More Reasons Why Trump Has Bad Lawyers

Trump's 'calculated risk' backfires after appeals court uses his allies' words against himhttps://t.co/IWLHr6Tbyd

— Raw Story (@RawStory) February 6, 2024

"I note going through an opinion like this, one thing a lawyer like me does is look at the footnotes first," Rubin said. "You can learn as much from the footnotes as you do from the main text. Indeed, footnotes 12 and 13 on page 49 are really illustrative of their thinking." 

They also go through the second impeachment Senate debate in which 30 senators made statements in support of Trump on the floor saying that impeachment isn't an option for Trump because he's already out of office. 

"They have a note where they say cite to the senators, by name, who made statements to that effect and count them up," said Rubin. "So, this D.C. Circuit is literally taking names with respect to the evidence that they cite." 

"First and foremost, I don’t think this impeachment is proper under the Constitution. This is the first time the Senate has tried a former president. Whether or not it can do so is a difficult question," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-I.A.) said in his speech. "The Constitution doesn’t say in black and white 'yes, the Senate can try a former president' or 'no, it can’t.' In contrast, many state constitutions at the time of the Founding specified that their legislatures could, so it’s notable that our federal charter did not. In order to answer this question it’s therefore necessary to look at the text, structure, and history of the Constitution. That’s what I have done. In the end I do not think we have the ability to try a former president." 

Sen. John Cornyn (R-T.X.): "The arguments of the House Impeachment Managers that the Constitution permits the impeachment of a private citizen, the free speech protections of the First Amendment don’t apply, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is optional, and that the trial may include a presiding officer who also serves as a juror all were a bridge too far." 

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-A.L.): “I had concerns with the lack of due process and constitutionality of this trial going in, and I voted twice to say so. But I had a duty as a juror to listen to the arguments of both sides and keep an open mind, which I did. After hearing the arguments presented, I voted to not convict for a number of reasons, including the fact that I don’t think the Senate has the authority to try a private citizen." 

Those are just three of the 30 lawmakers. 

Rubin read from the Appeals Court ruling "saying Trump has said that he can't be prosecuted, because he wasn't impeached and convicted. But, in this footnote, they say the history of the United States is replete with people who have been prosecuted impeachment because, remember, impeachment is not just a solution for former presidents, it applies to people like Article 3, lifetime tenured judges and they cite a number of examples here that there have been hundreds of officers in the United States who have been subject to criminal proceedings for offenses for which they could have been impeached, but were not."

I heard Rubin this morning and noted especially her last comment, about the question of impeachment. The D.C. court made a point of noting there is a history of impeachment, and also that impeachment applies to more offices than that of President.

My point being, everything is always about Trump. Trump’s election fraud claims all excluded every other race on the ballot. If there really was an electoral conspiracy, why not rig it all the way down to dog catcher? But no, the only person affected was Trump, because only Trump matters.

Impeachment is not just for Presidents. A basic fact you’d have thought Trump’s lawyers would have considered before making that pathetic and easily disposed argument.

But it’s all about Trump. It’s only about Trump. And that’s another reason why Trump’s lawyers suck. And why they probably won’t get anywhere with the Supremes.