I didn’t write the passage below, but I believe it addresses very serious issues and implications concerning the Impeachment of Donald Trump.
“For those of you who are not as legal or politically savvy, and you may not understand what’s going on with this ‘impeachment trial’, and you’re hearing controversy about whether it’s constitutional or not: I will summarize this whole argument in 10 quick concise and easy to follow points which you can share…
- Impeachment is a remedy to remove Presidents from office, because they are not subject to criminal indictment while in office.
- Donald Trump is either still president or he is not. If he is not, then he cannot be tried in an impeachment trial.
- If the President has done something rising to the level of incitement of insurrection, then that is a criminal offense for which he can only legitimately and lawfully be indicted and tried in a criminal trial.
- The fact that he is a private person again and yet no one is seeking a criminal indictment against him, can only mean that there is no evidence to charge him with such a thing in a real court, with real punishment, otherwise they would surely have done so. Therefore, Democrats are using the kangaroo court of the Senate for something for which they do not have the jurisdiction, yet they also do not have the evidence to prosecute in the jurisdiction that is correct and legally allowed.
- If Donald Trump incited insurrection, then why have none of the rioters been charged with insurrection? Of the ones that have been charged, most of them have been charged with the equivalent of trespassing. In order to claim that someone incited another to commit a crime… mustn’t that crime have actually been committed?
If that crime was committed, then where are all the defendants to insurrection?
- The Constitution does not allow for Senators to take a vote on whether their actions are constitutional, as they did today to try to put an air of legitimacy on this process. If Congress wishes to act outside the impeachment process they are bound by explicitly in the Constitution, then this requires changing the Constitution. They cannot simply take a majority vote on whether they agree with their own actions, in acting contrary to that Constitution. Otherwise, the legislature could just take a vote any time they wanted to violate it. And wouldn’t that be convenient for the police state they’re taking us to?
- The Constitution specifically prohibits ‘bills of attainder’ like as were used in England. A political body, such as Congress, holding a trial of any kind over a private citizen, and not actually in a criminal court where all due process rights and right of appeal are afforded under law, is clearly unconstitutional. If a political body could hold a trial and punish any private person who is a former office holder, on simply a majority vote, then they could hold a trial and punish ANY private person outside the legal judicial process. Thus, Democrats and a few complicit traitorous Republicans are setting the precedent and voting themselves the extra-constitutional power to be able to prosecute private parties for political reasons. This is quite a dangerous precedent, which warrants a question of whether these politicians themselves must be removed by the people, via extra-judicial means?
- The Constitution states that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall sit as judge of an impeachment trial against the President. The Constitution does not state that Senators may simply decide to appoint one of their own members to sit in his stead – much less for that sitting Senator of the opposing party to also serve as a jury member.
- The Constitution specifically states that a conviction in a Senate impeachment trial extends punishment only to ‘removal from office and disqualification’. It does not state removal from office ‘or’ disqualification. Word choice in law does matter. It means that the Senate cannot convict and impose disqualification as punishment, without having first imposed removal. Removal and disqualification are linked together in the Constitution, because it was understood that only sitting office holders could be tried in an impeachment trial. If removal is not possible, because the individual is no longer sitting in office, then constitutionally, he cannot be disqualified.
- It does not matter, your opinions by so-called scholars shared on Twitter. Jurisdiction is jurisdiction. Limitation is limitation. It either means something, or it means nothing at all. Constitutional limitations are not ‘loopholes’. The Constitution must be amended by constitutional process if its meaning is to be amended. Period. And all the so-called ‘precedent’ that Democrats are citing, is just as illegitimate as this impeachment trial is. Two wrongs don’t make right? Anyone? Were simply pointing to a precedent the standard by which we call things right, and by-the-rules, then future Congresses could simply point back to this precedent…where the Senate simply voted by majority to grant itself the power to violate the Constitution, which spelled out their powers very explicitly, and then stated further in the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights that they did not have the power to give themselves more than what the Constitution itself allowed.
Yes…there is an insurrection happening, my friends. But the insurrectionists against Constitutional government, are in fact the very US Senators sitting in that soiled capitol building. And right now, as far as I am concerned, they are laying out our future case against them as insurrectionist when the reckoning comes.”