It is an indictment on the political process when a public official can be impeached not just once, but twice, Donald John Trump was impeached for attempting to strongarm a foreign power to spin up a fake investigation against a political rival that he was afraid of, and attempted to cover it up. The Senate did not exonerate him, but voted to allow him to continue his path of destruction of norms that constrained some of the worst impulses of the President. The Senate voted to allow future Presidents to solicit foreign interference in our elections, and they will have that as their legacy. After losing a free and fair election to Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Mr. Trump attempted to overturn the results by soliciting governmental agencies to block the transition, using the Courts to overturn the results, and using governors, state legislatures, and a Secretary of State to overturn the election he lost. The Senate was warned that he would attempt to rig the election if he were allowed to remain in office. The warning came true.
For why Trump's impeachment was justified, click here.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution provides:
"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
The framers left it only to the House to impeach, and the American people have no right to have a direct say on impeachment, but they can vote out the pro or anti impeachment Representatives.
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
The Senate can try all impeachments that happen, and they can set in place the rules for a trial, and they can issue rulings as to the boundaries.
The Supreme Court ruled in Nixon (this one, not that one) v. United States, that impeachment is a non-justicable political question, and the courts could not intervene. So no, the Courts will not block this trial, or any trial.
Article II, Section 4 provides:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
In the Blount impeachment, the Senate ruled that members of Congress are not "civil officers". William Blount was the first impeached official, the first expelled Senator, the first person to to have the charges dismissed, and the only member of Congress to be impeached. Some mountain dew for brains people who have no idea what they are talking about have argued that it's unconstitutional to try a former official. The Senate ruled in 1876 -during the Belknap impeachment trial- that it is Constitutional. He would be acquitted. And with the Constitution saying that the Senate has the power to try all impeachments, and that the House has the sole power to impeach, this argument of unconstitutionality is a lie.
There will be those who argue it's unconstitutional because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is not presiding, despite the fact that the impeached official is not President anymore, and this rule does not apply.
The failed businessman's speech has been argued to be under freedom of speech, but as Antonin Scalia once said:
"You can't ride with the cops, but root for the robbers."
The former New York City resident also said for years, that the elections were rigged (they weren't), and he made it clear he would not accept the results unless he won. He lied repeatedly about the ficticious election fraud, and he (hypocritically) accused his opponents of being a part of the mythical "deep state", and accused his own Vice President of not helping him steal the election. His words carried extra weight as the President of the United States, and with his cult supporters hanging on every word, they saw it as a call to action. He said "StOp ThE sTeAl", and how do you stop the steal without using violence? How were his supporters going to prevent Congress from ratifying the results of the election without violence?
He said: "if you don't fight like hell, you won't have a Country, anymore." "When there's theft involved, you can play by a very different set of rules." "We're not gonna take it anymore." There's more quotes from this fascist, linked here. Our political climate is also to blame.
When politicians say "this is the most important election of our lives", people believe that. They will believe that they will lose EVERYTHING if they don't prevail. People believed that if Donald Trump lost to Hillary Clinton, America would be governed "by a criminal". People believed that if Donald Trump won in 2016, and 2020, America would be governed by a "rapist, Nazi, Russian asset". When these people on both sides have largely said that they would not accept the outcome of the election, and believe they will lose everything if their candidate doesn't win, the bad blood will boil over, and that's what happened on January 6, 2021. The line of "the most important election" ought to be considered to be on the same level as a racist slur, just so it's considered bad to use, considering how overplayed it is, and how it incites fear. This is the time to retire that line.
If the mediocre TV star did not intend to obstruct the ratification of the election, then he would not have done anything to stop the ratification, or transition. If he did not intend for his supporters to invade the Capitol, he would not have been slow to send the National Guard to break up the coup attempt. The coup leader in chief would had no intention of accepting the outcome, and attempted to use his supporters to overthrow the government to keep him in power. He may have never explicitly said "invade the Capitol", but he made it clear they didn't have to abide by the rules "when there's theft involved, you can play by a different set of rules."
Donald John Trump's defense team was genuine garbage, and the House Manager's decimated them repeatedly. In the end, if the United States Senate does not convict and disqualify Donald Trump, impeachment can never happen again, without it being an explicit rebuke of that verdict, and every Senator who votes to aqcuit is voting to justify the attack, plain and simple. In the end, impeachment is a remedy that exists for a reason, and it is meant to be used sparingly. This is a useful time for it. He must be disqualified, as he can't be trusted ever again.
Donald John Trump ultimately is to blame for the attack, and the bathsalts community supporters of his are to blame, too. If the Senate was moved by what the House said, and votes to acquit, they better keep their hands bawled up into fists, so the blood doesn't show. Ciao.
P.S:
The central question about convicting someone is:
1. Did they do what they were charged with? If so, you have no choice but to convict.
2. If they are convicted, should they be disqualifed? If you think they're guilty, a permanent ban is only logical.
Donald J. Trump answered "yes" to both, in both impeachments.
Follow my Twitter: @SkylerSatterfi1
Support the blog here.
Preceded by: "The Controversial Utah Gun Bill (HB 0600), Examined."
Succeeded by: "He's Acquitted, The January Exception Is Hereby Enacted."
Comments
Post a Comment