comment: >
  
  It usually is. Why would a prosecutor, who's only job is to find a defendant guilty say yeah, he's legally insane, so we're not gonna win, but we're gonna waste our time during a trial anyway.
context: That is such a bullshit excuse. A defendant proving they are mentally unfit for trial is generally a high bar to pass. Trump is a moron, but he’s not “insane.” They just were too chickenshit to prosecute him. >
  
  "the defendant was impeached twice and not removed by the Senate. Nor was the 25th amendment invoked to remove him. These are a lower bar than this court's" >
  
  On the contrary, there is no bad to overcome in those cases. The courts have a legal definition of insanity. The 25th and impeachment are 100% political processes. Trump could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue and the Senate wouldn’t have to convict if they didn’t feel like it. A court would. >
  
  Defense only use it 1% of the cases and only 26% of them are successful. This reeks of bullshit. >
  
  They solved that problem by letting Trump get away with everything. >
  
  I always assumed that insanity/diminished capacity as a defense was something the defense had to prove, usually even before any trial and based on expert testimony.
  Nor can I see Trump agreeing to an extensive independent psychological evaluation or a defense based on his own insanity or mental incapacity.
  He clearly appears to be a manipulative narcissist and pathological liar, among other issues, but that doesn't mean he is legally insane and unable to understand reality or distinguish right from wrong.