BETTLE: Yes, Trump’s Impeachment is Blatantly Unconstitutional. Just Read the Document.

ROGUEREVIEW.NET

The fact Democrats will be impeaching former President Trump, who is now a private citizen, one guaranteed with all the rights we all have, is an assault to liberty and freedom for all Americans. We have had a new president, apparently, for three weeks. But it does not really seem like it, based upon the MSM and the Democrats’ actions. 

Makes you wonder why nothing has been mentioned about the substance of Biden’s 52 executive orders in three weeks. If Democrats control all three levers of government required to pass legislation, and after all they did to gain that power, it is a wonder why they are not using it to legislate when we are in such a “dire crisis.”

Trump’s impeachment, reasonably, seems to be political theater intended to divide Americans more, not unite us. What it should be doing is dividing Americans from the current government. Because it is unconstitutional and infringes on one of our most basic civil and constitutional rights of due process, and that should scare everyone. Congressional Democrats at least gave President Trump due process thirteen months ago. How quick precedent gets thrown out when politically convenient.

The Constitution is pretty specific about impeachment, the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” The Senate “shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…when the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” The Chief Justice is not presiding, a Democrat senator who can vote is—which brings up major conflict of interest issues. We are to have equal application of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no Trump Amendment exception to this. 

Most importantly, the Constitution is specific on who can be impeached: “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.” How do you remove someone from office who is…no longer in the office? Congress’ power of impeachment explicitly seems to end where the ending of office begins. The Constitution’s clause is clear on the necessary requirement of being in office to be removed. Who’s next, Old Abe?

Congress did not investigate or have hearings before bringing the charges, nor have relevant evidence. If they did, then the congressman/prosecutors would not have to deceptively splice up the videos. That is tampering with evidence, something illegal under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Congress also does not have the power to bring private citizens to stand trial by the Senate; I haven’t found that power yet in Congress’ expressly enumerated powers, under Article I, Section Eight. If Trump is no longer President and is now a private citizen, it would be a gross overreach of Congress to act as a court of law and usurp the powers given to the judicial branch. 

Moreover, under the laws of the United States is the Brady rule. This rule means that if prosecutors have exculpatory evidence which would exonerate the accused, they are to share it and inform the judge. Instead, the House Prosecutors intentionally mislead not only the Senators presiding over the trial, but also the American people when they cut Trump’s video early before the part where he stated, “peacefully and patriotically.” 

The FBI and Capitol police also had early indications of violence from several groups across the political spectrum. How can a person incite violence that was premediated? Especially when they did not have the requisite intent for the crime of incitement? Important questions that are lacking in the MSM and from the left. 

Article II, Section one of the Constitution states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the Term of four Years…” Those four years are up, and as explained above, only Presidents in office can be removed from office. Words are hard, it seems for some. 

One of the founding legal principles of the Constitution and our justice system is that laws be clear, concise, and easy enough to be commonly understood by every American—so Americans can, rightfully, be knowledgeable about what is legal and what is not. The Founder’s did a better job on the Constitution than Congress does on legislation, when it comes to simplicity of understanding. Experts are able to say what they want, we do have the first amendment right to free speech. But having an opinion does not mean its correct nor does being an alleged expert make it more credible. The Constitution is clear, and it is also the “Supreme Law of the Land.” 

Supreme, i.e. the superseding law of all laws. 

Democrats and media experts have argued this kangaroo court is constitutional based upon the clause discussing disqualification from holding office. That clause states, and some conveniently leave out the beginning, “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.” 

They claim, because of how the grammar is done within the clause, impeachment can be removal from office or disqualification. But if that were true, then the Constitution would not state that it is impeachment and disqualification. The Founder’s knew the word “or,” it, quite literally, comes later in the clause. Most of the Founders were lawyers, after all, a profession known to be particular with their use of words—and grammar. 

Plus, disqualification is already punishment under federal law. If private citizen Trump were guilty of a crime where punishment is disqualification, Biden’s DOJ could prosecute him under 5 United States Code § 7313

removal from federal…office and ineligibility for employment by the United States…for five years upon conviction under federal or state law of a felony for inciting, organizing, encouraging, or participating in, a riot or civil disorder or any offense committed in furtherance of, or while participating in, a riot civil disorder.”

Again, our own federal laws require removal from federal office before ineligibility kicks in, after being convicted of the crime. Trump was not removed from federal office. 

At least this time, Democrats are alleging a crime, incitement of violence. Which, thankfully, we have legal standards and a long legal history of cases to look at. 18 U.S.C. § 373; Brandenburg v. Ohio, et al. None of what Trump did rises to them, especially when all the evidence is taken to account. 

Trump is a powerful man. He is also a private citizen. If Congress, Tech Giants, and the MSM can do this, what is stopping them now from coming for us all? Apparently, the Constitution is meaningless to them when the ends justify the means.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.