Trump impeachment defense: Two attorneys leave team two weeks before trial - CNNPolitics
Category: News & Politics
Via: sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom • 3 years ago • 107 commentsBy: Gloria Borger and Kaitlan Collins (CNN)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
(CNN)With a little more than a week before his impeachment trial is set to begin, President Trump's legal team is in tumult.
Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, who were expected to be two of the lead attorneys, are no longer on the team. A source familiar with the changes said it was a mutual decision for both to leave the legal team. "The Democrats' efforts to impeach a president who has already left office is totally unconstitutional and so bad for our country. In fact, 45 Senators have already voted that it is unconstitutional. We have done much work, but have not made a final decision on our legal team, which will be made shortly," former Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller told CNN. Bowers, a respected lawyer from Columbia, South Carolina, once worked in the Justice Department under President George W. Bush. Barbier, a South Carolina litigator, worked closely on several high-profile cases and was a former federal prosecutor for 15 years in the state before opening up her own boutique criminal defense firm. Read More This is a breaking story and will be updated.
CNN's Kara Scannell, Jeff Zeleny and Manu Raju contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
405 visitors
Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, who were expected to be two of the lead attorneys, are no longer on the team. A source familiar with the changes said it was a mutual decision for both to leave the legal team.
A total of five attorneys have walked away. Rumor is that trump wanted them to focus on election fraud.
I just woke up and saw that three more quit. I would say 'rats, ships, etc.', but I think this particular defense team was the most principled representation he has ever had.
I'm hoping trump ends up representing himself, while it's broadcast live on CSPAN.
Looks like the only lawyer he can get to represent him is his ever loyal Rudy. That is, if he isn't debarred by then and can't legally represent anyone.j But, that doesn't say he can't advise Trump as a 'friend' if the price is right. But, as everyone well knows, Trump never pays his debts, much less lawyers.
Trump has until Tuesday to submit his written argument to support acquittal to the Senate. Time is ticking away for him.
Johnathan Turley is now saying that Trump shouldn't even send anyone to the Senate to defend him. Turley thinks that somehow that will show that the trial is 'extraconstitutional'. Turley posted a circular argument to support his bullshit. I guess that explains why Turley didn't step up to defend Trump after his lawyers bailed.
I wonder what happened to John Dowd. Dowd made bank on his connections to Trump for pardon purposes so he kinda owes Trump his cut...
Johnathan Turley...
I'd better check the storage on my DVR.
They realized that defending Trump would be a death knell for their careers.
I still think they should make this a pay-per-view....they could pay off the national debt. Or at least come close.
Whatever they charged, I'd pony up. I only demand some good close-up shots, so I can watch his spray tan melting like Rudy's hair dye.
Given his YUGE Ego, I think he'd like to. But he can't speak without inserting a lie every few minutes.
Which seem to work at campaign rallies with his cultish followers.
But if he testified in Congress he's be under oath-- and in that situation lying would have serious consequences!!!
(So it seems certain that his lawyers would do their best to keep him from appearing)
Debarred-- or behind bars?
I've got a high definition TV...oh what fun!
Me, too.
Some popcorn, some beer, the dog cuddled up on my lap - I could settle in for hours of entertainment.
I would have 3 cats vying for the sweet spot.
The dog is scrappy about who gets Mommy's attention. There have been times I've had him and both cats on my lap, but he doesn't allow it often.
"The Democrats' efforts to impeach a president who has already left office is totally unconstitutional and so bad for our country. In fact, 45 Senators have already voted that it is unconstitutional.
It's not likely that this foolishness will go anywhere
45 gop senators? They're all complicit.
Re-quoting the likes of Jason Miller is foolishness.
As I have stated to you on previous seeds/articles, Trump was impeached on January 13, 2020...while he was still president.
It's almost like Trump can stand up in front of the entire Senate and say "prove I started an insurrection". You will see 50 democrat senators cringe and slowly slide down into their seats.
As of right this moment, I have never seen a leftist on here post EXACTLY what Trump said that started or supported the mostly peaceful "insurrection"
So? He was impeached by hyper partisans because "Orange man bad and we can't get rid of him any other way" The Senate rightfully cleared him.
Same thing will happen now.
True...but there is no Constitutional basis to convict a private citizen.
And the impeachment in the House was invalid. It lacked witnesses, evidence, testimony, etc.
Don't forget facts and truth.
There were no facts or truth in his comment.
[deleted]
What brought you to that ridiculous conclusion? You should go read Johnathan Truley's website.
Really Greg? How so?
First of all, you seem to be under the delusion that an Impeachment in the House is a trial, it isn't.
Secondly you know that EVERY member of the House was present at the Capitol as an eye witness on Jan. 6th right?
You know that they all walked through the Capital just hours AFTER the insurrection and saw the damage for themselves, right?
You know that they debated and voted AT the crime scene, right?
Which is in itself rather interesting given that some believe it was the scene of a "domestic terrorist attack", yet thousands of people were cleared from the building/grounds and congress was back in the building going about their business in about 2 hours. Seems odd given that Congress is still investigating the lapse in security that occurred that day. Will be interesting to read the results of that investigation.
As for the impeachment proceedings, a more or less fair and balanced assessment of that HERE . It would appear that if the Senate does move ahead with the trial and Trump were to be convicted in this case, it would be unprecedented given that he is already out of office and therefore cannot be "removed". So no matter what happens, the result will set a new precedent, thus the reason for such widely varied opinions on this, even among legal experts.
It will certainly be interesting to see how this turns out. I couldn’t care less, just so long as we never have to see Trump's mug in Washington ever again.
Additional reading on this subject in this 2015 CRS Report on Impeachment and Removal . Enjoy!
Just ordinary tourists!
Yeah right.... who the hell said that?
I'm inclined to dub thee the master of strawman arguments my friend.... (-:
It's interesting that you didn't choose to quote this from your link:
So according to your link, it seems that the precedent has been set. Of course, they tried that again this time too and Rand Paul's motion was voted down. Trump's counsel will undoubtedly make the same objection, 'precedent' be damned.
Actually, you did and replied to it...
I did? When was this, Dulay?
Last month. Review your comment about 'dog whistles'.
"Presumably", as clearly indicated in the quote you cited. Trump did not resign, presumably to avoid impeachment. His term simply ended. And if the Senate does find the Belknap case did set a precedent for Trump's case then that is fine with me. Again, as I said, I couldn’t care less, just so long as we never have to see Trump's mug in Washington ever again.
So I'm not quite sure why it is so interesting to you that I did not quote that specific sentence of the article. Can you elaborate?
Sure. You stated that it was unprecedented and your link states there is precedent.
What I want is some kind of censure that keeps him from holding any public office again.
No I did not, and no it does not.
I said. "... the result will set a new precedent, thus the reason for such widely varied opinions on this, even among legal experts." The article to which I linked said that the Belknap case "presumably sets a precedent" in Trump's case but goes on to explain that the verdict among experts on that are all over the map. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Indeed the very next paragraph after the quote you lifted says:
So if we want to split hairs, other cases indicate an opposite precedent than what the Belknap case "presumably" set. If past examples rendered opposite results then technically neither has set a precedent.
I also pointed out that while Belknap resigned to avoid impeachment, Trump did not, so that is one factor that makes Trump's case a new development which will set its own precedent. The same holds true of the other examples they gave where resignations were the reason for the person no longer holding the office. In Trump's case there was no resignation, which is all I was inferring when I said his case will set a new precedent for the conditions of his specific case.
Is that clear enough?
Indeed. I don't blame you and in fact I agree.
Effort to Impeach him?
Its no longer an "effort"-- they've already successfully Impeached him!
After being Impeached by The House, the next step is to be tried in The Senate.
(BTW, you can easily familiarize yourself with the Constitution-- in fact, I believe there's some organization that will send you a pocket sized booklet with The entire Constitution. And I believe its free?)
I believe that the text of the Constitution may also be found online.
Also, commentary.
I'm just guessing, of course...
From YOUR 1.2.11 post:
Yes you did.
Again, from YOUR link:
Yes it does.
I'd rather just state facts, which is what I did above.
Incitement to Riot? What Trump Told Supporters Before Mob Stormed Capitol
Here is a closer look at what the president said at a rally of his supporters, which is a central focus of the impeachment case being prepared against him.
Credit.. Pete Marovich for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The speech that President Trump delivered to his supporters just before they attacked the Capitol last week is a central focus as House Democrats prepare an article of impeachment against him for inciting the deadly riot .
Mr. Trump had urged supporters to come to Washington for a “Save America March” on Wednesday, when Congress would ceremonially count President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s win, telling them to “ be there, will be wild! ” At a rally just before the violence, he repeated many of his falsehoods about how the election was stolen, then dispatched the marchers to the Capitol as those proceedings were about to start.
Here are some notable excerpts from Mr. Trump’s remarks, with analysis.
Trump urged his supporters to ‘fight much harder’ against ‘bad people’ and ‘show strength’ at the Capitol.
The president’s speech was riddled with violent imagery and calls to fight harder than before. By contrast, he made only a passing suggestion that the protest should be nonviolent, saying, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
During Mr. Trump’s impeachment last year, one of his defenses was that the primary accusation against him — that he abused his power by withholding aid to Ukraine in an attempt to get its president to announce a corruption investigation into Mr. Biden — was not an ordinary crime, so it did not matter even if it were true. Most legal specialists said that made no difference for impeachment purposes, but in any case that argument would not be a defense here. Several laws clearly make it a crime to incite a riot or otherwise try to get another person to engage in a violent crime against property or people.
Whipping up anger against Republicans who were not going along with his plan for subverting the election, like Vice President Mike Pence, Mr. Trump told the crowd that “different rules” now applied. At the most obvious level, the president was arguing that what he wanted Mr. Pence to do — reject the state-certified Electoral College results — would be legitimate, but the notion of “very different rules” applying carried broader overtones of extraordinary permission as well. (“RINO” is a term of abuse used by highly partisan Republicans against more moderate colleagues they deem to be “Republicans in Name Only.”)
Trump insinuated that Republican officials, including Pence, would endanger themselves by accepting Biden’s win.
Mr. Trump twice told the crowd that Republicans who did not go along with his effort to overturn the election — Mr. Pence as well as senators like Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, who did not join in the performative objections led by Mr. Hawley and Mr. Cruz — were actually the ones being courageous. In context, the president’s implication is that they were putting themselves at risk because it would be safer to go along with what he wanted. During the ensuing riot, the mob chanted “Hang Mike Pence.”
Trump suggested that he wanted his supporters to stop the certification of Biden’s electoral win, not just protest it.
Two months after he lost the election, Mr. Trump repeatedly told his followers that they could still stop Mr. Biden from becoming president if they “fight like hell,” a formulation that suggested they act and change things, not merely raise their voices in protest.
As he dispatched his supporters into what became deadly chaos, Trump falsely told them that he would come, too.
As he sicced his supporters on Congress, Mr. Trump assured them that he would personally accompany them to the Capitol. In fact, as several of his followers and police officers were being injured or dying in the ensuing chaos, the president was watching the violence play out on television from the safety of the White House.
Mostly peaceful? FIVE PEOPLE DIED! So by your definition, Benghazi was mostly peaceful so why all the fuss, right? GTFOH.
OK, so you admit that the former president did not say anything that actually started the riot, and that if most of the left wants to use things like, "go peacefully and patriotically" as a verbiage for a riot, then they have more problems than just being loony.
Yes...mostly peaceful. Only a few hundred out of close to a hundred thousand in attendance to Trump's speech stormed the Capitol.
Now, I am going to as you the same thing I asked of a member the other day, and have never received a response/
Do you condemn ANTIFA and BLM for the months long destruction of businesses, millions of dollars in stolen goods, and yes, the deaths of SEVERAL DOZEN people directly related to this violence.
LOL! OK then - The facts in this matter are these:
1. There is no precedent for the precise conditions of Trumps case, where he is out of office because his term ended and not because he resigned to avoid the Senate trial of an impeachment like all of the other cases that PRESUMABLY set a precedent in the CRS report.
2. The fact is that the article to which I linked made it clear that even in the case of those resignations the CRS found differing results as to whether the case was tried by the Senate or not. It showed that many legal experts disagree on whether a precedent has actually been set and what should therefore happen in this case.
3. So while some might PRESUME that one case or the other looks like a precedent here, the fact remains that no precedent has actually been set precisely because there have been opposite results in previous cases that were only PRESUMED to be similar to Trump's situation in the first place.
Perhaps facts coupled with logic makes more sense?
In any case, it is not up to you or me as to whether this case is tried by the Senate or not, and if so if he is acquitted or convicted as a result of that trial. Only the Senate can decide that. So we can quibble about whether there is precedent for it or not, but it won't make a lick of difference. We should know by Feb 9 when the trial is scheduled to begin, according to THIS article .
He is the " first to be tried after leaving office ". Huh! So this IS unprecedented. Could have sworn somebody mentioned that might be the case before....
Just because there's no precedent, doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for inciting insurrection.
Agreed.
Do you really think that misrepresenting [lying] about what I posted makes a point bugsy?
Why deflect from the facts that I block quoted about YOUR comment and YOUR link?
Perhaps instead of deflecting, admitting that what you stated and what you posted is more adult.
Well, I didn;t but that;s OK. You believe what you want.
Oh but you DID bugsy. It isn't a question of what I believe, it's about what I actually posted. I'll post the link and let those that want to see for themselves if your 1.2.28 comment was a lie or not.
OK. I will indeed admit that what I stated and what I posted is more adult. Thank you for the discussion.
The devolution of your comments is disappointing.
OK, so you prove my post stands.
Which one of those quotes instigated a riot?
I bet you think "peacefully and patriotically" means the exact opposite of what it does.
That's nothing new.
They all are.
OK...where's YOUR proof of instigation.
BTW...I expect silence.
Is there ANY evidence that Trump was, in real time, surprised or disappointed that some of his followers broke into the Capitol Building and committed vandalism and violence?
I have not seen or heard of any. In fact , after much of the damage had been done and he had watched it on tv for hours, Trump made a twitter message to his followers at the Capitol , "Remember this day forever".
One of the things I find amusing about all this is the idea that Trump WANTED his crowd to stay peaceful. What does Trump care if they stayed peaceful or not ? He is a psychologically disturbed malignant narcissist. All he wanted was results , and Pence to cower with fear and do Trump's bidding. Does anyone seriously believe Trump wanted a crowd of tens of thousands of people to go to the Capitol and hold hands and sing protest songs?
Impeaching him with a dramatic trial is completely appropriate. It is not necessarily with the expectation of convicting him, but more one of recording the travesty of Trump's Jan 6th behavior for history.
fueled by a bunch of drama queens.
How ironic
Does anyone seriously believe Trump wanted a crowd of tens of thousands of people to go to the Capitol and hold hands and sing protest songs?
It is pretty dramatic when a mob of right wing domestic terrorists invade the Capitol at the urging of the former occupant of the White House - who said he would go with them - but did not - but turned tail and fled to the White House to watch it unfold on TV - and beat a police officer to death and trample one of their own
I proved that your post was false. Letting it 'stand' merely illustrates a lack of credibility.
Oh and BTFW, you loose that bet. Though I also recognize that wasn't an instruction. Do you?
Well, the sane half of America does, and with the exception of a few hundred idiots, they did.
Well, you didn't. I asked the far left loons on here to post what was actually said by Trump that caused the riot. Now, you dutifully replied as asked, but did not show anything of substance.
You failed again.
They DID?
Oh PLEASE post a link to a video of Jan. 6th that shows them holding hands and singing protest songs. I'll wait.
Oh and BTFW, 'YMCA' doesn't count...
OK, I'll ask you since none of your friends here can answer with any substance.
Post EXACTLY what was said by Trump that actually instigated the riot. Don't use your interpretation or your personal feelings against Trump to say "peacefully and peaceful" was a dog whistle for a riot.
Only those on the left hear these imaginary dog whistles.
Never mind. Obviously context does not matter to you. I understand literal is key in an "I'm an expert in everything" world.
You know that we can all see what you actually said right? Here it is:
You didn't 'ask' anyone for anything. You made a statement which I proved wrong by posting the link to my comment that cites what Trump said that started the insurrection. YOU posted another lie AND failed again.
OK [deleted.] I'll ask again......EXACTLY what did Trump say that started or supported the mostly peaceful "insurrection". You posted a bunch of things he SAID, but none of it is proof that WHAT he said started the riot.
[deleted]
It's time for Trump to bring in Rudy Four Seasons, the last of the last.
Rudy will have to promise not to fart in court and to keep his hands out of his pants.
Other than that, all is well with the Trumpettes.
Sorry, no Rudy. He is a witness and possible accessory.
Impossible!
I really hope he has Rudy defend him!
We want Rudy!
We want Rudy!
We want Rudy!
Rudy is the best of the rest, lol.
Now Schoen & Castor fist page of Trump's defense
Misspelled the United States, the Unites States
CMTSU
Wasn't there a lawsuit where they stated 'under plenty of perjury'?
Well yes, Yes they did, lol.
12/03/2020...
Trump doesn't need a legal team. The spineless duplicitous Republican Senators won't convict Trump, and look what the Republicans are doing to their colleagues who DO have integrity, who DID put the good of the nation ahead of petty party politics, e.g. Cindy McCain, Liz Cheney, Tom Rice, Brad Raffensperger....etc
Yeah....and they are the party that calls itself the party of Justice and Law and Order. Another lie that the GOP shoves down the the throats of people stupid enough to believe them.
And if those same GOPers had any real balls they would vote to protect America from the blatant domestic terrorists threatening our Democracy, including Trump and his armed terrorists and Mafiosos, who gladly sold their souls to the Orange demon for less than a ha'penny just to keep their lying lips on the taxpayers teat.
At the very least!
It's appalling... I don't even know what else to say.
He just lost three more for a total of five that will no longer defend him. The only one left that will defend him is Rudy Four Seasons...LOL you can't make this shit up.
Trump Parts Ways With Five Lawyers Handling Impeachment Defense
He doesn't need lawyers, Kavika. He already has a fixed jury.
If that's not sobering, I don't know what would be.
Maybe what would be is for the Republicans to lose most of their lawmakerss who run in the next midterm elections, but I have little faith in the common sense of the Americans who are still bound to support those gutless cowards, and that little faith was earned by the fact that Trump was able to amass as many votes as he did. America's Covid problem is minimal compared to its stupidity problem.
The stupidity problem is what caused the Covid problem!
Saluting the Heroes of the Coronavirus Pandumbic | The Daily Show
The stupidity problem is what caused the Covid problem!
#DailyShow #Pandumbic #Coronavirus
Pandumbic 2 (The Sequel) | The Daily Show
I have access to hundreds of Daily Shows but unfortunately they're described in Chinese so I can't readily find the ones you posted unless I spend days going through them individually, but I did find one I particularly liked:
.
Every one of those people should be out of a job. All of them. What makes them horrible people is that they mock others with such nasty intent, and they do it to an international audience. And Matt Gaetz is a rather clever multi-tasker. His prop-of-the-day gas mask probably kept others from smelling the alcohol on his breath.
They realized that Trump destroys everything he touches, which would be very detrimental to their careers. Also, he is likely to sue them. And he doesn't pay.
You've heard of the ''Dream Team'', now Trump has assembled the
NIGHTMARE TEAM
RUDY FOUR SEASONS
SIDNEY ''DOMINION'' POWELL
LIN ''FIRING SQUAD'' WOODS
Their motto,
WE'RE NOT ONLY BAD WE'RE FLAT OUT CRAZY.
Ha!!
I bet even Michael Cohen is looking pretty good to Trump at this point.
The Holy Trinity!
And that's no joke. It wouldn't be so globally embarrassing if the client wasn't the former president of the United States.
Spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch... as they say. (-:
What I just read is that they quit because they refused to follow Trump's instructions that they were to continue with his fantasy that the election was stolen from him by massive fraud, and not use the defence of unconstitutional process that they wanted to argue.
What's the phrase? ''He who represents himself has a fool for lawyer.''
More like the Unholy Trinity..or a trifecta
It was just announced that Trump hired two new attorneys today. I bet they got paid upfront and by cashier's check, or they will never get paid. If they didn't, they are fools.
I hope he does stiff them.