I hate to say it, but the answer to who this works on, it's lawyers.
Technically speaking, I don't think there are any laws that directly criminalize violations of the Constitution. The courts can shut down things that are unconstitutional, but to dole out criminal punishments requires violations of actual laws, not the Constitution itself.
Luckily, there are several criminal laws that should apply here, including fraud, mishandling of classified data, and obstruction of justice, to name a few. Lock him up.
I mean after everything he's done, he's not gonna get the best attorneys out there.
Won't pay his bills, lies to his lawyers, breaks court orders on Twitter, tries to get his attorneys to break the law for him, etc. After Sidney Powell, this shouldn't be a surprise.
One thing that the Chinese Han dynasty had right and that I think that we should bring back is that when people were found to be abject failures to society they would be expected to kill themselves as an apology.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
I wonder how Trumps base would react if a democrat said that violating the constitution was not a criminal act. Specifically if they said it about violating the first or second amendment
I like the but where the lawyer says that a jury in DC wouldn't be diverse enough; I believe they've also filed to have the judge replaced. But I have an idea: let's pursue diversification among trials. We can have Florida case in front of an extremely pro-Trump judge and jury, and we'll have the DC in front of an anti-Trump one.