In office less thaan a week and already the democrats are conspiring to violate the oath.

If the president is being tried then what. We are trying a man for conduct while president but not as president...

Can we all agree on the pending aquital. And trump can be exonerated from any future litigation. 

You can invoke double jeopardy.

This would be best be brought to lower courts circuits. 

There they can begin process of a common man .

The precedent that you can delay a trial to out office.

And then file impeachment as if never had the office.

And state President ... This case is flawed before opening argument.

You need 17 Republicans at best 10.... 

And hence why the language that the supreme court chief preside for this exact proceeding the trial of a president.

Mason, Madison, and Randolph all spoke up to defend impeachment on July 20, after Charles Pinckney of South Carolina and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania moved to strike it. “[If the president] should be re-elected, that will be sufficient proof of his innocence,” Morris argued. “[Impeachment] will render the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach.”

“Shall any man be above justice?” Mason asked. “Shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?” A presidential candidate might bribe the electors to gain the presidency, Mason suggested. “Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?”

Madison argued that the Constitution needed a provision “for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.” Waiting to vote him out of office in a general election wasn’t good enough. “He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation”— embezzlement—“or oppression,” Madison warned. “He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/

Randolph agreed on both these fronts. “The Executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power,” he warned, “particularly in time of war, when the military force, and in some respects the public money, will be in his hands.” The delegates voted, 8 states to 2, to make the executive removable by impeachment.

The Virginia delegates borrowed their model for impeachment from the British Parliament. For 400 years, English lawmakers had used impeachment to exercise some control over the king’s ministers. Often, Parliament invoked it to check abuses of power, including improprieties and attempts to subvert the state. The House of Commons’ 1640 articles of impeachment against Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, alleged “that he... hath traiterously endeavored to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Government of the Realms... and in stead thereof, to introduce Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government against Law.” (The House of Lords convicted Strafford, who was hanged in 1641.)

The U.S. Constitution lays out a process that imitated Britain’s: The House of Representatives impeaches, as the House of Commons did, while the Senate tries and removes the official, as the House of Lords did. But unlike in Britain, where impeachment was a matter of criminal law that could lead to a prison sentence, the Virginia Plan proposed that the impeachment process lead only to the president’s removal from office and disqualification from holding future office. After removal, the Constitution says, the president can still be indicted and put on trial in regular courts.

Mason, fearful of an unchecked, out-of-control president, proposed adding “maladministration” as a third cause for impeaching the president. Such a charge was already grounds for impeachment in six states, including Virginia.

But on this point, Madison objected. The scholarly Princeton graduate, a generation younger than Mason at age 36, saw a threat to the balance of powers he’d helped devise. “So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” he argued. In other words, Madison feared the Senate would use the word “maladministration” as an excuse to remove the president whenever it wanted.

So Mason offered a substitute: “other high crimes and misdemeanors against the State.” The English Parliament had included a similarly worded phrase in its articles of impeachment since 1450. This compromise satisfied Madison and most of the other Convention delegates. They approved Mason’s amendment without further debate, 8 states to 3, but added “against the United States,” to avoid ambiguity.

45 Republicans voted to say it without trial.

The trial should convene around President's day and wrap up Valentine's day.

Georgia Pennsylvania Arizona are now drafting legislation to limit early voting and mail in voting fir the up coming congressional governor and senatorial race cycles. 

For the impending 2022 election.

As for the arguement. Of impeachment.

Madison argued that the Constitution needed a provision “for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.” Waiting to vote him out of office in a general election wasn’t good enough. “He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation”— embezzlement—“or oppression,” Madison warned. “He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

The entire process of impeaching the president is his removal from office. 

He no longer the president. Then how is impeachment going to constitutionality possible. If we choose to see the argument for the necessity of impeachment. And his removal of office. Or the impartiality that we are the president in question and not thw sitting president we must utilize the Chief Justice either way this trial. Is an aquital take it as a lock.

Democrats are not to blame for Robert's choice, or the Constitution!

Democrats have sworn to defend the constitution but can they amend it????? Era amendment pending....

Djbrow and Fubah2 are right.  Since the sitting president is Biden, chief justice Roberts isn't constitutionally obligated to preside over second impeachment trial.  For his replacement, senate could have chosen vice president Harris but instead choose Leahy the longest serving senator of majority party.  Most experts agree trials of former officials are legal but a minority disagree.

By all means argue...

No one knows.

Here a couple weeks ago. Maybe a whole month Democrats surprised me . they brought a clean up or down vote to the floor to increase the stimulus check to 2000 .

Big B!tch McConnell did not bring the house legislation to the floor of the Senate this didn't surprise me
Now that the house and Senate are controlled by Democrat leadership...
Guess what. That clean bill is gone and now apart of a larger 1.9 trillion bill that is going absolutely no where.
Trust I seen this same play run the same way by these same people.
They rather give their crown friends trillions than give u a public a dime back ...
And I a public actually has become the only tax payer in America

Deflect argue somehow this is trumps fault..... It was the Russians.... Somehow deflect of why this clean up or down vote can't be introduced??? Your demorats are in charge and still crickets.