It appears that Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over next month's U.S. Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. Instead Sen. Patrick Leahy, the president pro tem of the Senate, will serve in that role.
How can Roberts not preside over the trial? The Constitution is clear that the chief justice "shall" preside over impeachment trials in the Senate. Not "may." Not "should." But "shall." So is Roberts signaling that this trial is outside of the Constitution? That it is not an impeachment trial? If not an impeachment trial, then what is it?
Trump needs to understand that the bad guys are trying to stack the deck. Do not underestimate them. The rich oligarchs are behind it. The establishment politicians are behind it. They already had all reporting about the events of Jan. 6 skewed to gain public support. These swamp dwellers fear that Trump will make a comeback – especially when it is eventually determined that election fraud was real in the 2020 presidential contest.
For this apparently unconstitutional trial, Trump's enemies in Congress will secure a couple of the protesters who entered the Capitol building Jan. 6 to claim that Trump incited them. They will get supposed experts to say that Trump's rhetoric motivated the riots. And they will get multiple supposed experts to say that Trump lied about election fraud, which was treason against an incoming administration.
To combat such testimony, here is a recommended list of witnesses Trump's legal team needs to get for the Senate trial:
Attorneys Jonathan Turley, Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz to discuss why this trial is unconstitutional and why it is an offense against the First Amendment.
Rev. Franklin Graham to discuss why he thinks that election fraud got Joe Biden elected.
Election experts to discuss why the Trump accusations of election fraud are not baseless.
A member of the Ohio Legislature from 2012 to 2014 to discuss why it took two years to determine that votes were switched from Romney to Obama by the election machines used in that state in the 2012 presidential election.
Five attendees of the Jan. 6 Trump rally who will state that they did not hear Trump incite them to riot.
An expert at photo analysis of crowd sizes to determine how many people attended the rally compared to how many entered the Capitol building (likely less that one-tenth of 1%). Then the Trump lawyers can ask why only one-tenth of 1% of the attendees supposedly heard Trump incite them to riot, while 99.9% did not.
A linguistic expert to point out that Trump never told supporters to enter the Capitol building, never asked the attendees to riot and never asked for an armed insurrection.
Here's the big issue: If this were a criminal case in a normal court, the defense would immediately ask the judge for a dismissal of the trial based on the fact that the U.S. Constitution states that impeachment is for removal "and" other sanctions. The Constitution does not state "or" but clearly states "and." So if removal cannot be achieved, then "and" implies that other sanctions cannot be considered. Trump cannot be removed since he is no longer president.
A decision on whether or not to dismiss is not for the Senate to make since the senators serve as the jury, not the judge. To replace Roberts with Leahy, a member of the opposition party who is supposed to be one of the jurors, and then have Leahy make the decision on dismissal is ludicrous.
Trump's lawyers must take action on the Leahy/Roberts issue now before this trial turns into even more of a kangaroo court.
via wnd