The Belknap resignation v. impeachment served as a precedent for several other impeachments, including that of President Richard Nixon. That is why they did not impeach Nixon following his resignation from office. The rational that was made by Congress during the Belknap scandal was that he resigned knowing he was about to be impeached - that “Belknap resigned in order to escape impeachment” - which is why the vote in the HoR was unanimous to impeach him. Secretary of War Belknap presented his letter of resignation to President Grant 1 hour before the vote for impeachment was taken.
This is not the case with President Donald Trump. He has not, and will not resign. He is leaving office at the constitutionally prescribed end of his term. So, the present-day Senate is not presented with the same situation as was faced by those Senators who tried the Belknap impeachment - i.e.: Trump is not “resigning to escape impeachment.”
Furthermore, unlike the Kangaroo proceedings that occurred in the House yesterday, a Senate trial is an actual trial of facts, as occurs in any U.S. civil court.
In that light, the Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) is the precedent that will govern the defense’s argument to exonerate President Trump.
To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)
First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)
By the legal standard, asserted by SCOTUS in Brandenburg, President Trump does not meet any of the criteria. So, Rep. McCarthy, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. Mitt Romney, et al, and his followers, are full of sh*t - in plain English. More pointedly, being that most of them are lawyers, they damn well know Trump is innocent of the charge.
You think logic will deter Democrats?