I can imagine literal constitutionalists switching to “framers intent” arguments when that suites there interests. Anyway I stated much earlier that the main purpose of this exercise is to send a message loud and clear to any future American that becomes president, democrat or Republican, who fails to win a second term, from thinking they too can claim the election was stolen from them and seek to overturn the results as Trump has done, inciting supporters to attack the democratic process. But it’s looking more and more like republicans aren’t interested in protecting the country from that, so you likely have nothing to be concerned about…
The first time around we were told we can’t convict Trump because he’s a sitting president, and the DOJ has a rule (not a constitutional mandate I’ll note) not to prosecute sitting presidents. Now then, Trump isn’t president any longer, and the same people are telling us that it’s unconstitutional to convict him because he’s not president…
Yesterday we identified the five RINO’S that will be marginalized by the new Patriots Party.
I heard today that Trump is disavowing from that movement.
And here I thought that being a “literal constitutionalist” and respecting the “[F]ramers[’] intent” were the same…
Apples and oranges.
The core reason for convicting a president–i.e. to remove from office one who is unfit to serve–is no longer applicable.
And mere vengeance is not a good and honorable motive.
(Note: If you merely wish to send a message, censure might be appropriate. But you may not consider that to be sufficiently vindictive…)
1 Like
Well that’s pretty funny…
For one you need only read the constitution, for the other you’ve got to read the Framers minds…
Their own liberal lawyers are even calling it unconstitutional, and that should tell you something. It’s nothing more than theatre to pacify low info voters like the crusty here.
1 Like
