Posted on 01/31/2021 11:49:57 AM PST by Kartographer
"If you're Trump this is rather a no brainer," wrote Twitter user Janet Mullins Grisson, in regards to Trump representing himself.
"With Senate Rs aka the jury on the record that impeaching former president is unconstitutional why spend money on lawyers?"
The news of the legal shakeup online has garnered many similar responses, especially with the impeachment trial set to begin the week of February 8.
(Excerpt) Read more at the-sun.com ...
Again, why? Because, no.
Why an arena not of your own choosing? Because Trump is planning a post-acquittal rally.
It didn't happen the first time. Ibid, duh.
This is merely onanism click-bait from The Sun. QED.
I remember W had some major lawyers in the fight for FL. DJT hasn't had anyone with that sort of gravitas.
uh, the “judge” is Leahy. he’d get railroaded, silenced, slimed, slandered, overruled, and potentially drug off the dias. all on national TV.
worst idea ever.
Trump should show up with the picture of Kathy Griffin holding up Trump’s bloody head. Also show some pictures of DC after Trump’s inauguration, some of the comments made by the left that wasn’t censored by social media, Antifa’s destruction of several cities and the comments by their supporters in congress.
And then ask if there are any questions before getting up and leaving. Don’t bring up any hoaxes or fraud. Just stick to this with a simple, “This is what the Democrats and their lemmings in the media did to promote hate against a duly elected President of the United States. It violates my constitutional rights and civil liberties. If you are going to punish me, you must first punish all of them.”
Call me when every one of these morons is disbarred, removed from their jobs and sent to prison for inciting riots. Make sure to throw in some of Hillary Clinton’s statements and Obama’s “if they bring a knife, we bring a gun” comment.
“He who represents himself, has a fool for a lawyer.”
That applies to a criminal trial but this is a political trial. We have a political judge and jury. Not sure it applies. I guess we will see.
He who pays $1000.00 an HOUR has a THIEF for an attorney!
Rudy said he couldn’t rep DJT because Rudy is a witness.
Leaky Leahy is a DISGUSTING EVIL DEMOCRAT....redundant.
Yes. And use that as the reason.
First of all, I agree with you. However, with all the verbiage about this today I am not convinced the plan was to even bring up elections.
But I keep seeing this reason referred to for firing the lawyers and I got to wonder why President Trump thinks this is something he should bring up during an impeachment trial.
On the Sunday political talk shows all day various pundits kept saying it's been "proven" that there was no election fraud.
When? Who proved there was no election fraud? They say it so much it becomes the truth.
Still, this is not a subject to bring up during the impeachment trial as I see it.
Trump is just very frustrated.
They are claiming that a simple majority can determine he is guilty of insurrection, and banned from holding office under the 14th Amendment. I think this is extremely shaky legal grounds, but damaging none the less. The media will proclaim "Trump is ineligible" and enough people will accept it to damage him.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
If we accept the democrat interpretation of the 14th amendment, then any person can be removed from office and prevented from seeking any other office by simple censure for "supporting insurrection". Cruz, Hawley and others could be removed by 50 votes + Kamala for merely speaking up about election fraud.
I agree about bringing Alan on board for this.
I agree. And he has a short fuse. Not a combination to bank on in this situation
A move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction will be made right off the bat.
But he’s gotten the Sunday morning pundits to discuss election fraud, even if they say there’s nothing there.
Going to treat those people like on his TV show ...
His response should simply be:You cannot impeach a former president. Go diddle yourself in the closet.
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.