Fair enough. I suppose the likelihood of my scenario is inversely proportional to the size of the Republican majority.
Note the phrase “sitting president” is relevant here. Roberts declined to preside over Trump’s second impeachment trial because Trump was no longer president at the time, and Roberts didn’t think the Chief Justice was to preside in that case.
Yes, the “sitting” was my insert because of Trump’s second impeachment – the Constitution’s precise language (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6) is, “When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside.” There was debate at the time whether that applied in the case of a President who has left office. I think Roberts was probably right that it doesn’t – the logic of having the CJ (rather than the VP as the President of the Senate) preside in Presidential impeachment trials is that the VP has an obvious incentive to help find the President guilty since he/she would become President. That doesn’t apply if the Prez has already left office.
Ok. The his ass should have been arrested.