The senate having tried Donald John trump, the president of the United States upon two articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the house of representatives and two-thirds of the senators present not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein, it is therefore ordered and adjudged by the senate that Donald John trump hereby be acquitted. The first acquittal one year ago for Donald Trump. Second trial starts this week. Let's bring in our legal team, chief analyst Dan Abrams and Kate Shaw from Cardozo law school. You heard senator wicker there. The Republicans sound like they're going to hold firm on not convicting president trump. If he's not convicted, you know president trump will claim vindication, so a lot of people are asking, what's the point? Well, look. I think there are a number of reasons to do this. First of all, the Democrats would say, we don't know the outcome for certain. Number two they would say there's a level of accountability that comes from just making the presentation public, but number three is that the house actually impeached, and you can make a very solid argument that it is now the senate's duty to move forward with a trial sort of whether they like it or not to some degree. I think those three things taken together, but remember it is true that in the end, I think this is going to be as much for the court of public opinion as it is going to be for those senators who are both serving as judge and jury. These arguments, thank you, Dan. Kate, it seems to be safe harbors for the Republicans. Chief justice Roberts isn't presiding and they say it's unconstitutional, and the other is that of course, president trump is no longer in office. That's right. So this timing argument has been made from the beginning of this particular impeachment of president trump. Remember actually George when president trump faced his first impeachment trial. The timing defense was offered then too. And that the voter should be able to decide rather than the senate convicting. It feels like it's the never right time to potentially hold accountable president trump has been made time and time again. With respect to the constitution, it does permit the impeachment of a former official. Impeachment is the most serious constitutional remedy for misconduct. It can't just be that presidential misconduct that happens at the end of a term is not subject to that constitutional sanction. It's also that we have impeached former officials previously, although not former presidents, but the drafters were aware of impeachment of former officials. There was one ongoing at the time the constitution was written. It is quite clear that it is permissible to hold a trial like the one we're going to see this week. And Dan, the president's legal brief goes farther than that. It says the president has a first amendment right to say what he said on January 6th. The first amendment argument here is very frivolous meaning you can make a constitutional argument that the president shouldn't be tried after he leaves office. It's not one that's accepted by most, but it's not a frivolous argument. The notion that somehow he has the first right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants isn't serious, meaning that would suggest that we shouldn't have libel laws, we shouldn't have incitement laws and putting aside the actual statutes for a moment in the context of impeachment. Of course, you can hold against the president what he has said, and even what he didn't say, and what he didn't do. So there are a lot of arguments to be made here, but the first amendment one to me is one of the weakest coming from the trump team. And Kate Shaw, what the president's team is also going to say, and you heard senator wicker echo that, is this wasn't incitement. Was there a trap in the president's team in denying too many of the claims given what everybody saw? You know, potentially. I think that insofar, the argument about what transpired on January 6th, maybe that opens up an opportunity for a reckoning with what happened. A month ago there was a deadly violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, and it's striking how little the public actually knows about exactly what happened in the days leading up to January 6th and what happened on January 6th itself. In particular, we focus on the president's action and inaction in the hours during the siege itself, and the potential withholding of assistance. The continued efforts to delay final counting of votes. I think his team could make that the focus of this trial and there could be an opportunity for public reckoning. Whatever the ultimate vote count turns out to be. Thanks very much.