How could the Republicans - or Defense team - NOT allow evidence that the Prosecution (a team of ONLY Democrats) that by law must present first to the court? (The only time that would not happen is if the judge wants the Defense to go first, which very rarely happens, and did not happen in the Trump hearings.) The Democrats failed to bring any worthwhile evidence. How could any court convict someone based on that?

You are claiming that the team that presents their case SECOND is not allowing the team who presents their case FIRST to bring their evidence "into the room". Are you too dumb to see the ridiculousness in that?

You just don't know what you're talking about and you obviously think that if you post a lot of posts, people will not notice your cluelessness. You can post a thousand posts, and the truth and facts will still be there to bite you in the A$$ when you spout your gibberish.

Why don’t you tell me , professor,
Just how did trump escape two legal impeachments . With countless hours of investigation. Testimonies, videos ,sworn statements from your republicans,no one else testified , paper trails , texts, countless,
The republicans let him go .
Not for a lack of evidence.
But for their own cowardice.
Afraid to stand up to trump ,
As it continued today .
Most Magas think he’s still running the show.
Up against a mountain of evidence?
How could this happen ?
I am anxiously waiting to hear.

Congress must base its decisions whether to impeach and to remove a president from office on a factual, politically neutral record demonstrating whether the president actually has committed, in the Constitution’s language, "Crimes.”

This plain text tells us that impeachment is not a device by which a disgruntled Congress may negate the voters’ political choice, even if Congress honestly believes a duly elected president’s policies are unsound, reckless or dangerous. Rather, Congress must approach the matter whether a president has committed constitutional “Crimes” as if it were jurors in a courtroom.

Importantly, history shows that the Constitution’s term “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not limited to actual criminal conduct.

Noted scholars Ronald Rotunda and John Nowak explain that the Framers wisely intended the phrase “or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” to include undermining the Constitution and similar, “great offenses against the federal government (like abuse of power) even if they are not necessarily crimes" (like Obama did).

For instance, Alexander Hamilton asserted that, while likely to be criminal acts, impeachable wrongdoings “are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men … from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

James Madison urged that impeachment is appropriate for “loss of capacity, or corruption … [that] might be fatal to the republic.”

And founding Father Benjamin Franklin agreed that impeachment is “the best way … for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” (Democrats didn't prove their evidence in their impeachments against Trump).

Thus, out of respect for the democratic process, a president cannot be impeached to promote Congress’ political agenda. Nor should lawmakers avoid impeachment because of perceived political cost. (Biden should be impeached).

Rather, given its remarkable gravity, a president should be impeached for conduct that – if committed by any president regardless of political or party affiliations – so taints or corrupts the presidency, he or she must be removed to preserve the integrity of American government.

Thus, the standard for impeachment must be politically neutral. Otherwise, impeachment becomes an illegitimate device to overturn elections.