I’m not talking about British common law. I’m talking about this part of the US constitution.
Article I
Section 3
Clause 7
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law
every aye I just heard was someone voting against the plain language of the US Constitution.
I saw a headline today on CFP that the Dems want to have ALL the "votes" be in "secret". Piss on ALL of them!
I’m not talking about British common law. I’m talking about this part of the US constitution.
Article I
Section 3 Clause 7 Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-3/clause-7/
He has been removed from office already. The plainly stated condition is met. So, yes, it absolutely is contradictory to the plain text.
There have been people impeached while out of office before. I just looked it up.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/meet-other-american-who-was-impeached-tried-after-leaving-office-n1255516
All of your "examples" are uncited claims. Aka pulling shit out of your ass (might want to pull your head out too)
Quote the part of the constitution that says you can... I'll wait.