Donnie's Lawyers Offered NO DEFENSE

[WHITT]

1) Their claim the trial is unconstitutional is exposed as bullshit by Article 1, Section 3: 'The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments'

2) Their claim of a First Amendment defense is MOOT, as Donnie was not charged with a crime, but an impeachable offense. There is no First Amendment defense without being charged with a crime.

3) Their claim that Donnie's incitement of insurrection did not meet the threshold is MOOT, as he was not charged with a crime, but an impeachable offense, not bound by the parameters of the criminal statute.

They repeatedly conflated crimes and criminal statutes with constitutionally impeachable offenses, for which they will be extensively ridiculed by the legal community.

Idiots or liars, neither of which is very attractive.

[struggle4progress]

1. "Sure he got em all together and pointed em all to the bank but

don't blame him for the botched armed robbery"

[Sneederbunk]

2. They did not need to.

[Laelth]

3. Idiots or liars? Hmmm ...

Both descriptors seem to fit the facts.



-Laelth

[70sEraVet]

4. Hoping to hear the names of Graham, Cruz and Lee

When the defense lawyers kept bringing up points comparing the trial to a criminal case, I kept hoping that one of the House managers would point out that in a criminal trial THE JURORS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONFER IN PRIVATE WITH THE DEFENSE LAWYERS!

[Irish_Dem]

5. They didn't have to. They could have stood up and hummed the Star Spangled Banner.

The outcome would be the same.