Rhode Island's Rep. David Cicilline has been getting attention for introducing legislation that would bar former President Donald Trump from holding federal office in the future. Cicilline's statement reads, "Donald Trump very clearly engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 with the intention of overturning the lawful and fair results of the 2020 election. You don’t get to lead a government you tried to destroy."
Of course what Cicilline says Trump "very clearly" did Congress failed to prove during the second impeachment. Hence this end-run. And I would really prefer that my Congressman, who has a law degree from Georgetown U., remember what a bill of attainder is and that the Constitution frowns on them.
2 comments:
Well, it's true you can't fix stupid.
There never was any clear evidence. You can get 40+ house representatives to agree to anything. It would be a nice change to have responsible legislators rather than partisan flunkies who attempt to subvert the election process.
You're correct that it looks like a bill of attainder - a piece of legislation that declares a party is guilty of a crime, which Cicilline should most certainly know. Only the judicial branch is allowed to determine whether or not someone has violated a law and assess an appropriate punishment.
The Democrats are scrambling to try to find some way of stopping Donald Trump. Having an outsider in their midst scared the daylights out of them and they will not tolerate it again. But they might have to.
The gang wars will continue (until morale improves).
You can't fix stupid. You can only wear a raincoat and galoshes so not too much of it gets on you.
Having a second impeachment was meant to make Trump look bad. It may have succeeded to an extent, but it's a pyrrhic victory. It also made congressional leaders look foolish. Well, more so. But it seems they just can't quit.
These things go to the very heart of what the country's legal system is supposed to be. You just can't declare someone guilty without due process and the move on to the sentencing phase. That goes for British soldiers at King Street in 1770 and it definitely goes for Donald Trump. What's especially concerning is the idea that our government considers basic constitutional rights less important than the friend/enemy distinction.
Whether they love him or hate him they don't seem able to live without him. Maybe because of how little they have to contribute themselves.
They're very disappointed in all of us, I'm sure.
Post a Comment