Trump's 3 legal stooges vs Constitutional scholars has predictable results

Nobody else was dumb enough to take the job.

There's a certain amount of truth in that statement.

It doesn't matter who was his defense team or even if they had a case - the "jury" was stacked from day 1.

True. Too bad impeachment trials can't be appealed to the Supreme Court; Trump's team would surely lose there.

No, they can't be appealed. But criminal charges, theoretically, could still be made. There is something called the "Brandenburg Test" which would be difficult to prove. In theory, if that route were taken and it went to the Supreme Court, they might be persuaded to re-visit those standards and render a new standard. Whether or not Trump's team would lose there would depend on how the current court regards stare decisis on this issue as well as how well prosecution made their case.

I'm familiar with the Brandenburg case and do think the prosecution would be able to meet the standards required to pass that test, particularly given the testimony of many of Trump's own supporters who have since been charged. They've all stated they acted under the direction of Trump. I sincerely hope criminal charges are brought against him.

The best shot at criminal charges right now looks like Georgia.

Agree.

Ironic because the impeachment proceeding is unconstitutional because not presided over by SC and the obvious fact that according to the Constitution impeachment is for sitting Presidents?

Here is the relevant text: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. 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.

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."

The chief Justice of the Supreme would preside over the impeachment of a sitting president. It is true that Trump was impeached by the House while he was in office, but now he is out of office. Hence, the Chief Justice need not preside over the trial.

Article 2, section 4 " 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."

So impeachment is not just for presidents.

So what is the status of an ex-president? Looks to be completely excluded. How can someone out of office be "removed from office". They are twisting it like a pretzel for political ends.

The impeachment was voted in the House of Representatives while Trump was still in office. The Senate subsequently voted on the constitutionality of having the trial and voted that it was constitutional. While a bi-partisan majority voted guilty, it was insufficient to satisfy the Constitutional requirement of 2/3 majority.

Another point, yes he is out of office, but the Constitutional provision on impeachment offers a second potential punishment - which now can't take place. If he wants to run again in 2024, he can legally do so.

Interesting. So basically the 2nd impeachment was rushed through without much investigation. I image if he was found "guilty" there would be some legal recourse.... No investigation, submission of false evidence, Supreme Court not presiding, and being out of office even if it began when he was in office.

Just like Trumps side couldn't prove election fraud in the courts by Jan 20..... So what happens if Trump takes 2 years to prove it, or five?

"rushed through without much investigation" is a fair assessment. At the time, Democrats believed the public record was sufficient to make the case. Now, no one ( I know of) really believed that there would be 67 votes to convict. But now all 100 senators are on record on this subject which was an objective the Democrats had for this trial. Democrats achieved what they set out to achieve.

Trump's side had to prove the fraud in the courts by "safe harbor day." That was in December when the states had have their electoral vote certifications done. His own Attorney General said that fraud on that scale didn't happen.

Yep, exactly.

What a wet brain fart.

I am certain you have no idea of a true oath. That is, beyond the pledge of allegiance. Have you ever SWORN to anything? HAVE you ever pledged to protect the Constitution of anything beside your GUT?

If you have, God bless you, and Thank you for your service. If you have not...you have NOT A SINGLE IDEA!

You sound deranged.