He wasn’t Constitutionally acquitted by the Senate because the SCOTUS Chief Justice did not preside over that farce.
If he wasn’t constitutionally aquitted, because the Chief Justice didn’t preside, was it even a legal trial in the first place?
The Constitution indicates that the Chief Justice will preside over impeachment trials, doesn’t it?
By that logic, the Senate effectively vacated the charges by holding a fake trial.
Did no Supreme Court Justice preside or did the Chief Justice delegate it one of the other Justices?
“He wasn’t Constitutionally acquitted by the Senate because the SCOTUS Chief Justice did not preside over that farce.”
Constitutional or not, since he wasn’t convicted by the Senate, he was de facto acquitted.
Besides, if there was anything unconstitutional about the Senate trial, that argument can only work in Trump’s favor. Innocent until proven guilty.
“He wasn’t Constitutionally acquitted by the Senate because the SCOTUS Chief Justice did not preside over that farce.”
He was acquitted by the Senate and there was no requirement for the chief justice to be involved since Trump was no longer the president during that impeachment.
The Chief Justice is/was not part of Trump’s impeachment proceedings.
I’m reconsidering my response on the necessity of Roberts for the second trial.
He wasn’t President at the time of the trial. I sent a link that explains.
OK, then accepting your argument. That would mean trying him again on it would be double Jeopardy.
And he was constitutionally acquitted by the Senate. Just because they screwed up the trial does not impair Trump’s claim. So for example you find that the district attorney that tried you on a armed robbery charge never even went to law school and has a fraudulent diploma. That would be a reversible error for the person being prosecuted, but it would not give the prosecution the right to conduct a second trial.
Trump was legally acquitted. It’s too bad so sad for the prosecution, but not for the defendant.