re: Why do Trump’s attorneys always suck?

First, I am not sure where you find a lawyer that is an expert in defending a show trial that is based on no discovery, evidentiary rules or due process where the goalposts shift throughout because your opponent is also the person making the rules, and the referee.

Second, I will still never get over that an associate at Kirkland and Ellis (one of the largest and most prestigious law firms in the country) called a veteran solo practitioner and made death threats against her for having enrolled as counsel of record on Trump's behalf two days after another of the largest and most prestigious firms in the country made as statement to the New York Times lamabasting their own client (violating the most basic rules of ethics) and saying that they withdrew because of pressure from other clients (not because of the merits but because elitist snobs hate Trump).

The response of the legal profession to the entire election and aftermath has been disappointing to me to say the least. At least those dudes had the balls to show up.

I didn't watch yesterday, so I have no idea what happened - but from what I can tell from Tigerdroppings is that the Decmocrats showed up with some video about January 6, when Trump's lawyers were informed that they were having an argument day about contsitutionality of the procedure.

There's no judge and basically no due process involved in this utter sham of a shite show. So, i am not sure what lawyer would want to risk death threats, professional alienation and a malpractice claim for trying a case where the predetermined outcome is bad for you, and bad for your client.

quote:

---

Actually his 1st Impeahment team was pretty good. But, Donald Trump is a very hard client to deal with purportedly. He does not listen to counsel....he expects counsel to listen to him. Even on matters of which he is not expert.

---

It's well known that he often, unwittingly, undermines the efforts of his attorneys. He initially had some very competent attorneys on board who were willing to take on his case for election fraud. He lost them when Rudy and Sidney Powell decided to try the case on Twitter and in the press

quote:

---

The GD chief justice is REQUIRED to preside,

---

This board's absolute obsession with this argument is becoming entertaining at this point.

quote:

---

Then hire incompetent lawyers.

---

he seems to be doing a pretty good job of that here lately

Any monkey with good sense could run this shite show. This isn't a trial, forget the legalese and mumbo jumbo this is PR and playing for the cameras, the outcome is already determined.

What you do is go on OFFENSE. You tell the truth about Officer Sicknick. You tell the truth about the people already planning to break into the Capitol pre speech. You ask where was security when they knew this was coming? What did the Speaker know and when did she know it?

You make damn sure that Trump calling for a peaceful asembly gets out there no more letting them pick and choose pieces of his speech. Go after that GD Schumer for threatening SCOTUS and show video of people pounding on the door of the Supreme Court, and ask why we aren't impeaching HIM?

Time to go to war. Take off the gloves.

quote:

---

He lost them when Rudy and Sidney Powell decided to try the case on Twitter and in the press

---

This isn’t true.

He lost his (airquotes) decent lawyers when Big Business, China and the Uniparty joined together to pressure, if not engage in outright extortion until the “socially acceptable” lawyers off quit his election case. It is about the most unprofessional, and unethical thing I can imagine.

Rudy is probably a drunk, but who knows. Sidney Powell was basically having to work this massive litigation on her own. Typos are understandable.

At least they stuck by their own client and didn’t refuse to represent him bc it might piss off China, and defame him when withdrawing at the worst possible time.

I haven’t watched today at all.

The first attorney yesterday was terrible, but what’s the beef against Schoen? I’m no attorney and I was somewhat distracted yesterday while watching, but I thought Schoen’s presentation was compelling (maybe it was just his theatrics).

From a legal perspective where did his argument fall short?

quote:

---

This isn’t true.

---

Yes it is.

Your infatuation with Sidney Powell as a Joan of Arc type hero notwithstanding

Because he isn't sophisticated enough to know who is good and who is not, when it comes to the rejects that remain who would actually work for him.

Sorry if that hurts anybody's feelings or butt.

quote:

---

an alleged attorney

---

This should be good...