User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:30:01 PM EDT
[#1]
Roberts is a sham. He hates President Trump and is a RINO appointed by a RINO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:31:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Roberts is a sham. He hates President Trump and is a RINO appointed by a RINO. Please tell me how partisan hack Leahy is any better. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:31:33 PM EDT
[#3]
Maybe Schumer will get the hint that winning a conviction is near impossible and forget the whole fucking thing. Not likely of course, but the whole thing is a pure, revenge seeking scam.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:31:50 PM EDT
[#4]
When they are done with impeachment they will segue into treason. Trump will regret not crossing the Rubicon when he had the chance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:32:01 PM EDT
[#5]
I heard they found out Roberts said he would not preside since Trump isn’t president and the trial was moot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:35:24 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I heard they found out Roberts said he would not preside since Trump isn’t president and the trial was moot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:38:23 PM EDT
[#7]
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. Judgement in Cases of Impreachment 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law. Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:39:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Should have just put AOC in charge of the kangaroo court.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:39:41 PM EDT
[#9]
What’s the Constitution say?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:40:22 PM EDT
[#10]
I posted in a dupe thread, that if Roberts did not show up and take his place (displacing anyone sitting there), then we have crossed the threshold. It is impossible to read the Constitution any other way, impossible to twist what is plainly prescribed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:40:28 PM EDT
[#11]
Now everyone can see it's b*******
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:41:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Judgement in Cases of Impreachment 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law. Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. [dem]No problem muh living breathing document and 2A doesn't actually mean what the words say[/dem] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:42:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Let the liquor do the thinking.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:42:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When they are done with impeachment they will segue into treason. Trump will regret not crossing the Rubicon when he had the chance. A lot of people looking at decades in jail for daring to embarrass Pelosi are regretting they didn't as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:42:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Judgement in Cases of Impreachment 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law. Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. Hell, our president is the guy who lost the election. Nothing matters anymore. They do what they want and no one stands up to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:42:45 PM EDT
[#16]
Sorry but what's the constitutional justification for having an impeachment trial for someone that is a private citizen now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:42:51 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What’s the Constitution say? Do any of them care? They think its an impediment to their power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:43:40 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I posted in a dupe thread, that if Roberts did not show up and take his place (displacing anyone sitting there), then we have crossed the threshold. It is impossible to read the Constitution any other way, impossible to twist what is plainly prescribed. Right, lol, *that's* the threshold... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:44:03 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:44:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. Seems to me impeachment proceedings against a former president = unconstitutional bullshit. Not that it matters to scumbag democrats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:45:07 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I heard they found out Roberts said he would not preside since Trump isn’t president and the trial was moot. Where do they derive the constitutional authority to appoint anyone else to preside over this? It's the chief justice's exclusive duty to preside over an impeachment trial. He could/should throw this out because it applies strictly to a sitting president, not a former one. Roberts should be removed for refusing to fullfill his obligation. Tar & feather the rest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:45:58 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When they are done with impeachment they will segue into treason. Trump will regret not crossing the Rubicon when he had the chance. who was going to cross it with him? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:46:29 PM EDT
[#23]
I hope no-one shows up. Just the Dems and Ben Sasse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:48:39 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I posted in a dupe thread, that if Roberts did not show up and take his place (displacing anyone sitting there), then we have crossed the threshold. It is impossible to read the Constitution any other way, impossible to twist what is plainly prescribed. They seem to be arguing both sides of the position. He's not the President and therefore the Chief Justice shouldn't preside, but they want to use the penalty for a sitting president at the same time. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:49:10 PM EDT
[#25]
Roberts kinda has a conflict in that the SCOTUS is probably going to be in the position to decide if congress has any authority to convict a private citizen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:50:27 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Judgement in Cases of Impreachment 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law. Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. Trump is not the current president, though he is the rightful president. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:50:27 PM EDT
[#27]
Imagine a foreign communist power institutes a puppet american government and that government does exactly the opposite of what the US Constitution says.
50 years ago we would have nuked half the planet for much less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:52:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Arfcom Lawyers:
Could Trump sue the involed's personal esate for holding an illegal trial/if they claim he was convivted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:53:32 PM EDT
[#29]
Can't impeach a private citizen, and as far as I know, Trump is a private citizen once again. If they really wanted to impeach him, they shouldn't have stolen the election.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:58:36 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where do they derive the constitutional authority to appoint anyone else to preside over this? It's the chief justice's exclusive duty to preside over an impeachment trial. He could/should throw this out because it applies strictly to a sitting president, not a former one. Roberts should be removed for refusing to fullfill his obligation. Tar & feather the rest. The Constitution is very clear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:58:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Insanity
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:59:03 PM EDT
[#32]
Yet another shining example of our duly elected members of Congress wasting our tax dollars
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:00:35 PM EDT
[#33]
It’s a kangaroo court.
You can’t impeach a private citizen and the Chief Justice is constitutionally required to preside. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:02:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Arfcom Lawyers: Could Trump sue the involed's personal esate for holding an illegal trial/if they claim he was convivted? Not a lawyer, but no, legislators are immune from being questioned about their official acts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:05:21 PM EDT
[#35]
OPNI banana republic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:06:18 PM EDT
[#36]
Let them waste their time. Less fucking of us will occur.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:06:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Judgement in Cases of Impreachment 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law. Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. Seems to me that you stop before the Chief Justice part in this case. FJB is President of the United States. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:07:32 PM EDT
[#38]
Amazing. There are now multiple layers of farce.
We're really chugging right along into the depths of looney-land aren't we. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:08:19 PM EDT
[#39]
They need two thirds of the senate votes to convict. The question is how many rinos can they get to vote with them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:08:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What’s the Constitution say? That is an irrelevant question in post-constitutional CCP controlled Amerika. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:08:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryArticle 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. Judgement in Cases of Impreachment 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:09:25 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s a kangaroo court. You can’t impeach a private citizen and the Chief Justice is constitutionally required to preside. Absolutely this. Let's hear more about how we all need to "Unify", while we hold an unconstitutional impeachment trial, presided over by someone who CLEARLY cannot be impartial with respect to the defendant, not to mention not legally allowed to preside -- all because of our blinding TrumpHate. Since the Constitution no longer matters, I truly don't know why they even bother with a 'trial' and just don't go directly to proclaiming a "verdict" and issuing their punishment. Honestly. It wouldn't be any worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:09:38 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Donald John Trump is no longer the sitting President. Which is why the proceedings are no longer timely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:13:02 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Irrelevant. No "impeachment" has ever NOT had the Chief Justice presiding. Please tell me how partisan hack Leahy is any better. lol Leahy can preside because Trump is no longer a sitting president. If he were still in office, a Chief Justice would preside. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:13:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Theatre.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:16:00 PM EDT
[#46]
They know that they have no legal means of impeaching DJT. This is all a sham show, like judge judy. The will "convict" with 51 votes and the media will proclaim that DJT has been "impeached"! It will have no legal basis but that's irrelevant. 50% of the people in the country will accept that he was convicted. The other 50% will just be one step closer to the inevitable conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:16:05 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry but what's the constitutional justification for having an impeachment trial for someone that is a private citizen now? Happened in 1876 when an official in Grants administration resigned. He was subsequently impeached. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:16:42 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Judgement in Cases of Impreachment 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law. Seems to me, no Chief Justice = unconstitutional impeachment. Not that that matters. It is not a Constitutional impeachment of a President without the Chief Justice presiding over a trial of a sitting President, and even Roberts knows that. He's not going to be dragged into playing silly reindeer games with the radical left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:17:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I posted in a dupe thread, that if Roberts did not show up and take his place (displacing anyone sitting there), then we have crossed the threshold. It is impossible to read the Constitution any other way, impossible to twist what is plainly prescribed. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. We crossed that threshold a long long time ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 7:17:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Well, that speaks volumes about their Constitutional standing doesn't it.
In my opinion the Impeachment is a critical strategic error of epic proportions on the part of the Democrats in the Senate, but so be it. The more time they spend on such a farce the less time they have to dedicate themselves to other efforts that might actually impact my life. It will further divide this nation and increase partisan divisions in the Congress. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
