this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
83 points (97.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8296 readers
180 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I especially loved this little bit... "impeachment acquittals are often unrelated to factual innocence", then the panel quoted "there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." Anyone else note an undertone of disdain for acquitting him from both impeachments? ๐
I can't see any court agreeing with their arguments on this. Impeachment is not a legal process, it is a political process. One does not need to have committed a criminal act to be impeached and acquittal in an impeachment hearing does not mean no crime was committed.
Literally says this in the Constitution.
โ Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 paragraph 1 US Constitution.
And this extends from historical basis that in days of yore political power was granted from a liege to a vassal on fief. But there existed the ability for political power to be withdrawn, a person struck from their liege's court, and that would in turn automatically have them lose any title to their fief. That is a loss of political power could also mean a complete loss of your way of life.
The US wanted a clear barrier between political career and personal liberty. This is why Santos is still a free man even though he got kicked out of the House (though that might change soon enough). The two are different processes and they mean different things. Just like if Trump goes to jail but hasn't been disqualified, he's entirely able to run for office.
I am entertained that Trump tried to argue it was double jeopardy because of the impeachment lol