This Is NOT An Impeachment

Here is a legal definition of "impeach":

The process of charging a public official, such as the U.S. president or a federal judge, with a crime or misconduct, which results in a trial by the senate to determine whether the official should be removed from office.

Source - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/impeach

Does this include removal from future office? Or is "former president" an actual office? If so, is that the justification for this "trial"? I don't think so, but then I'm not a member of SCOTUS (none of whom for some reason are presiding over Trump's second "trial").

Have you read our constitution lately? Take a look and try to find justification for this "trial" if you can:

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text

The way Trump is being treated looks to me like what a "bill of attainder" does, and that is something the US Constitution forbids. Here is how SCOTUS defined that legal term:

A bill of attainder is 'a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial.'

Source - https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10274.pdf

I would argue this proceeding against Trump is NOT a judicial trial. No justice presides, and according to members of the House and Senate, Trump is not entitled to constitutional protections. Won't this proceeding result in a de facto bill of attainder?

One could argue that Trump is being subjected to the provisions of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

But is he guilty of what that amendment specifies? As far as I can tell, he did not engage in insurrection or rebellion. He did not attempt to "overturn the election" (as is often claimed) or incite anyone else to do so. His claim was that the contested election results of several states had been illegally and/or unconstitutionally achieved and improperly certified. In effect, he was supporting the Constitution of the United States, not engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the same.

But I guess no one is going to believe that now, are they?

Congress is going to do what they're going to do. They know they can get away with just about anything at this point and still have the support of the American people (if you believe what the MSM says).

And since this is not a judicial trial, Trump really cannot appeal. He can try, but what court is going to hear the case?

Hey, I agree that Trump should go. But this is not the way to do it. He's already toast. They should have just let him fade into obscurity. Cancel culture alone would have been sufficient to achieve the desired outcome.

This is persecution. And its end goal appears to be the labelling of all Trump supporters as terrorists, who also can be punished without trial. If that happens, it will be the end of the United States of America.

And ironically, that seems to be exactly what Trump was trying to prevent.