image sharing
Look what I found in my files.
Posted on 01/31/2021 5:12:46 AM PST by jstolzen
(CNN) Former President Donald Trump's five impeachment defense attorneys have left a little more than a week before his trial is set to begin, according to people familiar with the case, amid a disagreement over his legal strategy.
It was a dramatic development in the second impeachment trial for Trump, who has struggled to find lawyers willing to take his case. And now, with legal briefs due next week and a trial set to begin only days later, Trump is clinging to his election fraud charade and suddenly finds himself without legal representation.
..more at link
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Please watch your language. Thanks.
Why can’t he argue voter fraud?
The charge is inciting insurrection. The judge is the US Senate. The defense is "I didn't do it".
The Senate has the high burden of needing 66 votes to convict. They will have no problem getting 51 votes to ban Trump from holding office in the future.
There are probably 56 votes to convict right now, without hearing any evidence. The GOP has already requested a secret ballot, meaning there are probably 10-20 who would vote to convict if it could be hidden.
So, IF the goal of the defense is to prevent a conviction, they need to win one of three points:
1) Unconstitutional forum
2) No secret ballot
3) Didn't do it.
None of these defenses involves any assertion of election fraud. In fact, election fraud is irrelevant to the charge, UNLESS Trump intended an insurrection.
A defense of election fraud is basically a defense of necessity, that is, "You're damned right I ordered the code red". This defense, of course, is a guilty plea and a guarantee of conviction, and would make most lawyers resign from the case.
I wouldn’t be bothering to pay lawyers for a defense. I’d send a letter stating this action is utterly unconstitutional & has no legal meaning. Period.
How is election fraud if proven a defense to a charge of inciting insurrection?
This is not r/ussenate on reddit.
This is real, and for all the marbles.
Please explain how a defense of election fraud to a charge of inciting insurrection could possibly help Mr. Trump.
No, that would be a guilty plea.
This opened in Edge and I can’t copy and past pertinent info from that browser. This was announced on Saturday - Rudy won’t be there as he was at the rally and a possible witness..and Sekulow and Cipollone will not. Bowers and Barbier are out also.
Announcement to be made in a couple of days of names for the defense per Jason Miller, spokesman for President Trump
He was charged in the impeachment of "Incitement of Insurrection". The case at hand is whether or not he did that. Arguing election fraud is:
A. Admitting he incited insurrection as a result of his being cheated.
-or-
B. Not pertinent to the fact that he didn't incite insurrection.
Any good lawyer on the other side would argue that it has no relevance to the case, and the biased judge would throw it out as inadmissible.
John Roberts himself recused from this, knowing that it was unconstitutional and a circus. Trump and his team should do the same. As I mentioned, his presence only gives the charade credence and will not change a single vote for or against.
Best post of the thread.
If the defense strategy is to go mainly or solely on the election fraud, my guess is there will be more than 4-5 Republican votes to convict.
The Senate Trial is not the place to go big on election fraud. If that happens, I believe President Trump will lose and lose huge.
Flame away, but Trump really is his own worst enemy. As despicable as all the establishment stooges and administrative state subversives are, they never inflicted the damage on Trump that he did on himself.
“”past pertinent”” = paste - sorry!
You are wrong about only one thing: ANY judge would throw it out as inadmissible.
At least Trump isn't on Twitter blasting this idiocy right now. Jack Dorsey actually did him a favor.
1. You are falsely claiming that I incited an insurrection. I didn’t do it, and here’s the evidence ... etc.
2. You are violating my First Amendment right to free speech by prosecuting me for a political speech I made in a public place. (This should be included in the narrative because Trump doesn’t have the legal standing to pursue a separate civil rights lawsuit against Congress.)
3. You are persecuting me because I dared to expose all this fraud and these irregularities in the election process that effectively disenfranchised tens of millions of voters.
I highly doubt President Donald J. Trump is publicly discussing his case, and the burden is on those impeaching. Why would we believe CNN that President Donald J. Trumps’ defense is election fraud?
The impeachers are going to have a helluva time proving insurrection. Period.
You forgot the /s
The establishment cannot allow the subject of election fraud to be given an objective public hearing. They know that is the thing that could cause everything to crash. Politicians won’t touch it, the media won’t touch it, and legal professionals know that if they assist Trump, their careers will be ruined.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.