The constitution does not say that an impeachment can be held only to prevent a person from ever holding a US office. There is no place at which it says an impeachment can always be a substitute for, or in addition to, a criminal trial by jury.
Right. They have to convict first for removal from office.
This is why I’m wondering why they are proceeding. I don’t think this is actually legal is it? Then again it hasn’t stopped the pedocrats from not observing the constitution before. The last time they didn’t was November 6 if memory recalls properly.
The constitution never anticipated that a private citizen could be subjected to a political trial for a high crime or misdemeanor that occurred prior to returning to private life.
If he committed a high crime or misdemeanor he would now be entitled under the constitution to a trial by a jury of his peers.
If DOJ doesn’t charge him, then there is no constitutional prerogative to try him in the Senate. The libs always cry “standing” or “jurisdiction” to prevent private citizens from brining cases against the government to court. In this case the government wants to bring a private citizen to their kangaroo court,
Trump should immediately sue the Senate if they bring this up next week.
He will have standing This time.