• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

5 of Trump Defense Lawyers Quit Impeachment Trial Case.

ElChupacabra said:
If the reasons cited in the article are true, I can't say I blame the lawyers for jumping ship. It would make no sense trying to litigate election fraud claims which have not been substantiated; especially after the dismal results from the 60+ failed legal attempts.
Click to expand...
You mean 60 cases of either political bias or cowardice where judges found specious procedural grounds rather then sit down and hear evidence right?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
You mean 60 cases of either political bias or cowardice where judges found specious procedural grounds rather then sit down and hear evidence right?
Click to expand...
The evidence was heard, deciphered and pitched out for being laughable. Got anything else to add? Your boy was impeached for his bogus charges of election fraud and now he wants his attorneys to use election fraud as his defense. Isn;t that hilarious? I find it knee slapping funny.
 
Just like Giuliani, etc not being able to argue 'fraud' in court, these lawyers cant either. You cant knowingly deceive or lie to the court.

"But Trump and his allies’ public allegations stand in stark contrast to what his lawyers are actually claiming— bound by professional ethics rules—in election-related cases in court. In three separate lawsuits in Pennsylvania and cases in Arizona and Nevada, Trump’s lawyers have jettisoned sweeping claims of fraud, instead focusing on relatively small-bore complaints."​

Here's just PA:

"In a recent Pennsylvania federal case, Giuliani alleged “widespread, nationwide voter fraud” in his opening remarks. But under questioning from the judge, he retreated. “This is not a fraud case,” Giuliani later admitted. In the same case, Trump lawyer Linda Kearns said explicitly that she is “not proceeding” on allegations of fraud.​
​
In a separate state case in Montgomery County, Pa., a judge asked Trump lawyer Jonathan S. Goldstein whether he was alleging fraud. “Your honor, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step,” Goldstein said. “And it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the Board of the [Democratic National Committee] or anybody else involved in this a liar. Everybody is coming to this with good faith.” The judge pressed Goldstein to answer the specific question: “Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?” To which Goldstein replied: “To my knowledge at present, no.”​
​
In yet another state case in Bucks County, Pa., Trump’s attorneys signed a joint stipulation of facts that explicitly admits that they are not alleging fraud, despite the President and his lawyers’ repeated public claims, according to Marc Elias, a lawyer working for Democrats on election-related cases. The stipulation of facts reads in part: “Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots.” The stipulation also says they don’t allege or have evidence of “misconduct” or “impropriety” in connection with the challenged ballots."​


The article covers some of the other states too.

time.com

In Court, Trump's Lawyers Aren't Claiming 'Massive' Fraud

While the President and his lawyers make histrionic claims in public, the campaign's legal filings are narrow in scope
time.com time.com
 
Last edited:
uptower said:
Those Trumpist f***sticks didn't bring any goddamn evidence.
Click to expand...
Didnt you know? It was AAAALLLLL a conspiracy! ALL of those judges, including 13 federal district + 3 SCOTUS appointed by The Donald were all in on it!
 
The Hairy Fiddler said:
Apparently, Trump wanted them to argue that there was massive election fraud and these lawyers wanted to argue that one can't
impeach a former president.

So Trump is smarter than the generals. Smarter than the epidemiologists. And now he's smarter than the lawyers as well.
Click to expand...
Haaaayyyy someone was able to read a little about the story instead of just posting a headline for lolz :D

Yeah, that's a bad move on Trump's part imo. Even if there was massive election fraud, Biden won. It's over. The most they could hope for in court is to prove everything Trump alleges and cause an actual civil war when the public loses faith.
 
The Hairy Fiddler said:
in review...

We have Trump stating every day for weeks before the election that the only way he loses is through election fraud. He gets blown out in a landslide losing by 7 million votes and clamors election fraud. The radical right winged based domestic terrorists listen to this tripe for 63 days post election. Claiming over and over that the election was stolen. 60 plus cases are thrown in the shitter by the courts for lack of any evidence. By this time, the radical right winged domestic terrorists' are frothing at the mouth with Trump's daily inciteful election fraud charges. Then he gives a speech to the radical right winged base domestic terrorists that they must fight to get their country back. Hours later, the Capitol Building is over run by Trump's domestic terrorists resulting in 5 deaths. The House impeaches Trump for the second time this time for inciting a riot through bogus claims of election fraud. And now he wants his lawyers to argue election fraud for his defense? Folks, you just can't make this shit up. Is he not the dumbest person you have ever seen?

If the GOP fails to ball up and convict him, the attorney general is waiting in the wings to convict his ass. Treason may not be treason in the bowels of partisan politics, but treason is still treason when it comes to the rule of law of our justice system. There's a jail cell in waiting for this assclown.
Click to expand...
As his niece said Trump is psychologically ill-equipped to deal with failure. His tiny brain just can't accept the fact that he's the biggest loser you could imagine. This is a deeply damaged, irrationally dangerous individual who is delusional enough to sincerely believe he's still president.
 
Cardinal said:
Let’s be honest though: does he really need lawyers?
Click to expand...
Do they need him? What competent lawyer with even a modicum of self-respect wants to be forever tainted by association with someone so publicly toxic? "I defended the world's once most powerful man and lost".
 
Risky Thicket said:
In addition, it has been reported that he did not pay any advance money to his lawyers.

By definition, lunatics are not rational.

Honestly, who is surprised by Trump's actions?
Click to expand...

Yes but: would it shock any of us if he did this just to save money? HE probably believes he won’t be convicted, and rightly so. He doesn’t care about legacy or institutions, soooo unless he’s in personal danger, meh.

Someone is gonna say words on his behalf at his trial.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Yes but: would it shock any of us if he did this just to save money? HE probably believes he won’t be convicted, and rightly so. He doesn’t care about legacy or institutions, soooo unless he’s in personal danger, meh.

Someone is gonna say words on his behalf at his trial.
Click to expand...
Will some of those words be, 'witch hunt, fraudulent election, radical left and fake news media'?
 
snakestretcher said:
Do they need him? What competent lawyer with even a modicum of self-respect wants to be forever tainted by association with someone so publicly toxic? "I defended the world's once most powerful man and lost".
Click to expand...

Except that Senate Republicans have already made it clear they’re not going to convict him. So I’m confused why he would spend money on lawyers.
 
snakestretcher said:
Do they need him? What competent lawyer with even a modicum of self-respect wants to be forever tainted by association with someone so publicly toxic? "I defended the world's once most powerful man and lost".
Click to expand...

And yet Republicans are so very inept and corrupt they happily embrace the criminal, traitor trump as the face of their party...
 
Hatuey said:
Who stayed?

Where is the Kraken? Lin Wood? Rudy Tribiani? Reaching Middleaged Gungirl? Where all these legal masterminds talking big things before Jan 6th?

These people.

If you are still paying attention to John Solomon and Rudy Tribiani types, you deserve to be taken advantage of.
Click to expand...
Is Orly Taitz still around? Sounds right up her alley.
 
There have been many jokes about lawyers. From them, one could get the impression that lawyers are on the bottom rung of the ladder as far as ethics are concerned.

Mr. Donald Trump's ex-lawyers -- the five that have left his impeachment defense team, have given the lie to that assessment. The bottom rung has been taken over by the Senate Republicans who have decided, a priori, to acquit Mr. Trump of the charge against him.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the prophylactic Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.
 
The Hairy Fiddler said:
Apparently Trump wanted them to argue that there was massive election fraud and these lawyers wanted to argue that one can't
impeach a former president.

So Trump is smarter than the generals. Smarter than the epidemiologists. And now he's smarter than the lawyers as well.
Click to expand...
Smart move on their part. It's not like he'll pay them anyways.
 
The Hairy Fiddler said:
Apparently Trump wanted them to argue that there was massive election fraud and these lawyers wanted to argue that one can't
impeach a former president.

So Trump is smarter than the generals. Smarter than the epidemiologists. And now he's smarter than the lawyers as well.
Click to expand...

I'm just hearing this on the news...laughing my ass off!
 
ElChupacabra said:
If the reasons cited in the article are true, I can't say I blame the lawyers for jumping ship. It would make no sense trying to litigate election fraud claims which have not been substantiated; especially after the dismal results from the 60+ failed legal attempts.
Click to expand...
He needs representation. If I were his lawyer and he wanted to go that route, to keep myself out of legal trouble I'd have to pre-phrase every statement with, "My idiot client beleives..." so that those lies don't land on me.
 
ecofarm said:
If his best defense is "I left office thus you can't impeach me", he's already convicted.
Click to expand...
I love that angle. Months ago Republicans whined, bitched and complained that you could not try a sitting president because he's in office and now they whine, bitch and complain that you cannot try a former president because he's out of office. Such obvious shills just making it all up as they go along.
 
Here's what I found on nolo.com. The last bolded sentence seems to be the only defence - well, other than the sad fact that the Trump lackeys in the Senate have already said reality doesn't matter to them.

Factual Versus Legal Guilt

The key is the difference between factual guilt (what the defendant actually did) and legal guilt (what a prosecutor can prove). A good criminal defense lawyer asks not, “Did my client do it?” but rather, “Can the government prove that my client did it?” No matter what the defendant has done, he is not legally guilty until a prosecutor offers enough evidence to persuade a judge or jury to convict.

However, the defense lawyer may not lie to the judge or jury by specifically stating that the defendant did not do something the lawyer knows the defendant did do. (On the other hand, the lawyer cannot admit guilt against the client's wishes.) Rather, the lawyer’s trial tactics and arguments must focus on the government’s failure to prove all the elements of the crime.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom