He's also a member of the jury. How can a member of the jury be the judge as well? Well, you'll hear the supporters of a thing. Oh, well when they do it for anybody, but the president. You can have somebody just sit in the chair was not a Supreme Court. Justice is not to teach justice. Even though the Constitution is explicit, it says in the article one Section three when the president of the United States has tried the chief justice shall preside. I mean, that's pretty simple. I mean, you would think that That the fact that the chief justice said Hey, I'm not going to show up call this whole process into constitutional question. I mean, he would show up if he showed up. It would be very hard for. I think the people on my side, arguing it's unconstitutional to win their case because Kind of puts a stamp of approval by showing up, But the fact that he didn't show up shows it isn't unconstitutional. And I just don't understand why you have all these legal experts, you know so called self proclaimed. Cable news, legal experts and all these law professors there, right. These really long legal treatise is saying, Oh, it's okay because because of the fact that you can bar somebody from office for life. And you know what They also say, Which is ridiculous that because Trump isn't president anymore, you don't need the chief justice to preside, which is ridiculous because there's still presuming that you can even try and because he was president, so Reading one section of the Constitution making believe he's president and another one making believe he's not president Just to make it all work out. Even heard the argument that you don't need 67 votes to prevent him from ever holding public office again. You just need 50 plus one if you heard that argument Because he's not president. And now that's separate from impeachment. They would use provisions in the in the Constitution that prevent anybody from whose rebelled against the government from ever holding office again. So we're going to see that come up to after impeachment after the Democrats lose impeachment because for whatever reason, they have this big agenda they want to implement, but they're just tossing it all aside so they can waste this week of the Senate to work on an impeachment they know is gonna fail. Well, they does this tell us, Brian darling that the Democrats are terrified of the prospect of Donald Trump returning is the Republican nominee in 2024. Yeah, I think it shows that they still are worried about that possibility in the fact that he could come back and, you know, do what he did in 2016 and just steamroll all the Republicans and then Walk into a general election where he's going to be empowered. He's gonna be somebody was pushed out of power. And then you know the comeback story of the You can't say the comeback kid because he's really old, But you could say, you know the comeback old guy, but he could be a great comeback story if you were to pull it off, but You know, it's just I think it's more just arrangement and hatred. It's more retribution. It's you know, Democrats feel like they had a rough four years and so now this is their time to get him back, and they're saying we don't care what the Constitution says. We're going to get you back then you from office just because it's gonna make us all feel better on our base is gonna be so happy. So while the outcome is a foregone conclusion, the wrangling and process could be long and drawn out, because if If there are 55 votes for conviction. The Democrats will then say, then he can't run for office ever again. Who would ultimately decide that with his Supreme Court have to insert itself into it at that point? Well, but what they would first they need to get over the hurdle of the 67 votes for conviction. Then they could say you could never run for office. You have a simple majority for that, But we do see that they have a simple majority would have to run a bill. Through Congress that would use the 14th amendment to being him from office, which you know that's gonna be that'll. That process will just you up even more time and it's possible for them to do that. That will obviously go to the Supreme Court and You know who knows that the Supreme Court would saying that what they what they would rule on that. But, you know, I'm of the opinion that if the American people want Donald Trump to run again, and they are going to vote for him, you know they have the right to vote for the guy. I mean, It doesn't mean he clearly people have very strong opinions in favor and against him. When we saw that, in the last election, we had a record turnout. The turnout was a record by far I mean, President Trump had the most votes ever for an incumbent president. And you know people are coming in. But, you know, part of it obviously, was the fact that mail in voting made it very easy. But I think the American people need to make these decisions, not a bunch of justices on the Supreme Court or a bunch of Democrats in Congress ramming their will through especially right with 50 50 majority, There's a pop. Now in an impeachment trial, Brian There is possibility. It's remote because Mitt Romney exists and the Lisa Murkowski and Ben Sasse exist. But if the impeachment vote came down to 50 50, with the vice president be able to cast the tie breaking vote on the issue of Barring him from ever running again. Yes. So this is, you know, obviously theoretical argument to say they get 67 for conviction. And then it comes down to a vote on what the punishment is. And the punishment is paining from office for life. And you have a 50 50 deadlock on that. Um, yes, the vice president, the vice president went conceivably come in and break that tie, even though there's clearly a conflict of interest. It seems ridiculous. And it's something that the Constitution doesn't speak too, because you're supposed to have the chief justice in the chair making these decisions. I mean in the real world. Had vote would fail in the tie vote if it was 50 50, but It's possible the device president comes in, would break that time and off again to the Supreme Court with the justices will yet again make another very controversial decision..