- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump Hires Impeachment Lawyer: Butch Bowers. UPDATE IN OP—BOWERS FIRED
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:59 pm to JudgeHolden
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:59 pm to JudgeHolden
Literally zero standing for this 'trial' to take place. 100% extra-Constitutional, and everyone knows this.
He can't be touched. Period.
He can't be touched. Period.
0
Posted on 1/22/21 at 6:57 am to Category5
quote:
Recommended by Lindsey Graham. Hope his client can trust him.
Solid point.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 7:00 am to BoarEd
quote:
Trump hiring an election law specialist is sorta like him saying, "just try it, motherfrickers", imo.
Yes. If only he’d tried it when . . .
He was actually contesting an election.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 7:35 am to BoarEd
quote:
You and Holden must be a couple of petty bastards if you think this is some sort of "zing" on Trump. "Lol, he hired a Democrat!!"
Slow your roll, old fart.
I said it was a good choice. It’s probably the best choice of counsel decision he’s made.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 7:50 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
I think he’s safe.
Kirkland and Ellis had an associate call a random, experienced local counsel solo practitioner and make death threats.
No he’s not. And you need to recognize that is a problem. Who else is so terrible they don’t deserve legal representation?
Posted on 1/22/21 at 7:54 am to Sentrius
quote:
We need a definitive answer from SCOTUS on this question as its a valid constitutional question imo.
1. Agreed that this is a valid constitutional question
2. 5-4 majority Opinion authored by John Roberts, writ denied. Laches. He should have brought the case before Nancy suggested impeaching him.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 8:00 am to Wednesday
quote:
And you need to recognize that is a problem.
I do. I’m just saying this lawyer seems pretty secure in his situation. He doesn’t look like someone who’s going to be run off a case. And he seems to be well connected in his state.
Will he face criticism? Sure. Unfair criticism? No doubt. Pressure? Yep.
I just don’t think it’s going to mean a hill of beans to this lawyer. It’s another reason he’s an excellent choice.
This post was edited on 1/22/21 at 8:01 am
Posted on 1/22/21 at 8:01 am to Sentrius
quote:
We need a definitive answer from SCOTUS on this question as its a valid constitutional question imo.
Yes it is. Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the impeachment trial and I can’t imagine that one of the Senators won’t ask him for a ruling on this question.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 8:06 am to Wednesday
quote:
5-4 majority Opinion authored by John Roberts, writ denied. Laches. He should have brought the case before Nancy suggested impeaching him.
If this happens, it's worse than I thought. Any first year Con Law student should know laches cannot be applied in a situation where a case isn't even ripe for review. And we all know had Trump tried to preempt an impeachment that's exactly how the Court would've ruled.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 8:07 am to SCLibertarian
I’m only being half facetious. But they’ll find some kind of bullshite excuse to avoid it.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 8:14 am to Wednesday
quote:
I’m only being half facetious. But they’ll find some kind of bull shite excuse to avoid it.
I see folks saying on here that it is unconstitutional to try an impeachment after he leaves office. At the same time, disqualification from future office is a potential penalty that is in additional potential punishment above and beyond removal from office. If being out of office shields someone from impeachment, how could this disqualification from holding office in the future work if someone could resign 10 minutes before conviction in the Senate. That doesn't make sense to me. How is this supposed to work?
Posted on 1/22/21 at 8:33 am to LSU2ALA
The only thing that a conviction on an impeachment can do according to the COTUS is remove the President from office. Ergo it is unconstitutional to try the case, bc the constitution doesn’t state how you remove someone from office when he is no longer in office.
Other “punishment” can only be inflicted by criminal conviction. I’m not even sure if a criminal conviction disqualifies someone from office. But regardless, Trump has not been charged with a crime, and if he were, any conviction would be appealable-whereas an impeachment conviction is not.
Other “punishment” can only be inflicted by criminal conviction. I’m not even sure if a criminal conviction disqualifies someone from office. But regardless, Trump has not been charged with a crime, and if he were, any conviction would be appealable-whereas an impeachment conviction is not.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:28 am to BoarEd
quote:They want to prosecute him based on their own creative interpretation of his words. What's false about that?
Interesting the dude he hired specializes in election law. I don't even know exactly why they're impeaching him because the fricking allegations are demonstrably false.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:38 am to blueboy
In general, what exactly will be presented as "evidence"? Statements made in the speech that preceded the Capitol raid?
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:38 am to Original Corn Pop
quote:
Yes it is. Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the impeachment trial and I can’t imagine that one of the Senators won’t ask him for a ruling on this question.
Now that is interesting. And I never thought of it before.
Roberts could conceivably preempt the whole thing by ruling up front that it is moot since Trump has left office.
What gets weird is if he rules the other way and the Senate convicts. Trump would sue and there would be an appeal to SCOTUS. Roberts could not sit as a reviewing judge on the decision he made as a "trial" judge. That would mean there would be only eight justices to decide the issue. If they split 4-4, whatever decision the Court of Appeal makes will stand.
Interesting, interesting point.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:41 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
They're cotton and peanut farmers
So...descendants of slaveowners.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:54 am to MUMFORD
quote:You bet. The democrats are going to tell people what Trump's words mean, and then prosecute him for it.
In general, what exactly will be presented as "evidence"? Statements made in the speech that preceded the Capitol raid?
Totally not a terrifying precedent.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 9:00 pm to JudgeHolden
Looks like he and Bowers have parted ways
LINK
LINK
quote:
Former President Donald Trump has parted ways with his lead impeachment lawyers little more than a week before his trial, two people familiar with the situation said Saturday.
The change injects fresh uncertainty into the makeup and strategy of his defense team.
Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, both South Carolina lawyers, have left the defense team in what one person described as a “mutual decision” that reflected a difference of opinion on the direction of the case.
This post was edited on 1/30/21 at 9:01 pm
Posted on 1/30/21 at 9:07 pm to boosiebadazz
You really believe there's going to be a senate trial?
This will only martyr Trump and make him more popular.
This will only martyr Trump and make him more popular.
Posted on 1/30/21 at 9:08 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
The two people familiar with the legal team discussions insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations. One said new additions to the legal team were expected to be announced in a day or two.
Good god, is that Lin Wood music I’m hearing ?!?!
This post was edited on 1/30/21 at 9:09 pm
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News