The Rachel Maddow Show (2008) S2021 E25
nikkimckelvy 1 points 3 years ago. (Contains Spoilers)

Has anyone ever considered the president (no pun intended) that the former president’s arguments are setting? Look at it like this, “After I embezzled the money, the company fired me, so you cannot give me any criminal consequences because I no longer work for the company.” You could even state, “After I killed the man, I no longer worked for his company, so I can’t have any legal repercussions because he was no longer my employer!” This is what criminals all over the world will be arguing, and there isn’t a judge in America who will be able to counteract it because the Senate trial of the former president is the highest court. Can the Supreme Court counteract if the senators decide to acquit?

kdm59 2 points 3 years ago*. (Contains Spoilers)

I think the word you are looking for is “precedent”, so there really isn’t a pun involved. Seems you have no understanding of what the impeachment trial is about. It is not a criminal trial. It is a political one. There is no possibility of jail time. The repercussions, if convicted, is that he would be removed from office. Obviously that has already occurred, so the only purpose of the trial at this point is that, if convicted, a simple majority vote could prevent him from holding office again. So sorry, no criminals would be arguing your assumption, and no trial judge would accept it as a defense. The Supreme Court might get involved on the question of ‘constitutionality’, although I doubt it. But no, the Constitution make no allowance for the Supreme Court to “counteract” if the senators decide to acquit, which seems like a foregone conclusion at this point, since at least 17 republicans would have to join with all of the democrats to convict.