Posted on 01/24/2021 3:30:25 AM PST by RandFan
Sen. Rand Paul says that a Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump that doesn’t include Chief Justice John Roberts would be an illegitimate process.
“If Justice Roberts won’t preside over this sham ‘impeachment’ then why would it ever be considered legitimate?” the Kentucky Republican tweeted Friday. “Hint: It won’t be.”
Later in the day, Paul joined Fox News’s Sean Hannity and elaborated on his impeachment stance, calling it an “illegitimate procedure” if Roberts isn’t there.
“It isn’t a real impeachment. It’s going to be a fake, partisan impeachment,” Paul said about a process without Roberts.
“The story is,” Paul continued, “that the chief justice is not going to be asked, but the reason he’s not going to be asked is he’s privately said he’s not supposed to come unless it’s an impeachment of the president.”
“So, this is an illegitimate procedure,” he said. “And even the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who's not a rabid Trump person, who's actually, if anything, sort of in the middle, he is now saying this is illegitimate because I’m not getting in the middle of this and I’m not coming over for this.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Put everything on gold. Gold stocks, gold mine stocks, gold futures, gold bullion, gold coins. GTF out of wall street. RIOT’s still a good stock, though. So’s REGRF. Blockchain tech.
I think the reason is because Roberts expects the impeachment to be challenged later, and when it gets to the Supreme Court, he would have to recuse himself if he had presided over it. He doesn’t want to lose his opportunity to vote against Trump when it would really count.
Bingo! We have a winner 🏆
Start Filing Ethics and Contempt Charges against Pelosi and gang, Make CRIMINAL REFERRAL’S to the DOJ for PERJURY AND FRAUD
Correct !!!!
Congress had no authority to impeach and try a private citizen. Roberts has nothing to do with it. My question would be, why didn't Paul make this point?
As far as I’m concerned the constitutions already did. We do not have free speech because we are attacked. We do not if you have freedom from religion because we are now being attacked in our places of worship see Saint John’s church in Ohio. We do not uphold election law. Our Supreme Court does not choose to do its job because it doesn’t want to get into messy or political decisions. Our Supreme Court does not want to hear a case bought before it by the sitting president of the United States. So as a result we can talk about the constitution but as far as I’m concerned the constitution is already a document that is not nor will ever be followed again
To speak of congressional legitimacy is laughable.
Have smart phone cameras ready for immediate feed to Rumble and Chatdit. You Tube, too. Television cameras brought the civil disobedience movement into everyone’s living room. They cannot be relied on for this, however, as they have suppressed inconvenient truths in the past.
Yes I’ve thought the same. They hate Trump alright but they got more important things to do like their agenda to carry out and while they don’t want to see him run in 2024, they have the insurance policy of cheating again.
So what gives unless they FEAR that it’s possible that the fraud might be fully exposed and therefore they have to removed him (the real current president) before that happens?
The Constitution has been disregarded before. It survived to be adhered to more closely in later times. It will eventually again. But right now it’s being used as toilet paper, and this bogus impeachment is only one example.
I'm not sure about that, impeachment in England developed in the 1500s to give the Commons a way to BLOCK appointments by the King because they had not yet acquired the power to control who was in the government. So, initially, most men who were impeached were NOT sitting officials. The men who wrote in 1788 "The House shall have the sole power of impeachment" surely knew this.
However, it does not matter in this case because Trump was impeached while he was a sitting President, and the Constitution specifies,"the Senate shall have the power to try ALL impeachments".
yeah, sure
worked out well in tianamin square
“Those Commierats really want a war. Don’t they?”
perhaps they do, when every other militia member is an fbi informer
The “civil rights movement” worked because its opponents were, for the most part, decent Christian people.
In our situation, that is not the case. The Mahatma himself said that Satyagraha could only have worked against the British, that with either Hitler or Stalin it would simply have led to a bloodbath.
I see one silver lining.
This impeachment consumes all the time and energy of the Senate.
The senate does not confirm sleepy joe’s nominees and his Presidency is frozen.
I will take those days off his clock since President Trump is innocent
White males are being relegated to blue collar work or military service. White males may be able to make decent money but they will have careers where AC and heat during working hours is a luxury and enjoy no social status what so ever.
Chief Justice Roberts can be impeached for circumventing the clarity of the Constitution on this matter.
Tooling for the Leftists would come back to bite him and haunt the SC, when he’s then sued by Trump.
McConnell has no comment.
McTurtle should be canned by a Kentucky recall, if not impeached himself, by the Senate.
No reason for a sham Chief justice to not preside over a sham impeachment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.