Squares. Calm. There's a rocket mortgage squares, calm today. All right. The Trump team legal brief again out 78 pages long and they make a pretty, um Robot case against this even being constitutional, But I'll start with this is just the introduction here. During the past four years, Democrat members of the United States House of Representatives have filed at least nine resolutions to impeach Donald J. Trump, the 45th, president of the United States, each containing charges more outlandish than the next you know, one might have been excused for thinking that the Democrats fevered hatred for citizen Trump and their quote Trump Derangement syndrome would have broken by now. Seeing as he is no longer the president. And yet for the second time in just over a year, the United States Senate is preparing to sit as a court of impeachment. But this time over a private citizen Who is a former president. In this country. The Constitution, not a political party and not politicians reigns supreme. But through this latest article of impeachment Now, before the Senate, Democrat politicians seek to carve out a mechanism by which they can silence a political opponent and a minority party. The Senate must summarily reject this brazen Political act. That's the lede paragraph of 78 pages of them going. Just four hard on Democrats for deciding to try and approach an impeachment of a private citizen. Mary. They get into the basic verb each of the Constitution and how an impeachment is the prescription for addressing errors and high crimes and misdemeanors by the president of the United States. They've rest very heavily on that article at one point in this brief saying the president, not a president, we're talking about You know, random conditions of for being a former president. It is for the president of the United States not to be confused with any other person, Which means you must be the current sitting president of the United States for impeachment to even apply to you. And yet you're trying to use this now against a private citizen. This is unconstitutional. Yeah, That's what as we get closer and listen, But we know that the the unconstitutionality of it, they could have a vote on that They could spend time discussing that They could have a vote on that. But they probably most likely won't because Democrats don't want to vote on it because they know how Republicans are going to vote. And there are some Democrats who may cross over and vote with Republicans. And they don't want that visual right. So they don't want that. So they're most likely not going to do that. I don't understand them or the closer we get and the more and more this is laid out and we see how this is going to go. I understand it less and less. They want. They went. We know they went forward with this. Chuck Schumer even said it in order to prevent Donald Trump from ever running from political office again, right? That's why they did this. That's not going to be the outcome of this. That's right, you know, And this is this is again. You know, I often praise from Democrats for how they stick together and how they played the game. Because there are vory they often go on the offense. If they don't go on the defense, they're proactive. They're not reactive, And that's one of my big complaints that the Republicans that they don't act when they have the power. Whereas report whereas Democrats always do but Democrats Achilles heel is the always overplay their hand. Always, you know, for for the for the most part, and this is yet again, so we're going to spend how much time doing this and I don't know. Maybe this is a good thing for Republicans, because while they're doing this, they're not legislating my life away. Well, here's the other thing is like Democrats have not learned their lesson from Trump. Trump spent his whole life is a counterpuncher, and the concept here is, if they're going to keep on kicking him. He's gonna eventually kick back right. And so what they're doing. Right now is murdering him. Murdering that's very true. And they're essentially inviting him to run for office again. Yes, they figured, OK, we're gonna We're gonna obsess over you until you actually run for office again. And how did that go in 2016? They were like, Okay, let that guy be the nominee. He couldn't even win. It's gonna be hilarious when he runs and sure enough, That's what happened. So I again I just as an unforced error. I think this is a big giant political one back to this Trump team legal brief. There's a novel approach here that I haven't heard. At least I haven't seen before, which is that they're going to cite the constitutional provision of the bill of Attainder. Now you may have heard this phrase before. What it means is that Congress is not allowed to punish citizens simply by passing laws designed to hurt them. It's unconstitutional. You can't you can't just punish a random citizen Congress right now can't pass a law making it so that Mary Walter has to pay. 100% tax on all the money she arms because that would be illegal for a variety of reasons, including that it would violate the bill of attainder clause of the United States Constitution. You actually have to be punished in a court of law. If you're going to be punished, you need to be subjected to a trial. And then the sentence. You can't have Congress do it. Now that is really important to this Trump team legal defense because there are going look, this guy is not the president of the United States. He is a private citizen and what you are arguing for not just the impeachment removal from office, which wouldn't really apply to Trump but specifically this idea to bar him from office in the future, which could apply to trumpet the Senate moves to do that that's unconstitutional. They say, because no bill of attainder is permitted of to be passed, according to the United States Constitution that the separation of powers in trusts such punishments to the court system. Not to the Congress when it comes to a private citizen. Seems like a big deal is the first time I've seen anybody really raised it. The Trump team goes out of its way to make a point of saying This is not a constitutional act to punish her private citizen this way. You know, this is gonna be very interesting because I wanted If this we keep being told that this is not a this is not a legal process. This is a political process. So does the Constitution matter? Does Bill of attainder even mattered as any of the fact that he's not a president that he's not sitting president on this old purpose of impeachment to remove someone from office? He's already been removed from office. All of that stuff. I wonder if any of that matters, though. If this is Political process, not a legal process. Two years while your rights stripped away because it's not a legal process, right? Well, I mean, obviously, these arguments were meant to keep the Republicans on their side there, although avoid a conviction at the end of this should the 17 Republicans hang with them, But you know, 11 final thing before before we head out here. I just want to mention that this idea that Trump incited the riot by using the word fight in his speech, remember, he also said To assemble peacefully and have their voices heard. That, of course, is cited by Trump's legal team, but they write this quote. Democrats cannot pretend that they were confused by the word fight. In the context. President Trump used it in his speech speaker policy has used this word, multiple times herself in the context of election security and the well known nonprofit started by rising Democratic darling safety Abrams. And endorsed by none other than Speaker. Pelosi is literally called quote, fair fight. And it asked people to join the fight for free and fair elections. Pretty funny. Yeah, this is I just don't see how this goes Well for them. It's going to be interesting when we can ask all those questions off. Brian Darling at 75 Byron York at 805. They're gonna be coming up later in the show, so Lot of questions. And so you're gonna not gonna want to miss that, because as we go through this over the next couple of days is going to really help to understand what we're seeing and hearing because it's not gonna make a whole lot of sense. I think to most of us 5 24 on W M A L. Washington's.