HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Trump's new legal team an...

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 07:27 PM

Trump's new legal team announced -- as defense turns from 'stolen election'

Source: Raw Story

Former President Donald Trump's new legal team was announced Sunday after it was revealed the day previously that his entire team quit.

CNN's Jim Acosta tweeted a release from the Trump team announcing the two men who will lead up the effort. The release indicates that they're already turning away from Trump's claims of a "stolen election" defense and returning to the "it's unconstitutional to hold a trial" defense.

"Trial lawyers David Schoen and Bruce L. Castor Jr., will head his impeachment defense legal team, bringing national profiles and significant trial experience in high-profile cases to the effort. Notably, 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.




Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/trumps-new-impeachment-legal-team/

37 replies, 5072 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trump's new legal team announced -- as defense turns from 'stolen election' (Original post)
brooklynite Jan 2021 OP
musette_sf Jan 2021 #1
BumRushDaShow Jan 2021 #9
bucolic_frolic Jan 2021 #23
DeminPennswoods Jan 2021 #24
BumRushDaShow Jan 2021 #26
geralmar Jan 2021 #2
Stallion Jan 2021 #4
AZ8theist Jan 2021 #8
dsc Jan 2021 #25
Ligyron Jan 2021 #12
geralmar Jan 2021 #16
PhylliPretzel Jan 2021 #21
EarlG Jan 2021 #5
Kablooie Jan 2021 #17
Ilsa Jan 2021 #3
AZ8theist Jan 2021 #10
Ilsa Jan 2021 #15
captain queeg Jan 2021 #22
winstars Jan 2021 #6
Evolve Dammit Jan 2021 #7
Gothmog Jan 2021 #11
Turbineguy Jan 2021 #13
DallasNE Jan 2021 #14
Kablooie Jan 2021 #19
cstanleytech Feb 2021 #33
doc03 Jan 2021 #18
Kablooie Jan 2021 #20
dlk Jan 2021 #28
mdbl Feb 2021 #36
louis-t Jan 2021 #27
Acornsouth Jan 2021 #29
Acornsouth Jan 2021 #30
tclambert Jan 2021 #31
mdbl Feb 2021 #37
cstanleytech Feb 2021 #32
tavernier Feb 2021 #34
rocktivity Feb 2021 #35

Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 07:32 PM

1. with two f'n winners who specialize in pervs and creeps

Schoen:
https://atlantajewishtimes.timesofisrael.com/jeffrey-epstein-consulted-atlanta-attorney-days-before-death/

Castor:
When his term as district attorney expired in January 2008, Castor took a position at the litigation firm of Elliott, Greenleaf & Siedzikowski in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania as a shareholder and director. One of his notable clients was professional basketball player Marko Jaric of the Memphis Grizzlies, who was accused of sexual assault in Philadelphia. Jaric was not charged in the case. In 2009, Castor represented Mark Sargent, who was investigated (but not charged) for patronizing a brothel while he served as dean of the Villanova University School of Law. In 2010, Castor represented his former boss, attorney Michael D. Marino, whose nephew accidentally shot and killed a man while hunting. Marino, a former Montgomery County D.A., was present when the shooting occurred, despite knowing that his nephew was prohibited from owning and using firearms, owing to a felony conviction. Marino was not charged in the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musette_sf (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 08:40 PM

9. Holy Shit!

Bruce Castor? He was a biggy here in Philly metro. Former D.A. & County Commissioner in Montgomery County, PA.

Former Montco DA to Lead Trump's Defense Team in Impeachment Trial

By The Associated Press and David Chang • Published 48 mins ago • Updated 35 mins ago



Former Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr., will lead former President Donald Trump’s legal defense team in his upcoming impeachment trial. A spokesperson for Trump announced Sunday that Castor along with David Schoen will head the team. “I consider it a privilege to represent the 45th President,” Castor wrote. “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.”

Castor served as the District Attorney in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, from 2000 to 2008. He was also elected twice as the Commissioner of Montgomery County and served as Solicitor General and acting Attorney General of Pennsylvania as well.

Castor also gained notoriety during the sex assault trial for Bill Cosby. Castor declined to arrest Cosby in 2005 after a lawsuit was filed against him by Andrea Constand.

The news comes a day after it was announced that South Carolina lawyers Butch Bowers and Deborah Darbier would no longer be part of Trump’s defense team. One of the people described the parting as a “mutual decision” that reflected a difference of opinion on the direction of the case. Both insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/former-montco-da-to-lead-trumps-defense-team-in-impeachment-trial/2685601/


He used to serve with Tweety's brother Jim Matthews who was the other GOP Commissioner in Montgomery County at the time (for a 2(R) - 1(D) majority that has since been broken).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 10:02 PM

23. When they removed the former State AG, whatever her name was

it seemed like all the judges or appointment of judges went through Montgomery County. WTF was that about? Montco hits way above its weight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 10:18 PM

24. IIRC, MontCo is the 4th largest by population county

in PA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 10:29 PM

26. Only thing I could think of as a possible reason is

that Montco is the 3rd largest county in the state by population behind Philly and Allegheny County (with Pittsburgh). But yeah, there have been a bunch of high-powered elected officials to come out of there. I know there was an "election track" for those aiming for either Governor or some federal office, who would run for a County D.A. position and would naturally "be in the news" all the time, so they had plenty of "face time" prior to election time. Arlen Specter, Ed Rendell, Castor, Patrick Meehan, etc.

Now Montco is majority-Democrat for Commissioners with the lone Republican being a young loon (Joe Gale) who seems to (thankfully) have disappeared out of the news lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)


Response to geralmar (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 07:49 PM

4. The Supreme Court Plays No Part in Impeachment

...other than the Chief Justice presiding which has been waived

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution provides:

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 2 provides:

[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 provides:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 08:38 PM

8. I think geralmar was referring to the question of impeachment of an "EX" president...

That's a question that has never been litigated to my knowledge.

You are 100% correct, however, that the SC plays NO ROLE in impeachment itself.

All Doturds team has is arguing the constitutionality of impeaching an official who is no longer in office. It's a weak argument, but it's all they got at this point...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ8theist (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 10:24 PM

25. and it won't be litigated now since it wasn't an ex President who was impeached

it was a current President. And the Constitution is crystal clear about which trials the Senate are to conduct, it is all. Thus not only is it permissible to try former President Trump, it is required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 08:43 PM

12. Yea or nay, here's the part that really confuses me:

"... but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

What if he's not convicted, because most likely he wont? Does that mean he can't be charged with associated crimes as a regular citizen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #4)


Response to geralmar (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 09:56 PM

21. Not in the Constitution

The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right or duty to declare what is constitutional and what is not. That is a power taken by the Supreme Court itself in 1803 in the Marbury v Madison case. Jefferson was apoplectic at the idea.
The Constitution states in Article III: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
There is nothing there about judicial review. The Congress could write in their legislation that the Supreme Court may not review this legislation. We don't need 9 unelected potentates decreeing such absurdities as money is speech and corporations are people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geralmar (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 07:58 PM

5. Plus, 55 senators voted that it IS Constitutional

So I don’t know why his lawyers think anyone should give a crap that 45 senators said it isn’t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 09:23 PM

17. Because it gives cover for Republicans to not impeach.

Republicans will say they didn't vote against impeaching Trump, they voted against the constitutionality of the impeachment out of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 07:43 PM

3. Did trump fire the other team, or did they quit? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ilsa (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 08:41 PM

10. Unknown at this point...

But my guess is they QUIT because the IMBECILE wanted to argue the election was stolen and his legal team wasn't about to lie like Rudy for him.
Besides, even if the election WAS stolen, it has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the charge of "Incitement to Insurrection".
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ8theist (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 09:05 PM

15. Okay, thanks for letting me know.

I typically stay away from political news on the weekend.

It's strange that there is an announcement about new counsel when they won't say whether the others quit or were fed to the crocodiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ilsa (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 09:56 PM

22. Mutual decision "I want paid up front" vs "I'll pay you after the trial"

So we decided mutually I’m not working for free, I can’t pay you now, but in two weeks...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 08:05 PM

6. Schoen is/was ROGER STONE's attorney... And almost Epstein's!!!

https://www.courthousenews.com/roger-stone-asks-d-c-circuit-to-delay-start-of-prison-sentence-due-to-covid-19/

WASHINGTON (CN) — Roger Stone wants the D.C. Circuit to delay his surrender to federal prison, citing coronavirus flare-ups in the federal facility where the longtime and now-convicted ally to President Donald Trump is set to serve out his sentence.

“The Covid-19 pandemic continues to explode and, notwithstanding the current conditions reported at the institution to which Stone is scheduled to report, the dangers from Covid-19 in the prison system are largely unabated and, in fact, appear to be increasing,” attorneys Seth Ginsberg and David I. Schoen said in the emergency motion filed Monday evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 08:37 PM

7. High paid ambulance chasers. Perv defendants. Where's Rudy Colludy? Oh, hair dye day. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 08:42 PM

11. I am amused by this new team

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 08:56 PM

13. It's time for the Sargent Schultz Defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 09:02 PM

14. How Can Impeachment Be Unconstitutional

It is spelled out right in the Constitution. There is case history of someone who resigned but was impeached and convicted following his resignation. Lastly, the Senate has already voted 55-45 on the constitutional question. That is why the case is moving forward. So, how is that not a settled issue? Why would a do over be allowed. It makes no sense. I understand why Trumps lawyers do not want the case decided on the merits because the evidence is so overwhelming. But they are late to the game on the constitutional question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 09:30 PM

19. The reasoning goes...

the constitution says the punishment is removal from office and he can't be removed if he is out of office.

The counter argument is that it also says he can be banned from further public office.

if Trump can't be impeached then any president can avoid being banned from office by quitting before being impeached.
This lets a president nullify a clause of the Constitution which shouldn't be allowed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 1, 2021, 12:07 AM

33. Problem is though he was already impeached and this is simply the trial phase.

Now if the House began the process to impeach him after January 30 then it might be unconstitutional but they began it when he was still in office thus this is completely constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 09:26 PM

18. His last team of lawyers quit because they wanted the defense to be

"it's unconstitutional to hold a trial" instead of "election fraud". Now he hires new lawyers that are going to
use the defense 'it's unconstitutional to hold a trial" rather than "election fraud" like he wanted?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 09:33 PM

20. I read that this is the case.

Trump was probably spooked by the others walking out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 10:40 PM

28. Apparently, the attorneys that withdrew hadn't been paid yet, either...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 1, 2021, 07:21 AM

36. no excuse after fleecing his dumb idiot followers 255 million for the last couple months

he has some money. is he saving it for another golden toilet or perhaps his stupid media network idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 10:32 PM

27. Get a big deposit, sir.

And be advised that drumpf will not listen to a thing you say, cooperate in any way, or accept a guilty decision from the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 10:45 PM

29. Well, there goes a couple of guys reputations.....

right down the crapper.... How do you defend the indefensible?... What lies are they going to have to make up to cover the ass of Donnie?... Will they bring up the non-existence of "Voter Fraud?"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Acornsouth (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 10:46 PM

30. And will they ever get paid?... I would demand payment up front...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 10:53 PM

31. What happened to "It's OK if you're a celebrity" defense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tclambert (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 1, 2021, 07:22 AM

37. That only applies to grabbing women in their private area

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2021, 12:01 AM

32. Its not unconstitutional as this is simply the trial phase of his impeachment which occurred

while he was still President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2021, 12:09 AM

34. They aren't attempting to impeach him because

THEY ALREADY IMPEACHED HIM

Holy cow, how many lawyers does it take to pick up a legal dictionary to find out the definition of impeachment?????

He was impeached while he was in office. Twice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2021, 12:15 AM

35. "This impeachment is unconstitutional - a fact 45 Senators voted in agreement with last week"?

But unless there was five abstentions, that means that 55 senators "voted in agreement" that this impeachment trial WAS constitutional, and 55 is a HIGHER number than 45. ANOTHER Trump attempt to overturn the popular vote? Damn, this all sounds familiar...


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread