Retirednoguilt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
jimmy wrote
Bod wrote

Over my years as a law professor and practitioner, I have read
thousands of draft pleadings written by law students and junior
lawyers. Their quality varies, but I would be hard-pressed to think of
a more incompetent piece of advocacy than that
produced by Donald Trump’s defense team, for a client they
insistently refer to as “the 45th President of the United States”.
Why do you ignore the fact that the impeachment is unconstitutional and
instead focus on a minor spelling error?

But to your silly point, maybe the author is suffering oxygen
deprivation from wearing a double layer of masks?

If it's unconstitutional, why is the Senate proceeding?

Because its just more political **** and wind.

It is customary to proofread legal documents
and correct spelling errors. If they can't be
bothered to do that simple task, what does
it say about the content of the document?

Nothing useful.

More telling was this:

"The brief is fourteen pages total. It serves as a response to a
dense, 80-page legal brief filed by House impeachment managers
to outline their case against Trump. If this were a boxing match,
it would have been stopped by the top of page two."

Again, Trump has hired the very best people.

Irrelevant, there is no chance of a conviction, you watch.

And that's because an impeachment hearing in the Senate is a political
process, not a judicial process. Whether or not it is constitutional is a
judicial decision that cannot be settled in the Senate. However, all
indications are that SCOTUS appears unwilling to take the case of deciding
whether a former President, impeached while still in office can be
convicted by the Senate after leaving office, even though it clearly is in
their purview given that the defense is predicated on a constitutional
interpretation that can only be provided by SCOTUS.

They arent interested because there is no chance of a conviction.

Strange how SCOTUS intervened in Gore vs. Bush when the constitution
(article 2, section 1) clearly assigns election procedures to the States
and SCOTUS had no standing (per the 10th amendment.) Oh, I forgot,
SCOTUS enabled a Republican candidate to become President. At this time,
a SCOTUS ruling would punish a former Republican President. Seems the
rules change depending upon which party is most likely to benefit from a
SCOTUS ruling.

SCOTUS has always been flagrantly partisan ever since Congress
started stacking it with those of the political persuasion they favoured.