” the final text of their resolution to impeach President Donald Trump, charging him with “incitement of insurrection.”
The charge is “incitement of insurrection”. WHY, in the name of all that’s holy, would his lawyers’ defense be “the constitutionality of convicting a former president? That in no way addresses the article of impeachment!!! Lindsey Graham and his sleazy attorneys were trying to set him up.
Anyhow, both issues could be addressed if the attorneys are good.
P Trump walking into the Senate would be like Moses walking to the throne of Ramses. The world would be struck dumb and be transfixed.
And should any hair of his head be harmed, he would be Obi Wan.
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like the defense of unconstitutionality would be a claim that bringing an impeachment charge of any kind (including “incitement of insurrection”) against a former president is not permitted under the Constitution.
But if there is no challenge to the constitutionality of the articles of impeachment, that still doesn’t make evidence of election fraud relevant in this case. On January 8 President Trump said “To demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol: you have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engage in the acts of violence and destruction: you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law: you will pay.” So his defense is that he is innocent of inciting insurrection. He did not want it, although he was in favor of pursuing all legal means to expose the truth. Whether the truth was successfully exposed or not is not relevant to whether or not President Trump incited insurrection. He simply did not.