- 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: Why do Trump’s attorneys always suck?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:07 pm to Wednesday
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:07 pm to Wednesday
quote:Wednesday, you are one of my favorite posters, but you are must mistaken here. You are falling into the trap of interpreting ANYTHING perceived as anti-Trump in the worst-possible way.
sorry - Boozie didn't say "indefensible" he said "untenable."quote:The implication is that somehow Trump having a defense to this impeachment sham is "untenable." And that's from an alleged attorney.
Because competent folks don’t want to advance untenable positions.
Boosie did not imply anything of the sort. He simply said that it is difficult to hire good lawyers, if you tell them in advance that you want them to argue utterly-nonsensical and irrelevant positions. A good lawyer does not want to look like an idiot in front of millions of people, because his client insists upon a stupid approach.
I personally disagree with Boosie's apparent proposition that "The Senate cannot try a FORMER official" is "untenable." As I have said, I think THAT argument is a really close call. I saw today that Turley has used almost-identical language to describe this issue.
1
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:07 pm to Pecker
Specifically name for me which lawyers Trump lost
His Big Law "acceptable" attorneys quit the day after filing Trump's first lawsuit in Pennsylvania - and it was due to Big Business Clients (which is owned by China) pressured Big Law Attorneys to make Trump Persona nongrata. Followed up by promises to have any attorney representing Trump disbarred for the suggestion that Biden cheated.
It was disgusting.
quote:
when Rudy and Sidney Powell decided to try the case on Twitter and in the press
His Big Law "acceptable" attorneys quit the day after filing Trump's first lawsuit in Pennsylvania - and it was due to Big Business Clients (which is owned by China) pressured Big Law Attorneys to make Trump Persona nongrata. Followed up by promises to have any attorney representing Trump disbarred for the suggestion that Biden cheated.
It was disgusting.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:09 pm to Wednesday
Was speaking more to the Kracken and Lin and Rudy and the election silliness, but the first set of lawyers for this impeachment also supposedly left because of a disagreement in strategy. Believe what you want, but the reports were Trump wanted to argue he won the election and they didn’t want to do that.
But I’m sure Dersh and Turley and those insulated by tenure all declined to represent him because of the nefarious Deep State extortion plot as well.
But I’m sure Dersh and Turley and those insulated by tenure all declined to represent him because of the nefarious Deep State extortion plot as well.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 12:10 pm
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:11 pm to 4evrlsu
No sane successful judge would risk their reputation challenging cancel culture
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:15 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Boosie did not imply anything of the sort. He simply said that it is difficult to hire good lawyers, if you tell them in advance that you want them to argue utterly-nonsensical and irrelevant positions. A good lawyer does not want to look like an idiot in front of millions of people, because his client insists upon a stupid approach.
Trump's suggesting that the lawyers argue that he was telling the truth when accused of telling a lie; and that the procedure selected by the democrats in this show trial is defective and unconstitutional - is not, in any way "untenable."
The first approach was rejected by Trump's attys (although allegedly requested by Trump).
This impeachment is a travesty. The investigation of this matter by the FBI has violated various assembly and privacy rights of innocent Americans. The treatment of Trump and the series of political prosecutions of him are terrifying to me as an attorney, and as a civil libertarian. The implications of all of this nonsense are no different than Salem Witch Trials. This is mob rule in the extreme and that is what I have a problem with. You have a right to an attorney in this country and powerful people have fricked with Trump's right to an attorney. If they can do that to a former President of the United States - what can they do to any other private citizen.
I liked Trump as a President. He had good policies. Good instincts and told the right people to frick off. But Trump is no longer President. Whether he wins or losese this show trial, he will not be the Presdient again - unless he runs in 2024. I'm not so insistent bc I think Trump needs to be the President tomorrow. I am insistent bc if we tolerate crap like this with Trump, there is a chilling effect on essentially the entire bill of rights. I expect i'll be quartering troops over here in Baton Rouge, LA since National Guard is de rigeur in Capital Cities - and apparently we don't have to house them in hotels when we deploy them somewhere.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:17 pm to Wednesday
quote:It was due to Trump having a strategy that conflicted with the few competent members of his counsel. He had Rudy running a sideshow - giving speeches in a lawn care company parking lot - and Sidney Powell acting like a Q anon nutjob on twitter.
His Big Law "acceptable" attorneys quit the day after filing Trump's first lawsuit in Pennsylvania - and it was due to Big Business Clients
You can blame it on China but China isn't the reason that Trump has lost everyone who was once close to him, even those who were loyal from day 1 (Sessions). There's a pattern here, but you refuse to see it.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:18 pm to 4evrlsu
b/c no good attorneys want to represent him probably
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:19 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:Dershowitz representing Trump in the first impeachment was just providence for Trump. Trump's position just happened to coincide with Dershowitz' own long-held beliefs regarding "high crimes and misdemeanors."
I’m sure Dersh and Turley and those insulated by tenure all declined to represent him because of the nefarious Deep State extortion plot as well.
Can anyone on this forum ACTUALLY imagine Dershowitz (or Turley, for that matter) arguing some ridiculous theory, just because Trump heard it on Talk Radio, became enamored of it, and insisted that they do so?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:21 pm to Pecker
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:21 pm to AggieHank86
quote:I've maintained that Dershowitz' defense of Trump was payment of a debt owed after Trump pushed for certain foreign policy positions.
Dershowitz representing Trump in the first impeachment was just providence for Trump. Trump's position just happened to coincide with Dershowitz' own long-held beliefs regarding "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:22 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Was speaking more to the Kracken and Lin and Rudy and the election silliness, but the first set of lawyers for this impeachment also supposedly left because of a disagreement in strategy. Believe what you want, but the reports were Trump wanted to argue he won the election and they didn’t want to do that.
But I’m sure Dersh and Turley and those insulated by tenure all declined to represent him because of the nefarious Deep State extortion plot as well.
1) These current lawyers are apparently NOT arguing that Trump won the election - so if that were accurate why didn't he fire them too? I think that Steve Bannon and company wanted him to argue that he won the election - but cooler heads prevailed on the issue. After what went down yesterday, I'm not sure that the decision made by the former or current team to stay away from it was the best. Espeically bc the few minutes I could stomach from these Democrats were saying that "Trump was telling lies about how he won the election."
2) Dersh and Turley were defending him in the First Sham Impeachment - and to my knowledge were not hired or approached round 2 (although both have made public statements that this entire process is idiotic).
3) I don't think trying the election shite show in the press was the best idea - but the daily narrative accepted as true by congress in this stupid sham of a show trial really gave them no alternative. The mantra of Democrats is "there is no evidence of eleciton fraud" and well - I don't want to relitigate that; but there was.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:24 pm to cahoots
quote:
Wednesday just cannot acknowledge that Trump is often a difficult client
Trump is probably a difficult client.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:25 pm to 4evrlsu
I noted this as far back as I can remember. This isn't the first time. They're awful. Timid. Inarticulate. This is definitely DJT's Achilles heel.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:28 pm to Wednesday
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:29 pm to 4evrlsu
Because great lawyers are only on tv. They're usually scummy money grubbing ticks sucking the life blood out of poor hardworking folks.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:33 pm to cahoots
quote:
Wednesday just cannot acknowledge that Trump is often a difficult client who will gladly throw you under the bus. He’s done that to plenty of people throughout his life. Not everything is connected to the deep state and China
Two things can be true at once. Trump probably is a difficult client AND there is a concerted effort by the deep state to pressure (bully) Trump's potential allies. This makes his pool of potential allies much smaller than it would otherwise be.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:35 pm to Pecker
Porter Wright and Jones Day - as of November 13, 2020 - as reported by the New York Times:
NYT Article
What kind of fricking lawyer voluntarily releases emails assessing their own client to the New York Times?
Freaking revolting.
But at least they didn't make typos or try to make the case for their client to counter negative public statements being made about him by their opponents.
quote:
Some lawyers at Porter Wright and Jones Day had become increasingly vocal about their concerns that the work their firms were doing was helping to legitimize the president’s arguments. One Porter Wright lawyer resigned in protest over the summer.
Porter Wright’s decision was especially remarkable, because the firm stepped away from a federal lawsuit that it had filed only days earlier.
quote:
ones Day, one of the country’s largest law firms, was counsel to Mr. Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns, and during the Trump presidency, it has been involved in roughly 20 lawsuits involving Mr. Trump, his campaign or the Republican Party.
Most recently, Jones Day has been representing the Republican Party in Pennsylvania in litigation about the handling of mail-in votes received after Election Day. Some partners at the firm have voiced discomfort about its involvement in that case, as well as Jones Day’s broader work for the Trump campaign.
Dave Petrou, a Jones Day spokesman, said in a statement this week that the Pennsylvania litigation involved important constitutional questions. “Jones Day will not withdraw from that representation,” he said. Mr. Petrou noted that the firm had not made allegations of voter fraud and was not contesting the election results.
Kevyn D. Orr, the partner in charge of Jones Day’s Washington office, tried to defuse the criticisms on internal conference calls on Friday. He pointed out that the firm’s work on election-related litigation was limited to the single Pennsylvania case, according to two people who were on the call. He said other law firms that had made unsubstantiated allegations of election fraud were engaged in “unprincipled advocacy.”
Some lawyers at the firm remained unsatisfied.
“I believe the question is whether this firm should lend its prestige and credibility to the project of an administration bent on undermining our democracy and our rule of law,” Parker A. Rider-Longmaid, a Jones Day lawyer in Washington, wrote to colleagues in an email reviewed by The New York Times. “We as lawyers choose our clients and our causes. We choose what we stand for. And this project, I submit, should not be one of those things.” Mr. Rider-Longmaid did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Orr also told colleagues that Jones Day would not be getting involved in additional litigation surrounding the election. “We get it,” one of the people quoted him as saying.
The Lincoln Project, a well-funded group of anti-Trump Republicans, this week began publicly urging employees of Jones Day and Porter Wright to resign and said it would call on clients to stop working with the firms.
NYT Article
What kind of fricking lawyer voluntarily releases emails assessing their own client to the New York Times?
Freaking revolting.
But at least they didn't make typos or try to make the case for their client to counter negative public statements being made about him by their opponents.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:35 pm to 4evrlsu
Should have hired the Poli Legal power squad
That would be a winner
That would be a winner
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:37 pm to Wednesday
quote:I understand what you are saying. I took a similar position yesterday, when I urged a Trump poster to "look beyond Trump ... at the bigger, long-term picture." It was not particularly effective.
Trump is no longer President. Whether he wins or loses this show trial, he will not be the President again - unless he runs in 2024. I'm not so insistent bc I think Trump needs to be the President tomorrow. I am insistent bc if we tolerate crap like this with Trump, there is a chilling effect on essentially the entire bill of rights.
In any case, I think that there is less merit to the "chilling effect" argument here than in many other cases. Madison & Co. SPECIFICALLY retained in Congress the right to prevent certain current (& former?) officeholders from again seeking public office.
It SOUNDS un-American, so lots of posters are whining about it. But it is right there in the Constitution. I disagree with its application in this case because I don't see Trump as having committed an impeachable offense, but that does NOT change the fact that the FOUNDERS intended it to be a tool available to Congress.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 12:37 pm to SDVTiger
He may need a new mortgage huckster now that his bank cut ties with him. This is your moment, bud!
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News