lost-carcosa:jumpingjacktrash:agingwunderkind:lateralfire:girliegirltm:That’s not actually what that

lost-carcosa:jumpingjacktrash:agingwunderkind:lateralfire:girliegirltm:That’s not actually what that passage says.“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”It doesn’t mean that if the President is impeached, the VP is removed too. It means that the President, Vice President, and all civil officers CAN BE impeached. Separately.reblogging for the fact checkit’s not a guarantee, it’s a goalLeaving pence in charge would not be a good thing.Not a Lawyer but, from Mueller’s investigation, we know Pence has, more than once, lied about what he did and what he knew regarding the Trump campaign and its communications&ties to the Putin regime, and to cover for Jeff Sessions’s involvement in all of this. That makes him an accessory to whatever crimes have been committed, which is, itself, grounds for impeachment. Same applies to Paul Ryan’s false statements on this issue and, arguably[1], his protection of Devin Nunes’ attempts to derail the Mueller investigation. And the pressuring of Congressional Republicans he’s done to prevent any oversight of the admin which is, itself, a separate act of obstruction of justice(and remember, Mueller’s investigation is into whether Donald obstructed justice in the firing of James Comey, which is an impeachable offense all on its own, independent of collusion with Russia during the campaign, which is1)a felony violation of campaign finance law and 2)participation in espionage if they asked for[Trump did this on video in front of a rally of supporters], received, used, or benefited from[their shift in ad buys after the theft], the theft of emails from the DNC, which are each ANOTHER, separate, impeachable offense all on their own.Notes under the cut.[1]Arguable because Congress members are “privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses … and for any speech or debate in either House” HOWEVER:This comes with the important proviso “in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace” and Obstruction of Justice(and Abuse of Office which is implicit in using their office to obstruct justice) is a felony, and choosing to aid and abet espionage against the United States could also count as treason, depending on how you interpret the clauses on that.This has typically been interpreted as a ban on bringing criminal charges against Congresscritters for “legislative acts”, but you’ll notice the only thing they are “privileged” from in that clause is arrest: it says nothing about investigations, charges, or convictions.It says they cannot be arrested for “speech or debate”, but it says nothing about uses of their office and authority –such as quashing oversight or launching counter investigations which behave, effectively, as a way to hamper, discredit, and gather information on criminal investigations into fellow party members(itself a crime since protecting fellow partisans from investigation and justice is not a valid use of those official powers. And, while the office of speaker is mentioned in the Const, it’s powers aren’t defined there so it’s questionable if they fall under this privilege anyway) and violate confidentiality laws to do it– that are NOT “speech or debate”. Or, for that matter though it’s less important in this context, supporting, writing, and passing laws that are blatantly Unconstitutional(as in, they facially violate the Civil Rights statues, or are examples of prohibited legislative activity, like after-the-fact[ex post facto] laws or bills of attainder).So the Constitution is silent on the punishability of acts of office, and  specifically defines certain legislative crimes(like ex post facto law, civil rights violations, and bills of attainder[laws which discriminate against a specific class of people, usually involving expropriation of property or livelihood) and, in the debates surrounding the Constitution, the framers talked directly of officials being prosecuted AFTER being impeached for improper legislative/judicial/executive behavior, an intent written directly INTO the constitution in the impeachment clause[2]. All of this makes the idea that this clause protects Congressionals from prosecution for illegal uses of office, illegal acts while in office, and unconstitutional legislation, while currently conventional, highly dubious.[2]The Text: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.” Congress can kick you out of office, and bar you from ever holding office again(and, arguably, recover any proceeds of your impeachable acts, given the mention of “profit”, but that’s probably reading it too far). Another thing to note: you’ll regularly see arguments made that the president or congressionals can’t legally be investigated, charged, and convicted until they are impeached but if you think about that for 3 seconds it doesn’t make any sense. Criminal behavior TRIGGERS impeachment, and criminal behavior is only proved by investigation, trial and conviction; how, then, can impeachment precede investigation, trial, and conviction? This is made obvs by the disingenuous goalpost shifting those who make these arguments engage in; first they’ll say “investigation can’t happen without impeachment”, then “impeachment can’t happen without proven criminality”. The clear intent is to prevent accountability and the proper operation of justice, and that obvs bad-faith renders such arguments easy to dismiss out-of-hand.[PS]Dang, I didn’t mean for this to get so long -- source link

More pics about