Select Page

The Sham Of A Impeachment Begins by Trampling on the Constitution

The Sham Of A Impeachment Begins by Trampling on the Constitution

Ignoring the constitution, due process, all of this is on the table as the Democrats and some Republicans move to remove any chance of facing a possible Trump return to Washington. It turns out, even though the Biden White House is acting like they are not involved with this, this seems to be something they are very much obsessing about, are partially behind pushing this to go forward.

Here is the problem, the constitution states that impeachment is to remove a sitting president from office, not punish one after he has left

Article 2, Section 4:

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.

The wording here is no that hard to understand; the impeachment mechanism is desired to “remove from office” a president, vice president, or civil officer. Trump is not in office, so what exactly are they removing him from?


But there is more; the way an impeachment is supposed to be handled is laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution says when a President is tried on impeachment, the Chief Justice shall preside.

Yet this is ignored, the reason is that Trump is no longer a sitting president, but it goes deeper than this, the Senate, now under Democratic control, knows that they are doing violates the Constitution, this is why Roberts refused to sit over this sham; instead, they are bringing in a very partisan Democrat to lead the trial and sit in the Supreme Court Justices seat. As long as they violate the Constitution and the president’s civil rights, why not go big on it? At least, this seems to be what they are pushing.

It looks like I am not the only one asking this question:

There then comes the question of a fair trial, something we are all promised under the constitution. Here is what the person said who is presiding over the Senate trial:

Does this sound like the one directing the trial is impartial? But no worries, he has told us never to fear; he will be the most impartial judge we have ever seen:

This isn’t the stuff of American democracy and traditions of due process. This is banana republic stuff, what we would expect to see in some third world dictator, North Korea, or maybe China.

But Americans, 75 million of whom cast their vote in good faith for a man Democrats are trying to erase from public life, are expected to believe that an impeachment trial feature a presiding judge like Patrick Leahy is going to be anything but a laughably obvious exercise in raw power.

According to The New York Times (a publication that’s no friend of Trump), Leahy could have a crucial role in how the case develops and even — despite his presiding role — could even cast a vote on the verdict.

So now, not only is he going to preside over the case, he gets to cast a vote when the case is done.


This is a travesty against all this nation stands for; this is more of what I would have expected to see in Stalinist Russia, not in the US’s halls of power.

Trump is a civilian, the Senate has no right to try a civilian, nor can the House convict him, although they did act while still president. This is an issue for the judicial branch, if an actionable crime is found, have the justice department press charges, let Trump have his day in court with the full protection that we all enjoy.

We need to let every elected official know, if you stand for this, we will see to it you never get elected to even dog-catcher again. The Republicans who voted for this in Congress, we need to make sure they are primaried out. We need to put people who are more concerned about the constitution and the rights it affords, not pushing sham trials because they have a vendetta.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

Visit Our Sponsors

Visit Our Sponsors