Trump names new lawyers for impeachment defense team

CNN ^ | January 31, 2021 | Jim Acosta, Kaitlan Collins and Pamela Brown

[montag813]

WHY ANYONE? Just declare the trial illegal, illegimiate and a mockery of the Constitution, and ignore it.

[AnthonySoprano]

There are more sources, and the Reports say the Lawyer quit because Trump wanted them to argue Election fraud. Not too hard to figure out that source.

[Jamestown1630]

It seems to me that his ‘defense’ should simply be exhibiting the speech he made before the so-called ‘insurrection’; and challenging the rats to declare exactly what in it constituted ‘insurrection’.

Wouldn’t hurt to contrast it with Maxine Waters’ and Cory Booker’s incitements:

http://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html

http://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-cory-booker-urges-activists-get-face-members-ryan-saavedra

[AnthonySoprano]

[Savage Rider]

One point of friction with his previous team was Trump wanted the attorneys to ... do what the flying F he tells them to.

[Savage Rider]

The only one to bear the consequences if he is wrong is Trump.

[PerConPat]

Yep...And we can bet Trump’s team will raise he[[ and put a rock under it. All the more attention on voter fraud....

[nevergore]

Trump listens to all experts in their respective areas...Then as a good CEO would do, weighs the advice against all issues and decides what’s best.....

His attorneys have a very narrow focus, there are larger considerations than the impeachment trial, he’s already won that even if he didn’t present a defense.....

He’s looking at elections 2022, 2024, his legacy, and all the people that supported him...

Plus, the guy never never never backs down from a fight......

[TheGreatFazool]

What led to Trump being a former president was election fraud.

It should be part of the defense, not the whole defense.

It’s a sham to begin.

I hope the Repubs take the house in 2022 and then start impeaching Biden/Harris; the Repubs should act just like Pelosi. Even use her words and repeat them word-for-word.

[edweena]

I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like the defense of unconstitutionality would be a claim that bringing an impeachment charge of any kind (including “incitement of insurrection”) against a former president is not permitted under the Constitution.

But if there is no challenge to the constitutionality of the articles of impeachment, that still doesn’t make evidence of election fraud relevant in this case. On January 8 President Trump said “To demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol: you have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engage in the acts of violence and destruction: you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law: you will pay.” So his defense is that he is innocent of inciting insurrection. He did not want it, although he was in favor of pursuing all legal means to expose the truth. Whether the truth was successfully exposed or not is not relevant to whether or not President Trump incited insurrection. He simply did not.

[Dr. Franklin]

you convince people by their emotions, not by logic (true alas). Trump is right. They have no case, but hijacking the show trial to get his point across is free publicity by a MSM that refuses to cover the issue.

You are exactly right.

If I were Trump's attorney, my opening statement would be this:
"I represent President Donald J. Trump. President Trump won the 2020 election in a landslide. He is the President of the United States. I must object that the Chief Justice is not presiding over this trial. According to Article I, Sec. 3, paragraph 6 the Chief Justice of the United States must preside. Why is the Chief Justice not present today?"

I'd bait Leahy to try to shut down this argument. I would argue that the events on Jan. 6th were the result of a "mostly peaceful" protest against the most blatant election fraud in U.S. history. I would further note that because of that rampant fraud, several Senators weren't elected legitimately because of vote flipping or rigged primaries to ensure the most radical candidate was nominiated to oppose a sitting senator. This is all political, so I'd through politcal bombs at the senate.

Also note, the problem with the argument that Trump isn't president, is that there are still cases in the courts and SCOTUS arguing that he is. That argument can be made in briefs just to CYA, but the Senate already voted on the issue and there aren't 67 Senators to convict. The attorney has a free pass to grandstand and deliver political attacks on the opposition. It shouldn't be wasted. Trump's lawyers must make the argument for the ages to remember.

[HollyB]

Perhaps for the reasons discussed here. Trump wants to direct the case based on fraud vs the constitutionality and not all lawyers agree with that method.

[BlueStateRightist]

“The goal is prevent them from stripping Trump of the ability to run again. Second choice will do that.”

What if he doesn’t want to run again?

[HollyB]

I think you are correct.

[cymbeline]

“Focusing on the stolen election, though true, will just PO Senators. “

The article of impeachment is that he incited a riot, isn’t it? So I’d have to agree with you since the election is not the issue.

[Mr. Jeeves]

A televised trial in the US Senate will provide the opportunity for Trump to make his case for fraud, and for Democrats and their media enablers to be exposed for stealing the election.

Which is precisely why the Senate has no intention of letting Trump into the chamber. They will label him a "sponsor of domestic terror" or something and say his attorneys can speak on his behalf, but Trump himself will not be allowed to testify in his own defense.

[yldstrk]

Who the hell cares if some slimy senators get pissed off? Go Donald! Do your thing!

[yldstrk]

Entire lot is a bunch of pansies.

[Captainpaintball]

Thank you. the Trump Presidency is not even at room temperature yet, and Linda is already working with Dick Durbin to help the dreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeamers, so I don't know why I am so surprised.

WHY DOES HE KEEP LISTENING TO LINDSEY GRAHAM?!?!?!? This is 75% TRUMP'S FAULT. He is such a fool sometimes. I'm so angry at, and disappointed in him

[Responsibility2nd]

“I feel so dumb reading your post,”

(Blushing)

It’s a very big club around here. Lots of people feel dumb reading my posts.