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 ...
If Trump has no interest in running for office again then his “legal defense” is a moot point. He would just use this event as a platform to make his ultimate point — voter fraud is real and the election was stolen.
You trust an article written by CNN?
My $600 is still MIA
I don’t know, Jim. Their original claim is that he got them all stirred up by telling them a pack of lies. Proving he wasn’t lying is a legitimate defense without making an admission of anything. I think that’s why they abruptly changed their story last week. I still don’t think the story change covers things, and I think Durban trying to rule the question of the legitimacy of his audience’s outrage inadmissible is buying him a big dose of Streisand effect.
I’m pretty sure it has been his campaign committee, at least as of the last report I am aware of from 11/23. It had paid Jones Day a little over $10 million at that point, although I think much of that was from before the election. More often than not, Trump’s campaign committee was the plaintiff rather than Trump himself, such as in the Pennsylvania federal case.
He reportedly raised over $200 million after the election, but reportedly most of that went to his PAC. Certainly not much of that went to litigation.
Make that Leahy.
They come in envelopes that look like junk mail.
Nice area but being over run with people who have swallowed the blue pill
Sorry, but this is not an impeachment trial. Trump is not President and Roberts will not preside over it. There is no legal standing for whatever happens in this Senate hearing.
‘they need to focus on the fraudulent mail in voting scheme by making sure GOP controlled legislation’s in WI, PA, AZ and GA make mass mailing voting illegal...’
trouble is, in PA this mail voting process was in place months before the election, during the primary, and the Republican legislature did nothing about it, other than grumble a bit...and plenty of pubbies mailed in their votes...
What if they gave an impeachment to remove someone from office; and then found out that they were a few weeks late?
already got my $600 check...
Good catch...
The website says no information for me and the FAQ for the website says that means I have to claim for it on my taxes since they screwed up but had a deadline to meet.
And, don't forget, with Leahy in the chair, they only need 66 votes to convict, not 67.
I believe this is incorrect. While sitting as Chairman, the President Pro Tem has cast a vote on guilt or acquittal. It is only when the chair is not a member of the Senate that the chair does not cast a vote.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-69.pdf
SENATE, Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials, 1992, pg. 879
Vote on Articles:The vote required to convict an impeached official is
two-thirds of the Senators present, and in effect a vote of
"present" is a vote against conviction.3535 Oct. 9, 1986, 99-2, Record, p. 29872.
Congressional Record, October 9, 1986, pp. 29851-29950
Page 29870
October 9, 1986IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE HARRY E. CLAIBORNE
Court of Impeachment
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Laxalt).
- - - - - - - - - -
Pg. 29871
Vote on Article IThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair reminds the Senate that each Senator, when his or her name is called, will stand and vote "guilty" or "not guilty."
- - - - - - - - - -
Pp. 29871-29872
Votes on Articles I thru IV shown with Mr. Laxalt voting on each.
You’re assuming a newly-seceded Texas would be welcoming immigrants.
I sure as Hell wouldn’t.
And I also wouldn’t give countenance to purported asylum seekers.
Nor would I permit anyone admitted to become a Citizen in anything less than 3 years; preferably 5.
Non-citizens would be proscribed from holding any government office as well as any office in any municipally-connected or para-government org; PTA, HOA, NextDoor Moderator — NONE of it.
The voting franchise would be reserved to Citizens ONLY and certified by presentation of valid ID.
I’m still mulling whether to further restrict voting to just actual owners of real property...
Stuff the fake concern. The outcome is predetermined and has nothing to do with law as the trial is a sham.
How can it be irrelevant when it’s one of the articles of impeachment?
The Bolsheviks and our steely-spined Republicans are nickel and diming us over OUR $1400 now. Should we drop it to $1000? Raise the cutoff?
WTAF?
Thank goodness they didn’t dither like this about stealing OUR money to pay for foreign abortions or “gender studies” in Pakistan. Apparently, the cost of “gender studies” shoots way up when you add 134 new genders.
I am far more enraged by the republicans. Getting upset at democrats is like being shocked when you pick up a rattlesnake and it bites you. It’s what they do.
But, the minute the grownup leaves the room, the Pierre Delecto party goes right back to its old, weak suck ways.
I need more zofran for this.
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.