Saying “2020 election fraud gave Biden the win” is tantamount now and on par with publicly saying the Holocaust narrative about “six million” is false.
Everyone in the legal profession know they would be disbarred for arguing 2020 election fraud.
They have effectively made mention of it a crime. Punishable by disbarment, followed by “looks like you now need to find another way to make a living.”
Yeah. It’s cowardice. But it is also understandable. Because the lawyers understand Leahy is presiding, and no facts of evidence or arguments will matter. Why set yourself up for being disbarred over taking a case you will lose in a kangaroo court, and cut yourself from an income and livelihood, and possible destitution?
Nope, not buying your argument at all.
Why? Because Rudy, Lin Woods and Sidney have been doing just what you say no one will do for months and there are 31 cases going through the courts right now. So you argument about "no lawyer would take the case" is not researched, best case and is bunk, worst case.
Further in the case of impeachment, they won't let anything about the election be introduced as they will limit the arguments to incitement to riot. But you would know that if you actually know anything about lawsuits.
There is absolutely NO value for Trump in participating in this impeachment farce. He needs to countersue in supportive states claiming slander, defamation of character, he should go after getting any Senator who claims he should be impeached to have them disbarred.
Never play with a stacked deck and never do what your enemy wants you to do.
Counter-suing is a different argument. I am sayin the powers that be have made arguing that vote fraud gave Biden the win is tantamount to inciting violence now, because that is the narrative that serves as the buffer for hearing that argument, so the bar has put lawyers on notice that to argue it would be an ethics violation and setting oneself up for disbarment.
THEY make the rules and create whatever “truth” they desire. THEIR truth is that Biden won fair and square and to not agree with them puts you in jeopardy.
You are presuming the press writes the law.
If you can prove your case in court, you win. Yes they are blocking the cases being heard, because they know the evidence is substantial and many of the judges are Clinton, Obama appointments, the legal system is corrupt, but you know that.
But to assume you will lose your license to practice because your case is going to be seen as an ethics violation is pretty extreme. I don't see that happening. I see their attacks as being circumspect because they know they don't have facts to support them. For example Lin Woods.
You will notice they went after Lin Woods via his bar association to question his sanity, they did not go after his position on voter fraud. He told them to go to hell, that it was a 1st amendment violation and I doubt they will come back at him.
Lawyers are a funny bunch, they don't like being threatened, they don't like the law being used against them, and when they get pissed off, they attack together, they refer to each other as "brothers" for a reason. I don't see disbarment used as a weapon against them as you propose.
Trump needs to just send a note saying, "Let me know when the Chief Justice shows up to preside over the trial, as the constitution requires."
BEST REPLY.
What do you call it when lawyers are threatened to not defend a client? I thought there were laws against this?
Except we are now in the era of “make rules up as we go if it involves Trump”
To hear Trump's lawyers that was recommended by lindsey graham quitting is actually good news.
It means the trump team will use the venue to show the election fraud receipts.
A bunch of us on here asked WHY THE FUCK Trump is addicted to hiring pieces of shit in the first place??? Lindsey’s recommended lawyer?? Trump: “You’re hired!!”
And don’t give us this shit about “hurr durr...keep your enemies closer...ha-yuk!”
Just stop.
Trump obviously has no interest in putting loyal people around him. At this point I am wondering if he has some mega blind spot and does not even realize that hiring loyal people IS AN ACTUAL OPTION in the real world that everyone but him knows about. I think he is addicted to Trump world drama and hires people who will fuck him, just cuz there would be drama from it and he has some weird idea that that is somehow going to work in his favor.
deport
Someone de-fag this guy.
So not a single rich lawyer who knows they don’t really need more money or is close to retirement anyways wants to do the right thing because the right thing needs to be done?
Why not the 'Writ of Quo Warranto"'? It seems to me that one case that combines all 6 states should work. The court can't through it out. It would be Trump v Biden. As to the legal counsel that is another story. It seems like John Eastman seems to be progressing well in the PA case. Maybe us pedes can form a legal defense fund for Trump and get this started?
throw not through sorry about the spelling
The problem is that evidence of election fraud has no bearing on whether or not President Trump was responsible for what occurred. If the argument is that but for the theft of the election, the individuals would not have gathered in Washington DC, the court's response is so what.
If Trump had won from the outset, they would have engineered the event for his inauguration and he would have been impeached anyways.
Our opponents are diabolical, they are as smart as they are evil. They knew all they had to do was get the Senate and then no matter what, it was over.
Except the argument used is that Trump, at least in part, by telling people the election was stollen, insighted the “riot”.
So proving the election was actually stollen, or presenting the facts that can’t be disputed... helps to prove that the election was in fact stollen and that what Trump was saying is the truth, therefor it can’t be counted as something used falsely to insight a riot.
"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country..."
No reason to send a lawyer. It is a sham event that has zero legal weight. He should just send Mark Levin in!
I mean....he could. I think Trump’s “I am gonna fuck with them by doing what they never saw coming” edge that he had in the past is now nearly undetectable anymore.
He used to know how to fuck with people for best effect. Sending Levin in to make an hour long presentation at which at the end he says “this wished-for trial using newly made up rules is unequivocally unconstitutional, and president Trump does not recognize it and will NOT recognize any sham verdict it decrees, and he will NOT make an appearance before you in any capacity.”