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 Trumps
defense team, for a client they insistently refer to as €œthe 45th
President of the United States€�.

The first line of the brief is directed to €œthe Honorable, the Members
of the Unites States Senate.€� There are probably three errors in that
first line. No need for the first comma, or €œthe€� before Members. €œThe
Honorable Members€� would have been fine. And unless the alternative
Trump legal universe is appealing to the senators of an alternative
Unites States, that €œs€� after €œUnite€� would be error number three.

€œUnites€� is, if not the correct word, at least a word, meaning an
automated spellcheck would not pick it up. But really, did no human cast
their eyes over the first line of a pleading to be submitted for the
former president of the United States in an impeachment trial? And
remarkably, there it is again, on page nine: €œThe Honorable, the Members
of the Unites States Senate.€� So the new legal team apparently does know
how to cut and paste, but it seems no one even looked at the text when
they used that odd locution a second time.

Then theres the matter of length. 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.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/ve-practic...171155382.html

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 04:32:30 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile Australian pest's latest troll**** unread

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

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.

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 10:08:52 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile Australian asshole's latest troll**** unread

Teaching the Yanks again how things REALLY work in the US, you subnormal
senile idiot from Oz? BG

--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"