| Welcome to Global Village Space

Saturday, April 13, 2024

Incisions in Trump’s legal defence?

The writer talks about how Trump’s defence team is at odds with each other and is unable to focus on the trial.

When the United States respectfully attempted to prosecute Billie Holiday for her song “strange fruits” and its impact in highlighting serious gaps in an equal society, where black discrimination was common, they didn’t realize that the matter would come back to them in procedure of their own commander-in-chief.

After disgraced and twice-impeached former President Donald Trump flew back on Air Force One the last time, his plans to bring forth greater distrust in the system were accelerated. After all, isn’t that unorthodox diplomacy the very agenda he ran on? Perhaps his legal team also aims to show the same “dignity” at his second impeachment trial.

Read more: Op-ed: Trump’s conservatism

Heading the Trump defence “Dream Team” are David Schoen, Attorney at Law is a Federal Criminal Defence and Civil Rights Lawyer, and Bruce L. Castor, Jr., Pennsylvania’s former AG. Now Mr. Trump has been requested to testify in his trial and as expected, he has denied it and as expected Democrats (frankly) don’t care.

Lawyers clearly distracted

Now, Mr. Schoen and Mr. Castor argue the unconstitutionality and the questions of legality regarding the Trial which is set to start Tuesday. This all, instead of defending their client`s most outrageous effort, is a clear distraction for a fraction of the former President`s devotees in order to keep the vote and buy time before conviction.

Their rarely short and surprisingly disjointed brief submitted to the U.S. Senate, cited Article 1, Section 3 of the constitution and pointed out that the Averment cited by the impeachment managers is “irrelevant to any matter before the Senate.”

Might I also add that in the first few lines of the submission, the legal team addressed the “Unites States Senate”, rather than the United States Senate, giving indication to the amount of devotion being given to the inquiry. Sources have also charted that the defence team will mostly focus on the impartiality of Senators, especially considering that the mob was incited by a Republican President.

Read more: What happened in the final presidential debate 2020?

This brings to the allegation, (and mind you their allegation, not the managers’), regarding a bill of Attainder which was shocking and obnoxious to say the least.

A bill of Attainder is a bill which is to be passed by any legislative branch and signed for (mostly) partisan purposes, into law. Here, they, the lawyers believe that Joe Biden is somehow provoking an impeachment bill against a private citizen.

So exactly, what is not going on? If the lawyers would recall, the founding fathers gave the Senate the sole power to try and impeach an official found or alleged of misconduct while in office, and it is much different than lawful censure.

The dispute over the first amendment also arises as to whether his words were justified because of the nation`s constitutional protection regarding freedom of speech. This would obscure any potential acquittal, even with a narrow minority.

Quarrelling leads to nowhere

My take on all this is that quarrelling the law will make matters worse for the validity of Mr. Trump`s lawyers and their mere presence at the trial will legitimize the trial, no matter past precedents in this substance. In matters of the Jury (the honorable Senators), there is no such bar for them to consider, except their decisions are not based on past precedents but instead new and decisive conclusions which are made before the introductions.

Read more: Op-ed: Trump just killed the Republican Party

Furthermore, the Chief Justice`s presence sets a very strict and proper tone which is much needed in a trial where no constitution could have enough presence to try impartially, at least for some senators. Today, and the next 16 hours will prove imperative to setting not an acquittal vote but an upholding pillar of the judicial system and whether lame arguments can see themselves victorious, only on political grounds.

Juan Abbas is a freelance writer for the Daily Times. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.