• Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    It does though. Impeachment, on it’s own, doesn’t bar someone from office, the conviction in the Senate does. Not convicted? Not barred from office.

    If you aren’t convicted then you’re simply accused and all accused have the presumption of innocence.

    In Trump’s case, yeah, I don’t LIKE it either. But let’s focus on convicting him first so there’s absolutely zero question on barring him from office.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      all accused have the presumption of innocence.

      That is true in terms of penalizing someone criminally, but this wouldn’t be a criminal penalization. This would be a qualification issue.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s like saying felons being blocked from voting or owning guns isn’t a penalty, it’s a qualification issue.

        If you’re making the argument that it’s a consequence of criminal action, it very much is a penalty. But people don’t face legal consequences without convictions.

    • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      As I mentioned elsewhere, the amendment was written the way it was to bar ALL members of the Confederacy from elected office after the Civil War ended. They engaged in insurrection so they were disqualified. They weren’t all brought to trial afterwards and convicted of anything.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Forswearing the states and joining the Confederacy was a provable action though.

        You can’t prove Trump engaged in insurrection without a conviction, and, again, “Well, just LOOK at him!” is not a valid legal argument.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      In Trump’s case, yeah, I don’t LIKE it either. But let’s focus on convicting him first so there’s absolutely zero question on barring him from office.

      The right will question it regardless. So how about we make not handing all of the nukes to that traitorous piece of shit our top priority.