By Duncan Smith
In December 2019, as the COVID-19 virus was creeping towards the United States, Democrats were ramping up a BS impeachment trial of then-President Donald Trump.
At the time, former Whitewater independent counsel Ken Starr, who was, in part, responsible for President Bill Clinton’s legitimate impeachment, said the case against Trump would be the “most partisan” effort in U.S. history.
He was wrong; the current impeachment garbage is the most partisan.
To infer that Trump ‘incited insurrection’ at the U.S. Capitol Building last month is pure tinfoil hat-wearing fantasy.
To try private citizen Trump after he’s already left office, according to Starr, is simply beyond the boundaries of absurdity.
The Epoch Times has more:
Former special prosecutor Ken Starr added to a chorus of conservative voices arguing that the Senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to hold an impeachment trial against former President Donald Trump.
Starr, in comments to Fox News on Monday, stated that the upper chamber cannot try a president after leaving office.
'The answer is emphatically not,' Starr said, adding that 'the text of the Constitution to me is absolutely clear that judgment in cases of impeachment' refers to the 'removal and possible disqualification.' He argued that a 'former officer, by definition, cannot be removed.' …
Another argument against the looming trial stipulates that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts should be the presiding officer, who declined to oversee the event. Instead, Democrats in Senate named Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the president pro tempore of the upper chamber, to preside over the trial.
'The Senate is utterly without jurisdiction to try Donald Trump and if they proceed to do so, they will be … running afoul' of the Constitution's bill of attainder to punish someone 'ex-post-facto,' Starr added.
He’s not the only constitutional expert to make such a statement.
Last week Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, a liberal, said as much.
'It will be unconstitutional, but that probably won't bother the senators,' Dershowitz told Fox News. 'The Constitution is very clear. The subject, the object, the purpose of impeachment is to remove a sitting president. And there are two precedents. One is very obvious. When President Nixon resigned in anticipation of being impeached and removed, there was no effort to impeach him after he left office.' Former President Richard Nixon opted to resign instead of facing the possibility of a Senate trial in the early 1970s.
'It was clear that the Senate had lost jurisdiction at that point,' he said of the Nixon impeachment. 'The proponents cite another precedent. In 1876, there was a failed effort, a failed effort to remove the secretary of war. In an initial vote, the Senate voted close, in a close vote, that they did have jurisdiction to try somebody who had resigned.'
On that last point, who cares what powers the one half of the Legislative Branch wanted to assume for itself? The Constitution is the ultimate authority regarding impeachment, and the framers did not provide a provision whereby a private citizen could be ‘impeached,’ which is a political resolution anyway.
But Dershowitz is right about another thing: Democratic senators (and their RINO allies) don’t give a s**t about what the Constitution does and doesn’t allow in this instance.
They simply want Trump permanently banned from ever seeking the presidency again because they are scared to death he would win.
Is Inflation Going to Break the Back of Consumers and our Economy?
Will backed-up supply chains ever catch up to demand?
You have to be prepared for the coming financial reset