Trump’s Legal Team Walks
ABC and CNN are reporting that Trump’s entire legal team walked yesterday leaving him unrepresented in his impeachment trial in the Senate. The reason? It’s probably obvious, but it’s also being reported that Trump is clinging to the “election was rigged” lie to justify inciting insurrection, and the lawyers, led by Lindsey Graham pal Butch Bowers, were having none of it. Their strategy was to argue the constitutionality of the impeachment charge of a former president, but Trump still thinks he can overturn the world by repeating one gigantic lie after another. Without social media to repeat the lie, he’s just another criminal awaiting trial.
You know he hates that, and that’s a good thing.
And Bannon wants to Trump to appear for himself at the Senate trial.
1I was shocked that they initially agreed to represent him.
He doesn’t listen (to their counsel) and doesn’t pay his bills.
What self respecting lawyer would even have an initial consultation with him? Answer – one who owes a favor to Miss Lindsey, but then they come to their senses after the first strategy session.
2Mike @1: for the first and only time, I agree with Bannon. It would be a real hoot to watch Trump try to defend himself in front of the Senate. He just doesn’t do well in audiences that are unlikely to start chanting “Lock her up” for no particular reason.
Unfortunately it’s the Chief Justice who presides over impeachment trials. It’d be a double hoot if Trump had to obey rulings from Kamala Harris instead.
3Ted cruz is available and would do a bang up job representing you know who in the impeachment. After all, he had firsthand knowledge. Might help him sell a few more books, too.
4Roberts has deferred on presiding over this one. Leahy will do it.
I like to think that the real reason trump did this is that he just likes watching Miss Lindsey eat shit.
5The Surly Professor @3,
I’d like to see Trump lose his shit in the impeachment trial. He’d rant that he told the Proud Boys to hang Mike, shoot Nancy, blow up the Capitol and that he won the election. Perhaps more GOP mega donors will run for the fire exits and Republican voters will change their party affiliation. But the GOP half of the Senate will still let him walk. Trump doesn’t need lawyers if he owns the GOP.
6The Surly Professor @3, I think that due to the 50-50 Senate split, that the presiding impeachment person isn’t the CJOSC, but rather the Senate President Pro-Tempore for T’s trial; thought I read some obscure articles about this issue, perhaps it’s changed since.
Steve from Beaverton @4, We have a winner! /s
7detesTed could T some fine lawyerin’, then be on the jury too, yeehaa.
So what’s next? Another delay? Kick the can down the road for another day? “Deny, defer, delay” as the drumpf mantra goes.
8https://twitter.com/i/status/1355585864970063873
Perhaps he can get Alex Jones’ attorney to help him… Alex and Sammy Davis, Jr. are clearly co-conspirators on January 6th.
Snowing in DC today and predicted through Monday. I wonder if they will use the inclement weather excuse to delay the impeachment trial. Regardless I am not confident 17 Rs have the moral and ethical chops to do the right thing.
9Surely there’s a Federal public defender available?
Hahahaha, sometimes I just crack myself up!
10We are watching the ravings of a madman. At his level of extreme malignant psychosis, Treasonous Trump cannot accept defeat as that would be to admit that he’s not the greatest of the great. So he pays the victim and blame game, creating more chaos and harm.
11Another thing in favor of the legal team backing away like a cat that’s stepped in water on the floor…the public (on Twitter) display of two documents: the letter from the attorney for The Lincoln Project to Rudy Giuliani and the order Chris Miller wrote to the DC National Guard specifying what they could and could not do in responding to any problems on January 6. In both cases, more links connecting Trump to the insurrection are made clear–and the footnotes to the letter the Lincoln Project’s lawyer send–make it equally clear that solid evidence backs up the links.
Even if Trump were willing to let the lawyers try to convince Congress the conviction was unConstitutional, the crime is settling firmly on Trump’s shoulders, including the intention to blame the crime part on antifa if it failed to succeed. Lawyers might have thought, at first, that the connections were sufficiently buried (none of them, I suspect, had ever argued before a military court, and they may not have known that Miller’s order to the DC National Guard would become available where the public could read it.
The peculiar status of that organization–that the District of Columbia, not being a state, had its National Guard controlled only by the sitting President–both enabled the extreme danger Trump could inflict, but also assured the ease of dot-connecting once the plot failed. Who touched the chain of command between Trump and the delay of response? Only those Trump had appointed after his defeat in the election. Once orders were given to the National Guard–whose officers take a slightly–but very significantly–different oath of office than officers in the regular services, the chance of effective interference with the plot dropped to zero.
The money side of the insurrection is also trickling out now. The costs given so far (in terms of known donors for transportation, for instance) are still well below the actual costs of such an operation. Half a million? Peanuts. There will be more connections found, and more money spent, including on bribes to local law enforcement here and there to let pass, for instance, that truck full of guns, ammo, and other supplies parked a block of so from the Capitol.
12lex @11 , “We are watching the ravings of a madman.”.
But Democrats keep underestimating and downplaying the sheer insanity and numbers of batshit Rethugs who lap it all up, and inhabit the very same places we do; over seventy millions of them voting, and millions more silently agreeing. It’s not just one effing lunatic, it’s many millions of them, and they’re getting worse every week.
.
13I watched about 75% of MtP and TW this morning, the talking heads keep bringing up the 45 Rethugs voting that the T impeachment trial is “unconstitutional”.
Why the fuck don’t the Democrats file a quick lawsuit about this that would go straight to the Supreme Court? We already know that the point of having an impeachment trial against a former officeholder IS constitutional and was ajudidicated many years ago.
Charles Phillips @10:
14“Robert Hoover will speak on behalf of ex-White House.”
Sandridge, getting confirmation that the impeachment is legal is beside the point. The jerks who have decided to suck up will continue to suck up, laws, morals, and democracy be damned.
15Sandridge @13 Thanks, good points.
The elephant in the room is 80% of MSM is controlled and influenced by Conservative propaganda (white entitlement), they control the message. and have been poisoning our citizens for years. Even my locale news, in a Liberal state in a Liberal town is spewing subtle and obvious political propaganda. I sent them emails and can verify this. We are now seeing the disastrous results, 70 plus million voting for Trump. Arrgh!
Oldie but goodie …
“Republican conservatives have constructed a vast and effective communication system, with think tanks, framing experts, training institutes, a system of trained speakers, vast holdings of media, and booking agents. Eighty percent of the talking heads on TV are conservatives. Talk matters because language heard over and over changes brains. Democrats have not built the communication system they need, and many are relatively clueless about how to frame their deepest values and complex truths.”
16https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-conservatives-really_b_825504
Since the verdict in this “trial” is a foregone conclusion, I think trump wants to be there to bask in his vindication. He probably has plans to address another gathering of supporters as he did on January 6. The Speaker had better have extra security standing by, this time supported by Secretary Austin.
17Clarifying my previous comment…
‘Even my locale news, in a Liberal state in a Liberal town is spewing subtle and obvious CONSERVATIVE political propaganda.’
18Knowing he’d try to serve the Senate a big Baloney Sandwich, I wonder if decorum in the Senate would hold or would some of the ilk of Cruz or Hawley would start a brawl on the floor? I say this in all seriousness – there are some real crazies up there!
19Grandma Ada, this is a good time to remember that the drafting of the Constitution and the censure of Joe McCarthy were both done without teevee.
Or even reporters.
It pains me, as a former reporter, to say it but there are times of profound action when discretion counts for something good.
20Lex @ 18- the most conservative repugnantican spewing local teevee station in my liberal corner of the state and liberal city is a sinclair owned station. We quit watching it months ago when their bull got too thick and stinky. But they all do some to keep those viewers and advertisers.
21Lawyers say that the man who represents himself at trial has a fool for a client, or at least so I’ve heard. If Combover Quisling represents himself, we’ll witness firsthand the truth of that claim.
22lex @16 & 18:
23Thanks for the HuffPpo link.
Lakoff nailed it the best IMHO.
Don’t Think of An Elephant should be required reading.
Steve from Beaverton @21 Thanks, good to know! Mine are Hearst Broadcasting and a Fox affiliate, both are predominantly conservative spewing and rarely say anything Liberal positive.
P.P. @23 Thanks!
24and…
George Lakoff, framing the debate…
‘Language always comes with what is called “framing.” Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like “revolt,” that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That’s a frame.’
https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
My understanding is that the Chief Justice Roberts would only preside for a trial of the president. Biden is the president and he is not on trial.
25Sandridge @13: The Supremes would probably decline to hear any case about the constitutionality of impeachment after a President’s term ends… unless Orly Taitz finds a cooperative federal judge:
I expect the case will be thrown out based on ripeness and political question principles – but this depends on the assigned judge following established legal principles.
More interesting is the question of what happens if Trump actually presents his “of course I did it” defense – and that admission against interest forms the basis of an indictment. As Trump is no longer President, he lost the “we can’t indict the President” excuse… and he can’t pardon himself any more. (I wouldn’t put it past him to pull out a backdated pardon, though, even if the Sharpie(r) ink was still damp.)
26The reason the Democrats must not fall for Kaine’s censure-is-enough ploy is that that would be appealed to the courts sgould trump decide to run, and who knows what happens then?
27During the last ‘trial’ for Donnie each side was allotted 24 hours. If he yaps a full 24 hours or longer ‘defending’ himself, maybe those necessary 17 votes will materialize to convict him. Albeit those votes should already be “there” if not for the failure of certain people to perform their sworn duty. Again.
28If you know who actually “testifies”, perhaps his lawyers will use the insanity defense in their closing arguments. Don’t think many could disagree except maybe cruze and the like. Not sure if that works in conspiracy and direct incitement of insurrection and treason. I could buy into that defense though. That could make a 2024 run difficult.
29We now have an announcement of two NEW attorneys … David Schoen and Bruce L. Castor, Jr. Except that one of them apparently has been working with Trump & other advisors? CNN reported:
“Schoen has already been working with the 45th President and other advisors to prepare for the upcoming trial, and both Schoen and Castor agree that this impeachment is unconstitutional – a fact 45 Senators voted in agreement with last week,” the release said.
“It is an honor to represent the 45th President, Donald J. Trump, and the United States Constitution,” Schoen said in a statement.
Castor added, “I consider it a privilege to represent the 45th President. The strength of our Constitution is about to be tested like never before in our history. It is strong and resilient. A document written for the ages, and it will triumph over partisanship yet again, and always.”
The limited extent of Supreme Court opinion on impeachments makes it pretty clear — Nixon v. United States [Nixon the judge, not the resigned President] concluded the Senate is in charge, and rules they set are fine.
So, if a majority sets rules which say the Senate DOES have the right to try, the Supreme Court could very well agree (or at least refuse to assert an alternative position or refuse to accept the case).
Going to be interesting to see the argument. I have a hard time imagining how a plausible reading of the text, a clear statement of a Founder’s attitude, a practical argument about timing, prior examples of impeachment trials being held AFTER resignation, AND a majority opinion of the current Senate will be overcome by the former President’s advocates.
30In the investigation of who/what was involved in the January 6 insurrection, I hope the Dems will call Billy Barr to testify. I’ll bet he knows lots and lots about it.
31Hannah @31, indeed. Billy Blob Barr’s rapid last minute departure was nearly as complete a “confession” as an average tweet by Donnie. However, bets on his two responses to any and all questions? We’re thinking “that’s privileged” and “I was not privy to that conversation.” He’s too slippery to use anything as mundane as “I don’t recall.”
32john in denver @ 30
Not only is there the precedent of Belknap for the impeachment of someone out of office, the Americans borrowed the concept of impeachment from Parliament, and the most famous impeachment since Strafford was begun while the drafters were at work, and George Mason even referred to it.
That was Hastings, and he had been out of office for years. (Setting aside the anomalous complication that he had never held a crown office.)
33Larry@20: Just a little nitpick: I WATCHED the McCarthy Senate hearings as they happened, on TV.
There weren’t many TVs around at the time, but my father was a wizard electronic technician for the Navy at the time at NAS JAX and allowed me to stay home from school and watch.
An appalling experience for a young smart atheist political junkie.
I now live a half block from Bill Mandel’s daughter…
Ain’t life weird?
34Go to youtube and search for “McCarthy hearings on TV”
35You watched the Army-McCarthy hearings. I did not as nobody where I lived had enough money for teevee.
Later that year, a 6-senator committee met behind closed doors to consider Senator Flanders’s motion to censure. If that motion had been considered in public there is little doubt that it would not have reached the necessary two-thirds. But the 6 were able to craft a report that got the support of 22 of the 44 Republican senators (plus all the Democrats).
The Army-McCarthy hearings hurt McCarthy’s reputation but it was the censure that prevented him from continuing his destructive investigations.
36