  Well, there was a 1993 SCOTUS decision that specifically states it must be the Chief Justice, and nobody else!

Duh! 

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

[Cyber Liberty]

Duh! 

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

My observation was for the edification of the super-genius lawyer types who only care about SCOTUS Precedence while eschewing any reference to the 1789 document itself.

You know the type.  Too brilliant to grasp plain English because it's in Cursive.

[Bigun]

My observation was for the edification of the super-genius lawyer types who only care about SCOTUS Precedence while eschewing any reference to the 1789 document itself.

You know the type.  Too brilliant to grasp plain English because it's in Cursive.

  I do know the type and I no longer have time for that shit!

[Fishrrman]

From Bigun's post above:
"And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present."

Better watch out on this one.

If some of the Republican senators decide to boycott the trial, that seems to reduce the absolute number of votes need for a conviction downward.

Example:
With 100 Senators present to vote, 67 votes are required to convict.
BUT...
If say, only 70 Senators are present, and the Constitutional language is strictly applied, only 47 votes might be needed !

[Ghost Bear]

Unconstitutional? You've GOT to be kidding me!  Don't you know that nothing is unconstitutional now.  Unless it is done by someone they don't like that is.

The Democrats play that game, but we shouldn't. We should refuse to accept the legality of the whole charade.