Here’s Why The Sham Impeachment Trial Is Clearly Unconstitutional

The second sham impeachment of now-former President Donald Trump has begun and it’s already shaping up to be as big of a clown show as the first one was.



Not only does it come at a time when Congress should instead be focusing on the lingering pandemic, a sputtering economy, tens of millions of Americans still unemployed or underemployed, new migrant caravans heading to our southern border, a China-Mexican cartel alliance pumping fentanyl into Middle America and killing thousands, but it’s also clearly unconstitutional.

Julie Strauss Levin, writing in the Virginia Star, makes this clear:

President Trump’s attorneys have clearly responded to the absurd Article of Impeachment.  Their answer on Trump’s behalf is clear and straightforward.

Put simply, and a plain reading of the Constitution by any grade school student will corroborate, you can’t remove someone from office who is not in office.  And, the word “and” means just that:  in order to be disqualified from holding office, a person needs to first be in office, then removed and then disqualified from holding office in the future.  In other words, you can’t be disqualified if you weren’t in office at the time of the impeachment.  What part of “and” does the Democrat party not understand?

And then there is the matter of Chief Justice Roberts declining to preside over the trial.  The text of the Constitution is abundantly clear at Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution that when a president is being tried for impeachment, “the Chief Justice shall preside…” (emphasis added)

Instead, Patrick Leahy, who just happens to be the longest serving member of the Senate (Exhibit 1 for term limits) and is a Democrat will preside.  Details, details.

Is Trump right about Joe Biden being 'unsuccessful' and a 'disaster'?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

That should have clearly been the issue that was presented by Trump’s attorneys. But it wasn’t.

Instead, one of them, Bruce Castor, came out ‘swinging’ — for the Democrats, which reportedly infuriated his client/boss, the former president.

In fact, he did so poorly that even Republican senators criticized him, with one — Sen. Bill Cassidy of Lousiana — basing his decision to support the contention that the trial is even constitutional because of Castor’s crappy argument.

***FREE SPACE FORCE COIN! Just cover shipping***

“Anyone who listened to President Trump’s legal team saw they were unfocused, they attempted to avoid the issue. And they talked about everything but the issue at hand,” Cassidy, who was summarily raked over the coals by the Lousiana Republican Party for his vote, said.

“I thought the President’s lawyer, the first lawyer, just rambled on and on and on and didn’t really address the constitutional argument,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn added.

At least he wasn’t ‘persuaded’ to change his vote and support the constitutionality question.

Nevertheless, despite the rocky start, it’s not like the Senate is going to spend a lot of time on this because a) Democrats don’t have the votes to convict Trump; b) it won’t be constitutional anyway; and c) they have other more important business pending.

“While Republicans have repeatedly said that the trial is unconstitutional and bad for the country, Democrats are eager to finish confirming President Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees and pass his $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package before mid-March, when unemployment benefits are set to expire,” The Daily Caller reported.

Bottom line: Spending even a minute on this nonsense is a disgrace, and it’s why Congress’ approval rating continues tanking.



Leave a Reply