Impeachment II: Republican Boogaloo

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

So while the question of whether Democrats would also excuse similar behavior is more closely related than many examples of whataboutism, it's still a shift in the subject and irrelevant to the discussion. I've seen people label it as "bothsidesism" if that's more amenable to you.

Hah his lawyer misspelled United States.. "To: The Honorable, the Members of the Unites[sic] States Senate"..

He can't. Because if he does, that will require him to take a stand on a subject. This would be bad, as it wouldn't feed into his narrative about what's happening. Far, far better to simply throw out vague statements so that he can later claim when something goes wrong (because that happens with every administration) he knew it all along, without ever having to face the consequences for any of the other false statements he's made.

To attempt to answer the question that tweet posed (based on of course no knowledge of the inner thinking of the people who withdrew) here are some possibilities:

1. Irreconcilable differences on strategy. For instance, Trump apparently wants to go full throated "THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN FROM ME" as his defense rather than the more legally acceptable "you can't constitutionally remove from office someone who's no longer in office"/"it's time to heal" talking points that the GOP Senators have signaled they are 100 percent on board with. Trump's preferred strategy would emphasize a trial on the facts of the insurrection, and those facts don't particularly look good for Trump. Whereas, the sensible "yeah, but" defense that they probably would prefer would be more effective. Granted, you probably still don't have to worry about losing this one if you are Trump's attorneys, but still. There's also a potential ethical problem with asserting the "stolen election" theory given the complete lack of evidence.

2. Major personality/money conflicts: When you have the ability to pick and choose your clients, as I presume any firm that would be seriously considered by Trump to represent him does, you can turn away clients you just don't like. Unless basically all appearances are deceiving and all reports about him are wrong, it would be hard to imagine a worse client than Donald Trump. Not-so-stable, not-so-genius. Short-attention span. Big ego. Does not follow advice because he knows better than anyone. Documented history of lying. Reputation for stiffing or slow-rolling vendors (including Giuliani). This story suggests that the initial fee the departed attorneys were talking about was on the order of $3 million to defend, whereas Trump mistakenly glommed onto a $250k figure for the main guy that didn't include the associates, the costs of research, etc. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/536917-trump-former-impeachment-lawyer-argued-over-fees-report

3. Cost-benefit analysis, personally and professionally: There's plenty of good to be said for taking a controversial high-profile case. But there's also possible downsides as well. IIRC, a lot of big firms cut ties with Trump after he was no longer president. This may have been because those firms' other clients did not want to do business with him in light of the insurrection, or it could just be that as ex-president he had little to offer. I could see an attorney or a firm thinking about everything from other business that might be lost defending Trump, to having to explain it to family and friends to risking possible ethics violations and deciding that it's not worth making a quick couple mill for your firm for a couple months' work. Add to this that basically from today till when the impeachment trial is over, it is going to be your whole life. Say goodbye to other cases, and your family and friends for the next two months. Say hello to a lot of alcohol.

4. What seems like a defense slam dunk might not be. Right now, we reasonably suspect that there is little chance that enough Senate Republicans will defect to actually obtain a removal/ban from office. But here's the thing: at this point, no one has a full awareness of the full scope of the evidence. We know a lot of the public facing evidence, and it doesn't look good. But this insurrection attempt is only a month old, and is actively being investigated by law enforcement. Who knows what is hidden in Trump's e-mails and those of his subordinates that may make even the most loyal of Republicans pause? And since the Democrats have the Senate majority, they ultimately will set up the trial's rules. What do you do if they call for Trump to testify? He could try to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself, but a) I don't think his ego would allow it b) it would look bad even to members of Cult 45 (or so I would hope). Prepping him for trial seems impossible. It seems almost certain a decent attorney (of which I imagine there are more than a few in Congress) could easily get him to either admit under oath that he has done much of what he is accused of, or expose him to perjury charges.

Add that all together, and it's perfectly understandable why a lot of people might want to stay away.

so basically Trump's ego and personality will work against him. I'm no genius but I know enough to let the experts do their thing, that's what they get paid for.

meh. Neither of those arguments are garbage.

I dunno about that. "Won a case I could have won while shouting 'My client is guilty, guilty on all charges'" isn't exactly inspiring resumé fodder.

Absolutely. Alabama is the reddest of the red MAGA States. Siding with Trump is what got all of the University of Alabama fans to vote for Tubs despite being a former Auburn coach. Having a Bammer mark the ballot for an Auburn coach goes past family and church on Sunday mornings. Hating the other school is a way of life. Defending the man many see as a god/king during the Senate trial will make this guy Alabama GOP royalty.

Compared to what Trump lawyers had been dishing out to challenge the election, no.

But if the arguments were before a truly impartial panel, I don't know if I'd like their chances.

Note: I don't consider the Supreme Court impartial, not that they will ever consider the arguments on the extent of Congress's impeachment power.

I do think/hope that courts may decide if any of Trump's conduct crossed the line into criminal territory rather than merely free speech.

"Well, the prosecutor and the defense both agree he's guilty. That's a double negative, so he must be innocent. Better acquit!"

It would be interesting to see if Trumps free speech defense also extends to people calling for violence against former presidents. Suspect he wouldn't oppose the SS paying attention to that speech.

I am not very shocked myself. She is very experienced in the world of law and politics. She showed she was willing to look the other way regarding behavior that we know kavenaugh had a part in. We cannot prove it, but that would have been the actual mindset of a law frat boy in a prestigious school on his way to being a bigshot. She knows that. She has seen that sort of person. She has probably been abused by that sort of a person within her field considering the lacking watchful eye of the internet. She continued to turn the other way and endorse that sort of person on the supreme court based on her team.

She was only pretending to be any sort of stand up person with morals and values. Righties do not get mad at me as I will clearly call out lefties who do the exact same thing.

Credit where credit is due - you are no fan of Joe Biden that's for sure.

Didn't Trump forget his name at a rally once?

I wonder what it would be if it was an open vote.

Not sure how caucus voting works, but hopefully someone was writing it all down.

One of those posts where I am not sure if the funny, angry or other smilie is most appropriate.

Same here. I'm not sure what the point is. The sins of the fathers? Maybe Anc can provide us with evidence that Liz was in full support of Daddy's agenda. I mean, it's not like she's Ivanka.

I asked for a laughing/crying (think Greek drama masks) smilie a while back but it went nowhere.

Well, she opposes gay marriage, despite having a gay sister. Her dad didn't seem to be too bothered by the GQP's opposition to gay marriage.

She's sane by the standards of today's Republican party, but she's still pretty much a hard-right reactionary.

She worked in Bush 43's State Department during and after the buildup to Iraq. During the Obama administration, she didn't jump on the birther train herself, but she was more than willing to defend the nutjobs. She tried to get the Justice Department to investigate the Sierra Club on incredibly flimsy grounds, and she announced her opposition to marriage equality nearly a decade after her father decided to support it, leading to a significant rift with her sister.

They should have left parlor alone so the world could have a TK for twitter to laugh at the pissbabies. I guess we will just have to settle for patriots.win.

And he would be wrong. This trial is unconstitutional.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-4--2
Trump is already out of office.

Failure to understand basic English. That sentence means judgement cannot exceed punishments beyond removal from office and barring of any further enjoyment of such. Not that you can't judge anyone currently not in office.

Example: you are on a temp ban from WF, because let's face it you keep fucking up.

Doesn't mean we can't perma you just because you're already "out".

The busboy with three DUI's says that a prominent lawyer is wrong which is just all sorts of amazing