All he has to do is command one of his lackeys to write up some shady document with a list of names and a decree that all shall be held innocent of any crime....might fly, might not, he certainly doesn't lack the balls to try it. Perhaps you've noticed that he seems to get away with just about everything....

Something else to think about:

"In 2nd Trump impeachment trial, will Chief Justice John Roberts preside?"

"The U.S. Constitution says that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court "shall preside" over trials of the President of the United States, but it does not specify what happens if the president has left office. No ex-president has ever faced a Senate trial."

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/2nd-trump-impeachment-trial-chief-203156850.html

It's possible that Roberts won't preside, then either VP Harris or President Pro Tem Sen. Patrick Leahy could preside.

I suppose the bottom line is the Constitution is specific about the Chief Justice presiding when the president of the U.S. is tried. But it is moot on an ex-president.

Which brings up a constitutional issue, since the Constitution state impeachment deals only with removal from office, it will be argued impeachment is unconstitutional since the president can't be removed.

Interesting times and so many questions with no answers. But with the SCOTUS most likely to hear the constitutional issues, they just might recluses themselves leaving Harris or Leahy to preside.

All we can do is sit back and let this all play out on numerous fronts.

Only a real dumbass would commingle the two actions: impeachment and removal.

Both are separate, stand-alone actions. A president can be impeached and not removed. Incompetent insurrectionist, failure-in-life, Fatass Trump was impeached TWICE!

...and for the record, you're discussing a remedy for impeachment which could be removal from Office.

I'm going by and what the article said. I suppose since the House has impeached Trump, Pelosi could just sit on the article of impeachment and never send it to the senate for trial. Thus Trump would be impeached without any further action. Is that legal and Constitutional, I don't know.

Perhaps the article meant the trial would be unconstitutional in the lawyers view. Since the trial deals with removal only, but impeachment is constitutional. But that is trying to read into that lawyer's mind which is something folks who try that get it wrong most of the time.

Now the article dealt with the Chief Justice presiding over the trial, only the last paragraph was about the constitutional issue. I suppose a trial in the senate would be moot, since Trump will be long gone.

As I said, I know little to nothing about these things. Just what I read and what I read leaves a ton of questions and you're getting what you read from whomever wrote the article point of view. So I'll sit back and watch and listen, these things will play out as they play out.

But the most fascinating thing about all of this is if a suit is filed stating the impeachment, the article's word, the trial, more or less your words is unconstitutional, Chief Roberts could recluse himself from presiding over the trial in the senate as could the other SCOTUS judges since they have to hear the case in Constitutional terms. That would leave either Harris or Leahy to preside over the trial if the SCOTUS rules the trial portion constitutional. This is what has my interest. That possibility.

All these twists and turns has made this quite fascinating.

Ah, things get more interesting.

"Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly wants no part of Trump's impeachment trial"

From the article:

"Roberts has worked hard to keep the Supreme Court apolitical during his tenure, so he was reportedly displeased that he "became a top target of the left" during the proceedings. "He wants no further part of this."

and

Trump's trial is a bit of a constitutional oddity. On the one hand, it's a presidential impeachment, but on the other hand, the trial will take place after he leaves office, which is why there's a chance Roberts may have some wiggle room. Historically, either the vice president or the longest-serving member of the Senate have taken up the mantle for lower-level impeachments, per Politico. That means Vice President-elect Kamala Harris or Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) could be the choice. Read more at Politico.

https://news.yahoo.com/chief-justice-joh...mp;uh_test=1_04

Roberts is publicly shirking his responsibility. Impeach him.

That's ok...Kamala can preside.

Roberts should preside in my opinion. But the Constitution states, "When the president of the United states is tried, the chief justice shall preside." There's the wiggle room the article was talking about. Trump is no longer president. Hence the president isn't being tried in the senate. An ex-president for sure, but not "The President."

It may very well be VP Harris that presides. She doesn't have a vote in an impeachment trial, so that would be fine. Time will tell.