Tuesday, January 26, 2021

Impeachment News.

 SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over the Trump impeachment scam.

He is required to preside over a Senate Trial of impeachment of the president.

Maybe he knows something the dems don't know.

Like: it's not a lawful proceeding.
Gee, I wonder what happens if a suit comes from Trump over this to the SCOTUS?

Senator Patrick Leahy has usurped the position promising a "special oath" to be non-partial in this mockery of constitutional activity. (Like, "I promise not to be a partisan hack despite all expectations?").

A pinky swear?



  1. There's no Constitutional/legal basis for a trial to remove an office-holder who doesn't hold the office, and everyone knows it. They're counting on TDS to carry them over. Besides, the Congress hasn't bothered with the Constitution in decades, and openly disregards it now.

  2. Yes to the above comment.
    And when our foundation document means nothing, how long before the edifice falls.
    Just sad.
    And I wonder what sort of world my son will grow up in.

  3. My thoughts: These thieving no-good, low-life, not-worth-the-powder-to-blow-them-back-to-h#11 DemoKKKrat anarchists KNOW in their hearts that President Trump is still legally President. They are runnin' scared. The TDS is strong in those "people".

  4. Maybe Roberts is stepping aside so as to let it happen opposed to calling BS on it.

    1. it may come back to his court.
      I'd say Trump would have "standing'.

    2. A friend just said he stayed away to avoid having to recuse himself.
      But it will not come to that.
      I'd rather it had. :)

  5. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/rand-rules.php
    Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump: the text of the Constitution only requires the Chief Justice to preside over the trial of “the President.” the text of the Constitution only requires the Chief Justice to preside over the trial of “the President.” Trump is no longer “the President.” Roberts’s presence is therefore not called for.

    Will private citizen Trump be the first private citizen to be convicted and removed from the office he no longer holds? This raises the constitutional question related to Roberts’s decision to pursue other interests during the Senate trial. I briefly reviewed the constitutional argument over the weekend in “Roberts rules.”

    Today Senator Rand Paul raised the issue by a point of order. On Majority Leader Schumer’s motion to table Paul’s motion, 45 Republican Senators voted against. Voting against expressed their view that Paul’s motion was meritorious. While Paul’s motion was insufficient to dismiss or halt the proceedings, the 45 Senators are more than necessary to acquit Trump when the time comes, as it will.

    Politico hedges its reading of the tea leaves and vaguely holds out hope that some of the 45 Senators may change their minds upon hearing the evidence. Senator Paul, however, kayoes this glimmer of hope: “If you voted that it was unconstitutional, how in the world would you ever vote to convict somebody for this?” Paul told reporters. “This vote indicates it’s over. The trial is all over.” It’s all over but the shouting.

  6. Never having been very "political", I find all of this both interesting, and appalling.

    Interesting as in "Who Comes Up With This Stuff?", and appalling in that it's even happening.

    Can the End Times be near?

    1. Scripturally, always near.
      Weird mathematical fact. :)