I understand why people are saying that Trump got off on a technicality. The idea is to emphasize that most of the Senators who voted to acquit Trump did so even though they thought he was guilty.
To be precise, it was a made-up technicality. The “jurisdictional” problem the Republican Senators found was not one taken seriously by any serious constitutional scholars.
The idea that Trump got off on a technicality is not only false, it’s also a slur on “technicalities” which are procedures put in place in the interests of fairness.
If the police screw up and violate your rights, you may end up going free. If, for example, you are guilty, but the only evidence is that the police beat your confession out of you, you get off because we decided that making sure police don’t beat confessions out of people is more important than jailing every guilty person.
“Getting off on a technicality” usually means you’re guilty but you get off for a reason other than a finding on the facts. Well, one job of a defense lawyer is to check to make sure procedures were followed. Did the police violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights? Were proper procedures followed?
Procedures are in place to regulate police and to create a fair and impartial system.
It’s not a technicality if the jurors and defense lawyer get together to manufacture a reason to avoid convicting a client.
That’s all. Rant over.
Well, of course, Sen. Lindsay Graham wants a bipartisan committee. Nope. It should be a special prosecutor. 9/11 wasn’t launched by Republicans, so bipartisan was appropriate. The attack on the Capitol was planned, launched, and carried out by Trump supporters acting at the direction of Republican leaders.
Graham went on to inadvertently explains why he wants a bipartisan committee:
If Graham were any more transparent we’d call him Lindsey Cellophane.