[Magnatron]

Why can’t he argue voter fraud?

He was charged in the impeachment of "Incitement of Insurrection". The case at hand is whether or not he did that. Arguing election fraud is:

A. Admitting he incited insurrection as a result of his being cheated.

-or-

B. Not pertinent to the fact that he didn't incite insurrection.

Any good lawyer on the other side would argue that it has no relevance to the case, and the biased judge would throw it out as inadmissible.

John Roberts himself recused from this, knowing that it was unconstitutional and a circus. Trump and his team should do the same. As I mentioned, his presence only gives the charade credence and will not change a single vote for or against.

[Jim Noble]

Any good lawyer on the other side would argue that it has no relevance to the case, and the biased judge would throw it out as inadmissible

You are wrong about only one thing: ANY judge would throw it out as inadmissible.

[AnthonySoprano]

image sharing


Look what I found in my files.

[hcmama]

John Roberts himself recused from this, knowing that it was unconstitutional and a circus.

And the Democrats suddenly started talking about wrapping the whole thing up and getting it over with as quickly as possible. They knew this trial was a political loser.

But I guess they didn't count on Trump snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Dr. Franklin]

He was charged in the impeachment of "Incitement of Insurrection". The case at hand is whether or not he did that. Arguing election fraud is: A. Admitting he incited insurrection as a result of his being cheated. -or- B. Not pertinent to the fact that he didn't incite insurrection. Any good lawyer on the other side would argue that it has no relevance to the case, and the biased judge would throw it out as inadmissible. John Roberts himself recused from this, knowing that it was unconstitutional and a circus. Trump and his team should do the same. As I mentioned, his presence only gives the charade credence and will not change a single vote for or against.

Start with:
1) This is a political show,
2) They don't have the votes to convict him, and
3) Even if they did, SCOTUS would declare it invalid since Trump is not recognized as being POTUS.

Since this is all theater, Trump can turn it all into entertainment. He can hire L. Lin Wood as his attorney, and Wood can stand in the well of the U.S. Senate and say that CJ Roberts won't come because he is a pedophile, and they should be impeaching him instead. Wood can talk about all of the election fraud, and make the Dems keep objecting. The Senate can't find anyone to be in contempt of court. That would be a bill of attainder. The worst thing that could happen is that they throw him out of the Senate. Trump would love the headlines. Enjoy the show.