I have no problem holding people accountable for breaking the law. Unlike Democrats who tend to look the other way or justify the crimes of their own, I'm fine holding conservatives and Republicans to answer for crimes or other wrong doing. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. The current trial of former President Trump in the senate is the wrong way. Here's why:
First, Trump is now a private citizen. The US Senate lost their jurisdiction to try this matter at 121 pm on January 20, when Joe Biden was sworn in. To pursue charges of insurrection (or anything else) against a private citizen, the federal courts are the proper venue, not the US Senate. Now that Trump is out of office, If there is anything to the insurrection charge, then turn it over to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia and let him deal with it. The problem for Democrats is that in the federal courts, it becomes a criminal matter and not a political matter. The rules of procedure and evidence are different, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Could a prosecutor meet that standard? No way of knowing unless and until it is in a courtroom.
Second, imagine being tried by a judge who has pronounced his opinion that you are guilty (before any evidence is heard) and then sits on the jury that is to decide your fate AND is a witness or potential witness at your trial. No US Court would allow such to happen, namely because of a little problem with things called due process and fundamental fairness. Yet, being (literally) judge, jury member and witness is exactly what Democrat and President Pro-tem of the senate Patrick Leahy is doing. Leahy is the presiding officer over the trial AND as a senator, has a vote on conviction or acquittal. The problem here is that Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the US Constitution states:
When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice SHALL preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Notice, it does not say “should preside” or “might preside” or “may preside.” The wording is very clear: “the Chief Justice SHALL preside.” There is no option for anyone else to preside over a presidential trial in the senate, thus Leahy has no authority to preside over a trial of any president or other person. How Chief Justice Roberts was able to get out of carrying out a constitutionally mandated role is something I’ll have to do more reading about.
Third, if the senate can claim jurisdiction to try former president Trump, what about future senates (or even this one) trying other former presidents or judges or cabinet officials? Why can’t Bill Clinton be hauled back in to the senate to be tried for his crimes against women while in office? Or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama be tried for their Benghazi screw up? Or Bush 43 and his lying us into a war? Or someone that the majority party simply does not like?
The precedent being set by this trial is as dangerous as it is unconstitutional and will make tinhorn dictators envious
