1-You tweeted incredulity that a juror could preside. That's happened routinely in impeachment trials. Senate rules also allow Senators to be witnesses. 2-I am not ignoring the language, I read it in originalist terms: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/trump-can-still-be-impeached-after-he-leaves-office/ … https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/chief-justice-roberts-owes-us-his-opinion-on-presiding-over-impeachment/ … https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1353808414632194048 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
It has not happened when impeaching a president, and the constitutional language seems very clear.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @bonchieredstate
Then argue that this is an impeachment of the president requiring the CJ, not "how can a juror preside," when we all know this has happened routinely.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
I understand the point, but I also think there is and was meant to be a difference between a president and cabinet officials and judges. The president is elected and the appearance of fairness is obviously important. Important enough to warrant specific constitutional language.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Which is not an unreasonable argument for insisting that Roberts should preside when a former POTUS is impeached, but that's different from tweeting "how can a juror preside" as if that does not happen.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.