Trump's lawyers are panicked.

[Laelth]

A number of posters and pundits have called attention to the fact that Donald Trump’s legal team appeared “disorganized” and “random” in today’s Senate trial of the twice-impeached ex-President for incitement to insurrection. Some commentators went further, calling Trump’s defense team terrible, awful, and incompetent. One particularly critical DU poster cut to the chase and described the Trump defense as “a bunch of babbling bull****.”

Undoubtedly, Castor and Shoen could have done better. What I offer here is a theory that explains why they didn’t. They’re panicked.

It takes a lot of time to prepare well for a trial. Castor and Shoen had barely a week to prepare, and they did the best they could. They prepared as solid a case as possible for acquittal on the grounds of due process and the unconstitutionality of the trial, itself.

Then, yesterday happened. The Senate agreed to bifurcate the vote (vote twice instead of just once). The first vote was on constitutionality. The Senate found the trial constitutional 56-44. Tomorrow, house managers will begin to argue the merits of the House’s case, but note that the decision to bifurcate only occurred yesterday. Trump’s defense team has mountains of arguments on unconstitutionality and due process. They have little or nothing to argue on the merits. They didn’t think that they would have to.

They had plenty of things to say today—too many, in fact. That’s why they sounded rushed, flustered, and disorganized. They didn’t have enough time to adequately cover all the material that they had prepared. I know that feeling. I’ve been there.

What’s probably worse is that they haven’t prepared much of a defense on the merits, and they have no time to do so because (at this point) they’re stuck in court all day. They’re seriously worried that when it comes time to argue the merits, they’re woefully unprepared.

As a fellow attorney, I pity them. Castor and Shoen only became aware of the actual structure of the trial the day before it began. That’s rough. Regardless, I understand why they looked mighty panicked today. I have to wonder whether they’re secretly hoping that Trump will fire them tonight.



-Laelth

[dflprincess]

1. The check bounce?

[dutch777]

10. They gotta know they are working pro bono. Unfortunately, they also probably know all they have...

...to do is show up and babble "not guilty" and the Repubs will mostly vote to acquit. Short of a picture of Trump personally kicking in the Capitol doors, the result will not be justice or a defense of the Constitution just the blind followers continuing to blindly follow because they can't see a political way forward otherwise.

[Mazeltov Cocktail]

14. Actually, about the only thing they didn't babble was that he was not guilty...

I like the part about secretly hoping that they will be fired tonight...🤣😂😷

[KentuckyWoman]

79. Pro Bonehead.

Someone else posted that in another thread and it is so perfect.

[Laelth]

80. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[azureblue]

109. they are panicing

Because they are watching their reputations go down the toilet. Not only did the make idiots of themselves on national TV, they came unprepared, and figured they could BS their way through it. They also figured they could be mega stars by defending Trump. Slight miscalculation...

[leftieNanner]

2. Ooh!

If he fires them, then will Matt Gaetz resign from Congress and take up his case??

[bdamomma]

11. is that

who his "surprise" is. Matt Gaetz.

[PirateRo]

3. They've show terrible judgement in their client, I don't pity them

They won’t get paid anyway.

[pnwest]

4. appreciate the informed insight. I am missing it all 'cause I'm at work...

sneaking onto DU as time, and lack of lurking managers, permits. But it's interesting to read an informed reaction to the trump lawyer shitshow I've been reading about - ya almost hafta feel sorry for their situation. Almost.

[Laelth]

31. Yeah. My sympathy for them is very limited. n/t

-Laelth

[Irish_Dem]

5. Some of the pundits on TV are saying they acted like they knew the jury was in their

pocket. So they didn't have to do any work.

[bdamomma]

15. Is that

what they call " a hung jury."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury

[Irish_Dem]

18. Stacked jury?

[GP6971]

78. Without a doubt.

Especially with Hawley & Cruz.

[trueblue2007]

108. don't forget that PIG Rand Paul. He is horrible

[wnylib]

68. Probably true. Nothing for them to lose,

regardless of their performance.

[Irish_Dem]

72. Yep, no need to do any heavy lifting.

[Hoyt]

6. The jury is in their pocket.

[Alpeduez21]

8. that's true

they can say whatever they want and there will be no conviction.

[ailsagirl]

49. Exactly

It’s so nice when justice prevails

[Alpeduez21]

7. additionally, their client wants the argument

to frame the completely bogus argument that the election was won by him.

[BigmanPigman]

9. One attorney was so nervous when he spoke

that his notes/papers could be seen shaking in his hands.

[Laelth]

25. Honest to goodness, I have been there.

Only once in my career, but once was plenty. It happens. Sometimes you’re unprepared, and it’s a frightening experience when you have to argue on your feet KNOWING that you’re unprepared.

-Laelth

[BigmanPigman]

30. I was afraid to speak in public until I became

a teacher. I noticed that when my 6th graders had to give a very important presentation they were all terrified. On the other hand, my 1st graders loved to get up in front of their peers. They couldn't wait until it was their turn.

[dsc]

51. being a teacher made me a pretty good public speaker

though I still get nervous from time to time, but I am able to speak without notes fairly well. Though, I would think an experienced lawyer would be better at it than me. And honestly, I can't imagine I wouldn't have been better than Castor.

[lpbk2713]

12. Do they really expect to get paid?

After all, they're working for Deadbeat Donald Trump.

[FarPoint]

13. Clarify the issue you mentioned...

" the decision to bifurcate ". Put this simple terms and why it matters...Thank You.

[tblue37]

20. The question of whether the trial was constitutional was voted on separately from the actual trial;

their prepared defense, which is based on unconstitutionality, has been rendered moot, since the vote said it is constitutional.

[FarPoint]

22. Ahhhhhhh now I get it...

Securing the Moot issue is a beautiful move on our part...

They, tRumps lawyers...they now got to stay up all night and figure out what to actually do next...

[Laelth]

26. Yes. Leader Schumer played this brilliantly. n/t

-Laelth

[FarPoint]

28. I am impressed!

[theneworiginal]

27. Split the case into 2 questions...constitutionality and merit.

I think that regardless of this development, the (il)legal team should have hedged their bets and prepared for any/all possible directions in the trial. Not saying it woulda been easy, given they had nothing to work with, but they took the job knowing that.

[chriscan64]

87. Everyone knew this was coming, except them apparently.

Because of the short time frame, the best they could hope for was to slap together some broad strokes. Not easy like you say, but it isn't that much harder to prepare two sets of broad strokes, one for each eventuality.

[Maraya1969]

16. They actually thought that the House would vote "yes it's unconstitutional, let's all go home?"

[Hermit-The-Prog]

101. Without the (allegedly) impossible Georgia runoffs, the Senate would have done so.

[Jirel]

17. I agree.

It sounded like my law school nightmares about going to court and arguing the completely wrong case.

The only question is how they might get fired, when Trumpty Dumpty can’t do it via Twitter.

[PSPS]

19. Doesn't matter. Even if there were no rebuttal case or attorneys at all, acquittal is still insured.

This is and has been life in a country under the jackboot of minority rule.

[erronis]

45. As it always is. As it always is. Some group controls the majority via power and fear.

And misinformation (didn't fit in the title.)

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

21. Fire them hahaha !!!

that was good ,fire them !

[underpants]

23. Thank you for the experienced perspective

Two questions:
Is there usually a Constitutional vote first?*
Could they have prepared the merits arguments and were surprised by today’s requirements?


* I say “usual” but this is only the 4th Impeachment trial ever

[Laelth]

37. No. The "constitutionality" vote is unprecedented, afaik.

“Constitutionality” is a question for the Courts, generally, and the SCOTUS, finally. The Senate doesn’t usually talk about constitutionality. They’re the Senate. They assume that if they do something within their Article 1 powers, it must be constitutional. Only the SCOTUS, finding a given law unconstitutional, can undo what the Senate has done.

The defense may have prepared some arguments on the merits of the House’s case. We will find out soon enough, but they looked mighty panicked today, and that could be because “constitutionality” is all they prepared and, for the rest of the trial, they have nothing. The “constitutionality” argument has been decided. If they bring it up again, the House managers will rightly object on relevance grounds as the issue of “constitutionality” has already been decided by the Senate.

-Laelth

[MyMission]

73. A question: Do the rethugs who voted against the constitutionality

need to abide by the majority vote that deemed it is? I mean are they now required to consider the testimony from that constitutional lens?

Or can they say to themselves "I don't believe it's constitutional, so that's my excuse for voting to acquit? (Which some might say in any case)

[Laelth]

76. Many of them, I suspect, will STILL vote to acquit on "unconstitutionality."

Nothing stops them from doing so. The bigger victory, here, is that now “unconstitutionality” is a moot argument in the trial as it goes forward. The American people will not be distracted by that silly argument if and when they tune in to watch this historic event.

-Laelth

[gratuitous]

24. Understandable

After all "the Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments" is just so ambiguous. Nobody could possibly conclude that the duty to try an impeached president would fall to the Senate.

[Laelth]

40. LOL. Yeah, who woulda thunk it? n/t

-Laelth

[Xolodno]

29. I'm expecting...

...one of them to recite "Green Eggs and Ham" at some point.

[moonscape]

32. I don't understand why it was a surprise. The

earlier vote was to table the constitutionality issue until the trial, and I always assumed this is how it was going to happen. They weren’t going to have a trial before settling the tabled issue. I’m not an attorney so maybe I just got lucky in my perception.

[Laelth]

41. You foresaw the Democrats' strategy--attorney or no.

Trump’s team planned to argue “unconstitutional!!!” throughout the entire trial. Republican Senators planned to vote “unconstitutional!!!,” but now they can’t. That issue has already been decided by the Senate in a bipartisan, 56-44 vote. That question is now moot.

Hereafter, the ex-President’s defense team must argue the merits of the case, and I suspect that they are unprepared to do so. Even better, Republican Senators must now vote on the actual merits of the case (and that’s exactly what we want to get them on record doing—defending Trump’s actions when they’re clearly indefensible).

-Laelth

[crickets]

58. I just love seeing the rug pulled out from under them this way.

I do wish that the talking heads would hash this out and explain it as well as has been done on DU. I don't think the point has been made clearly enough for the folks at home. Perhaps it will be in the next few days as the 'defense' flounders without the constitutionality issue to cling to.

[Laelth]

61. Yeah, well. DU rocks.

I am sure that you have noticed. Personally, I don’t visit any other news aggregator beyond DU. Why would I? Commentary and analysis here are the best on the internet (for American politics, at least).



-Laelth

[Bettie]

33. Why would they panic?

The fix is in. Republicans will not vote to convict Trump no matter what happens.

Literally, there is nothing he could do to shake their devotion.

So, why are they worried? Because angry orange might yell at them? Most likely, they have simply realized that they are not getting paid.

[Laelth]

70. They don't want to be embarrassed on national television.

That’s what happened today, and they’re afraid that it’s just going to get worse from here. They want to win, and they probably will, but they looked very bad today, and I offer a theory about why I think that happened.

They’re panicked because, after today’s “unconstitutional” defense (which failed), they have nothing prepared to say regarding the actual merits of the case.



-Laelth

[Bettie]

88. Yeah, I suppose this makes them look like total idiots

which could affect paying clients...who won't want idiots defending them.

[Laelth]

90. LOL. Yes. It does. n/t

-Laelth

[wiggs]

34. intentionally lame, so as to blame the short process? Then on to SCOTUS? If Chief Roberts

isn't presiding, could Trump file suit for unconstitutionality and take it to court?

[Laelth]

47. That would be bizarre ...

... an “ineffective assistance of counsel” case in the SCOTUS brought by a twice-impeached ex-President. Can’t see that happening.

In addition, I am not sure that “ineffective assistance of counsel” is a recognized defense in a Senate (legislative branch) proceeding. It is in Court (judicial branch) proceedings.



-Laelth

[wnylib]

75. Roberts was already consulted on

presiding over the Senate trial. He turned it down.

[keithbvadu2]

35. Did they get paid up front?

That would be cause for panic.

[Johnny2X2X]

36. Nah

Why panic? They literally can sit there and drool and they’ll win.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

38. Are you sure? I heard that Hillary Clinton sent demons to burrow into their ears.

Or maybe it was Obama in his time machine transporting Champ and Major back to yesterday to eat the lawyers' notes.

We should ask The PillowHead!

[Laelth]

92. Shame on you.

You should delete this post. SENSITIVE INFORMATION DELETED HERE.

I am required to launch an ANTINT investigation immediately, but, for your own safety, and in anticipation of your defense, I strongly recommend that you delete the post above, ASAP.

-Laelth

[Hermit-The-Prog]

96. It wasn't me! 4 Sleazors Lawtwisting, LLC hacked my account and posted that!

4 Sleazors -- Ghoul, Powell, Cippy, & Cobbweb: When the law won't cover your ass, call in the CRAZY!

See, they're doing it again. That's not my commercial!

[Laelth]

100. I am glad that you posted that.

ANTINT will take your defense under consideration as the investigation continues.

-Laelth

[Glamrock]

39. Tanks fer da insider info Laelth!

Mucho appreciado!

[Laelth]

44. You're very welcome. n/t

-Laelth

[bucolic_frolic]

42. Maybe it's deliberate

His lawyers presented a weak case will be the excuse. It deflects from the actual facts. Trump does not lose or look bad. It's the crooked system, the rigged election, the weak Congressmen, the incompetent lawyers that always defeat Trump.

[Laelth]

46. Trump's got to blame somebody for everything that goes wrong.

I doubt that they did it intentionally, but I have no doubt that Castor and Shoen will be the recipients of Trump’s wrath and scapegoats for his own, indefensible behavior.

-Laelth

[Skraxx]

43. What, Me Worry?

[Pepsidog]

48. As a trial attorney. I agree. I thought the same thing and have experienced not being totally

Last edited Tue Feb 9, 2021, 11:26 PM - Edit history (1)

prepared and it looks just like they did today. Panic and then the thoughts come out in disorganized, nonsensical fashion.

[Laelth]

65. It's utterly embarrassing, but yes.

I’ve been there too. That’s what I think I saw today.



-Laelth

[Marcuse]

50. The Senate voted the trial constitutional, but GOPs will still acquit based on unconstitutionality

That’s what happened with Belknap.

[Laelth]

56. They could. I suspect many of them will.

But for the purposes of the remaining trial, and what the American people will see on television, Trump’s main argument has been rendered moot. We should hear no more “constitutionality” arguments as the trial progresses. The House managers will be free to focus on the merits of the the case without distraction by the ex-President’s “Chewbacca-unconstitutional” defense.

-Laelth

[bullwinkle428]

52. Does this mean that we should expect Matt Gaetz to burst through the door, donning his

"Mighty Mouse" tights and cape, and singing, "HERE I AM, TO SAVE THE DAY!!"?

[crickets]

59. Bwaha!

Congrats on a great post for #19,000!

[Laelth]

67. While unlikely, anything is possible in Trumpworld.

I would laugh, uncontrollably, if this were to happen. What makes it so funny is that it’s actually possible.



-Laelth

[ClusterFreak]

53. And despite all of this...

....despite ALL of this... they are almost certain to acquit him. Knowing what we know about what happened, how things went down, and the absolutely, undeniably instrumental role Trump played in all of it...as Liz Cheney said "he lit the match"... it mostly likely won't lead to a conviction.

But good on the Congressional Dems for doing this. The truth is too important to be silenced. If this exercise accomplishes nothing else... let it shine a brilliant and penetrating light on the filth and the banality of this shameful, treasonous snake oil salesman and the unsurprising depths to which he would finally sink, actually inciting an armed insurrection against the government and the people he swore an oath to protect and defend.

[AlexSFCA]

54. I don't get the panic - this isn't a criminal trial but a political one

It’s clear as day that trump will be acquitted regardless of evidence, even if trump had no lawyers. This is the state of todays’a gop. The evidence is not for senators/jurors, it’s for the voters. The vast majority of GOP senators wanted the insurrection to succeed so they would no longer have to win democratically.

[Laelth]

97. Trump is vindictive.

Reports are that he was furious tonight because his attorneys “made him look bad.” Win or lose, his fragile ego cannot stand any shaming. His attorneys embarrassed him today—not because they did anything wrong, per se, but because the general opinion of those who watched the proceedings is that Trump’s legal team was unprepared, anxious, inept, boring, ineffective, disorganized, panicked, and a host of further adjectives that actually, genuinely, and realistically apply. Trump is not happy. Win or lose, he is psychologically compelled to punish people who make him “look bad.”

His defense team has every right to be concerned.

-Laelth

[wiggs]

55. Makes a 'no' vote for conviction even harder for GOP senators who aren't insane. nt

[Laelth]

105. That's my take as well. n/t

-Laelth

[Dan]

57. You cannot defend the smell that comes from a turd.

[irisblue]

60. suffer long and hard.

[onecaliberal]

62. Womp womp.

My husband said both dump attorneys were terrible.

[Laelth]

64. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[Kablooie]

63. THEY decided to defend Trump.

They didn't have to and they must be aware of how every single person who hitches their wagon to Trump is destroyed in the end so I have no sympathy at all.

Like Super Chicken, they knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

[Laelth]

66. I hear you.

But it’s a foundational principle of our justice system that everyone deserves some kind of legal defense in Court—even Trump. Admittedly, the Senate is not a Court, and its rules are different. I am still glad that Trump is entitled to SOME legal defense, and I have some sympathy for those charged with the unpleasant job of providing that defense.

Not much sympathy, mind you, but a little.



-Laelth

[Kablooie]

69. He had a team of lawyers who had time to develop a defense but drove them away.

If a defendant screws up his own defense he must accept suboptimal situation he creates for himself.

That is still the justice system working as it should.

[Laelth]

74. The previous team wouldn't argue that Trump "won" the 2020 election.

So, Trump fired them out of spite and hired a new defense team that ALSO refuses to spread “the big lie.” Ultimately, I agree with you. Trump punished people who wouldn’t give him what he wanted, and then he hired “new” people, who also wouldn’t give him what he wanted. It was a stupid, hot-headed, counterproductive personnel move.

It’s also textbook Trump—angry, vengeful, stupid, and counterproductive.



-Laelth

[jalan48]

71. Will it make any difference?

[Laelth]

77. It affects what the American people will see on TV.

The “constitutionality” question is settled and should not come up again as the trial proceeds. From this point forward, the focus will be on the merits of the House’s case, and that’s good. The “unconstitutionality” argument is a red herring, and it has been put in its place (dismissed) via a bipartisan 56-44 vote. That definitely affects what the American people will be exposed to over the next few days.

-Laelth

[jalan48]

94. Well, I hope the media spends more time on Trump and less on his attorneys in this case.

[Laelth]

95. We'll see.

I suspect the “constitutionality” argument is dead, and that means that there should be more focus on the merits of the House’s case.

-Laelth

[jalan48]

98. I hope it goes well for the Dems. I thought the video today was powerful.

[Laelth]

99. Me too. n/t

-Laelth

[BobTheSubgenius]

81. Love the commentary. Thank you so much!

[Laelth]

93. You're quite welcome, and thank you. n/t

-Laelth

[Ligyron]

82. Thank you for that excellent perspective that was easy for us non law types to grasp.

But ya gotta wonder why they took the case if they didn't think they could prepare a good defence in the time allotted. Even though everybody pretty much knows Trump's ass lickers will acquit him, it's not good for anyone's career, nevermind place in history to look like idiots on such a huge and consequential stage.

Kinda sounds like their in way over their heads now with the constitutional question settled. I take it Schumer is responsible for that genius move?

[Laelth]

89. You're welcome.

The thing is that they DID prepare a good case in the limited time that they had (one week). They focused on “unconstitutionality.” Trump will probably be acquitted for this reason, but the Senate bifurcated the trial and forced an early vote on constitutionality that we won 56-44. Now, his defense team has nothing to say. Their one, major argument has been shot down, and, for the rest of the trial, they are (probably) unprepared.

Thus, they are in panic mode.

-Laelth

[underpants]

83. 😁

Link to tweet

?s=21

[MerryBlooms]

84. Returned home from work, having seen no news since early this morning...

Wondered why the news hosts were repeatedly saying trump was reportedly angry with his lawyers. Clips were run, I was still wondering... Okay yeah, from the clips, the lawyers weren't effective, but that was nothing new from trump lawyers, then the magic bullet came from a clip Rachel Maddow ran on her show. omg, that was the first time ever, I've heard a defense attorney argue the jurors should throw this case out, and sic the DOJ on their client! I almost fell out my chair. President Biden's pick to head the DOJ, Merrick Garland, Will be confirmed, so yeah, I can see why you'd want your client to face DOJ rather than this Senate "unconstitutional" trial, because prison!

These guys better have gotten their money upfront, because there's No way they're getting paid now!

[George II]

85. If you think they're panicked what about donny doll hands? Will that clown Castor get fired tonight?

[H2O Man]

86. Recommended.

I heard that among changes they made in the break -- which included changing the order they would take -- was to allow Shoen time to remove jabs that he had originally planned to aim at Rep. Jamie Raskin. They had planned to try to focus on him as representing the "radical left."



Note: As an aging member of the radical left in the Democratic Party, I can say that Rep. Raskin absolutely represents me.

[Laelth]

91. As to Raskin, me too! n/t

-Laelth

[jpljr77]

106. I'm proud to say that Raskin literally represents me! I live in his district and he's an absolute

hero of a human.

[H2O Man]

107. Nice!

My friend Anthony Brindisi lost his seat to the extremely toxic Claudia Tenney in a close contest. But we are already organizing for their third contest in 2022.

I've admired and respected Rep. Raskin for some time. So his delivery of Truth yesterday did not surprise me. But it made me mighty proud to be an American, as well as a Democrat.

[live love laugh]

102. No sleep for them tonight--which means another dismal, scrambling performance

Lovely

[Laelth]

104. I doubt that they will be able to sleep during the House's presentation.

It should be fairly riveting (and much better prepared).



-Laelth

[Bucky]

103. My fave part: them going: "And we plan to address all those other issues later, for realsies"

When they start making excuses for their own lack of preparation, and start faking like "And don't you worry, Senators, we also totally plan to address those issues of substance later one. Boy howdy, do we have one humdinger of an argument for all those facty things the prosecutors have been talking about."

They have no plan. It's like Trump spending four years saying he's putting the final touches on his beautiful, better, awesome healthcare plan... or his tax records... or infrastructure week. All bluff, no substance.