The Constitution only calls for the Chief Justice to preside over impeachment of a president, not over all impeachments. This is a former president and I would have been surprised to see Roberts preside.
They are impeaching him as President. This is the entirety of their case.
Justice Roberts states his negative stance on even having a trial by not presiding.
Ga 'head - tear that one apart
heh
Sure.
They are both stupid arguments.
They are trying him as a former president. He is not president. His
actions were done as president. But you can't have it both ways saying, "too close to the end of his term, so let's not do it," and "he's out, so now we can't.
And if he is not the president, then Roberts is not the presider. That simple - it was never in question. Roberts has not ruled that one cannot and, indeed, given that the Senate has tried a
former Secretary of War, the evidence that you can try a
former federal official is clear.
And that former federal official was not tried with the Chief Justice presiding.
Look, this is argued on both sides and probably more than two, Kid. I understand that
your side wants to claim it is unconstitutional to try him after he is out.
But either it is unconstitutional and therefore there should be nobody presiding at all or it is constitutional and it should not be Roberts. The middle ground that it
should be Roberts is untenable.