One thing that came up loud and fucking clear that was never addressed by either party was the fact that a private citizen can't be impeached. At no point did the Dems explain their reasoning beyond "orange man bad". And the Trump team remained very coy on this issue as well. Trump referred to it as another hoax, but he never specifically pointed out that he was no longer President (as far as I recall. If I missed a statement that debunks this theory, please let me know). I know his lawyers made those statements, but looking back they seemed to be making them in an attempt to goad Dems into making an admission that would snowball everything.
Of course they didn't, still tried the Shampeachment and lost. But why did they still try it? Because they know he's secret President and were trying to use the system to legally remove Trump despite him activating emergency powers. Obviously that failed. Anyway, I just realized that the fake impeachment and further bastardization of our system actually tells us a lot more about what is happening than we realized and it pretty much vindicates the devolution theory. You can't impeach a private citizen and they did anyway... or did they? Most normies assume it didn't matter or that the Dems are just out of control... which they are but I do believe they were operating within the confines of the Constitution. Ethically speaking they are morally bankrupt. And our Impeachment system should prevent partyline peach minting. A 2/3rds majority should be required in both House and Senate, but that's another discussion.
No, their reasoning was he attempted to stop the election certification, that's insurrection and interrupting a peaceful transition of power. It's not invalid for them because if he was removed a few days before the end of his term he could never hold public office again, he couldn't even run a post office in Mississippi.
Again. You're not addressing the fact that he was a private citizen after the 20th. He was no longer President and therefore could not be tried... unless he was.
I understand the narrative that was pushed by MSM. The problem is the reasoning is unsubstantiated. There is nothing in the Constitution or any additional law for that matter, that allows for the proceeding to have continued with the trial while Trump was no longer President. If anything, they needed to restart the process since he did leave office... we all assumed they were just being crazy and further killing our system- which yes, they were, however to their credit, Dems do make it a point to legally screw us meaning they follow the letter of the law while pushing it. They know they can't just go full tyranny without the consent of the people.
But they didn't impeach him after the 20th, it was before that, while he was still President. They didn't continue after he was no longer President, it was all done in 48 hours, the 13th and 14th of January.
I'm not sure how you aren't understanding this?
The trial should have been suspended after he left office. The Impeachment proceeding wasn't over in 48 hours, that's the start of the process. The process ends after a vote in the Senate.
I am grasping your perspective, I am saying that it is reaching very far. You simply cannot impeach a private citizen and according to public record, Trump was a private citizen before the conclusion of Impeachment proceedings. The trial should have been automatically suspended... unless...
No one impeached a private citizen.
Try to keep up here, the resolution passed on 1/13. It went to the Senate right away, but the senate held it and didn't vote on it. They took it up after Trump was out of office, but the case was for something he did before while he was in office.
This would be like if you lived in Maryland and broke into a house, but then you immediately moved. The state of Maryland still hears that case and you will be tried in Maryland no matter where you moved to. If you moved to Texas, Maryland wouldn't suspend the case just because you moved. It works the same in this case law.
If they introduced the impeachment on Jan 21, 2021 then yes, it would be too late and they'd be impeaching a private citizen, but since the case was introduced before that it stands and they have to take it up.
There's no huge conspiracy here, it's just time and how time works.
Do you understand that, or is it too complex?
There is case law supporting impeaching someone even after they leave office if it is filed while they are in office. In 1876, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on articles of impeachment against Secretary of War William Belknap over corruption charges, Belknap walked over to the White House, submitted his resignation letter to President Ulysses S. Grant and quit.
The House still went ahead and impeached Belknap, and the Senate tried him, with the impeachment managers arguing that departing office doesn’t excuse the alleged offense — otherwise, officeholders would simply resign to escape conviction or impeachment.
Source: went to law school and graduated but don't practice law.