Why is a blog that is supposed to focus on Prince William County and the City of Manassas writing about FORMER President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial? The reason is that the leaders of our Federal Government have begun to assume powers not given them by The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives. When officials of the Federal Government usurp powers that belong to local governments, what is a local blog supposed to do? Cover what the Federal Government is doing? If local governments become irrelevant, then doesn’t that make the Federal Government the local government?
Do the leaders of our Federal Government accept the proper limits on their power? The show trial of FORMER President Donald Trump provides a straightforward and obvious example that they do not.
Day One of the SECOND Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump was supposed to focus upon the constitutionality of holding such a trial. Absent emotional arguments, this is a no-brainer. THERE IS NOTHING in the Constitution that allows the United States Senate to put a private citizen on trial. In fact, the only thing that some may find a bit obscure is this clause, which actually prohibits such a trial.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives (from Article 1, Section 9)
The prohibition on bills of attainder was designed to keep congressmen from abusing their power and punishing their enemies.
BILLS OF ATTAINDER
“Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.”1910 The phrase “bill of attainder,” as used in this clause and in clause 1 of § 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder. (continued)BILLS OF ATTAINDER | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
What was the basic argument of the House Managers for the constitutionality of trying FORMER President Donald Trump in the United States Senate? Representative Jamie Raskin calls it the “January exception.”
Raskin noted that attorneys’ suggestion to drop charges against Trump could create a dangerous precedent for his successors, by establishing a period toward the end of a president’s term in which he is not held accountable for constitutional offenses. The congressman used the term “January exception” to describe this concept.
“President Trump has sent his lawyers here today to try to stop the Senate from hearing the facts of this case. They want to call the trial over before any evidence is even introduced,” said Raskin in an emotional speech that opened Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate. He referenced the defense presented by the former president’s legal team, which argued for a dismissal on the ground that Trump is no longer in office.?What Is a January Exception? Impeachment Manager Says Failure to Convict Could Set Dangerous Precedent (newsweek.com)
The “January exception” is a silly argument. If the president murders someone within his last couple of weeks in office, all Congress can do is impeach him and remove him from office. They cannot put him in jail. However, once the president is removed from or has left office, he is subject to the same justice as any other citizen. Since FORMER President Donald Trump is now out of office, if he had incited a riot, local authorities could charge him, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that he incited a riot. So, Democrats have to have their show trial to punish him.
Is this video evidence?
This video is not evidence against FORMER President Donald Trump. In a real trial, the judge would not have allowed the video in the courtroom.
What was the purpose of the video? It was made to associate Trump with the riot, but this involves applying the false logic of guilt by association. Just because something bad happens, like a bank robbery, and you happen to be in the bank making a withdrawal (cashing a check), does that make you guilty of bank robbery? Of course not! Moreover, much of the video is taken out of context. Hence, the video does not prove that Trump had anything to do with the riot. It just proves that a riot took place, and Trump was speaking when a riot started at the Capitol, a mile away from where he was was speaking.
Nevertheless, the fact the video does not prove Trump had anything to do with the riot is not the real problem with it. The real problem is that the video does not address whether the Senate has any business putting FORMER President Donald Trump on trial. The video was not germane to the subject under discussion. That is how ridiculous what the Senate is doing has become.
Who voted for continuing the Democrat’s show trial? All the Democrats voted in lockstep, of course, plus six Republicans (These Six Republicans Voted That Trump’s Impeachment Trial Is Constitutional | The Daily Caller). Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy surprised some by voting to continue the farce. If he wasn’t a senator his reasoning would be funny.
Here is a link to a video of Cassidy’s excuse, Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy one of 6 GOP leaders voting to move forward with impeachment trial (wdsu.com). Below is a transcript of Cassidy’s excuse.
Yeah. Okay. There. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So, Senator, you were the You were the one Republican change. Yeah. What happened? What? I said I’d be an impartial juror. Anyone listening to those arguments? The house managers were focused. They were organized. They relied upon both precedent the Constitution and legal scholars. They made a compelling argument. President Trump’s team were disorganized. They did everything they could but to talk about the question at hand. And when they talked about it, they kinda glided over it, almost as if they were embarrassed of their arguments. Now I’m an impartial juror, and one side is doing a great job. And the other side, doing a terrible job on the issue at hand has an impartial juror. I’m gonna vote for the side that did the good job. What does it mean for conviction? I don’t know. We haven’t heard that yet. I’m impartial. Juror. Why do you think Trump Defense Team a terrible? Did you listen to it? Okay, then you speaks for itself. I found cast their hard to follow for sure other Republicans have praised showing is that you’re feeling of things. Or did you think Listen to it? That speaks for itself. It was disorganized. Random had nothing. They talked about many things, but they didn’t talk about the issue at hand. And so if if you if I’m an impartial juror and I’m trying to make a decision based upon the facts as presented on this issue than the House managers did a much better job, Senator, how about the video of the mob attack on the capital? That is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is, Is it constitutional to impeach a president who’s left office? And the House managers made a compelling, cogent case, and the president’s team did not. Yeah, have the watch time. Not that affected your decision. It speaks for itself. I think it’s drama enough, but that’s not related to why I made my decision. Do you wish to address the past president of William Bell Capital? They did Trump’s team Trump’s team. You know, I took notes. I always take notes, Uh, but at one point I leaned over to cruise and I said Crews, are they talking to the point of hand? He goes, Not now, eso because I’m thinking maybe I’m missing something. Um um and again if I’m there as an impartial juror respecting my oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And one side makes the argument on the other side Does everything but make the argument, then toe live with myself. I make that vote. I’ve always said I’m approaching this as an impartial juror. And that’s what I mean. She’s going to yank me. Thank you, guys. Thank you for coming. Yeah.Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy one of 6 GOP leaders voting to move forward with impeachment trial (wdsu.com)
Think about Cassidy’s excuse, especially the bolded text. This guy is a senator. As a Senator, a major part of his job involves knowing and understanding the Constitution. Does he really need someone to tell him it is unconstitutional to put a private citizen on trial in the Senate? Is justice his objective, or being on the side that looks good? Does he want to be in the right or on that side that “wins”? Doesn’t Cassidy know that Hell is filled with “winners”?
When the majority of Congress is so full of irrational hatred that they are participating in witch hunt, we have a problem, and it is not Donald Trump. We can complain about his bedside manner and lack of tact, but as president Trump surprised everyone by doing his job. Perhaps what infuriates his opponents is that He exposed the fact that they are not doing their jobs.
To make our constitutional republic work, we must elect people who take the Constitution seriously. With their votes on the Second impeachment of FORMER President Donald Trump, too many in Congress have failed to exhibit a proper understanding of and willingness to abide by the Constitution. In fact, because this violation is so blatant, the people who represents us in the Senate clearly revealed they don’t care what The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription | National Archives says. Since their willingness adhere to the Constitution is what protects us from the abuse of power, that should frighten us. If a former president is not safe from them, neither are we.