Well, howdy there internet people, let's bow again. So today we are going to talk about

Trump and the Constitution in his most recent motion in the DC case so to be clear for those keeping track

not the Georgia one not the New York one not the Florida one the DC one and

we're just gonna kind of run through that and talk about what he's

actually probably trying to do with this because I would imagine that anybody who submitted this or has read it so far knows that this is probably not going to go anywhere.

So, Trump has filed for a motion to dismiss based on the idea that he was charged, quote, for acts that lie not just within the outer perimeter, but at the heart of his

official responsibilities as president.

Yeah, I don't think that that's going to go over well.

I don't think that categorizing the alleged conduct in that indictment as the heart of his official

duties, I don't think that that's going to get any traction at all.

Also, he seems to suggest that somebody who was impeached can't be charged afterward.

The impeachment clauses provide that the president may be charged by indictment

only in cases where the president has been impeached and convicted

by trial in the Senate.

I get what's being said here.

It's Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, but they're adding a word that I think is probably really

important.

This is what the Constitution actually says.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further then to removal from office and disqualification

to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or Prophet under the United States.

But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law.

It doesn't indicate that only those convicted. It's saying that even if somebody went through the

...