In Mr Markovic’s case, his lawyers allege failures by the security companies led to the spread of the virus.
Tim Tobin, SC, told the Supreme Court on Wednesday they were still unable to say which hotel the strain Nenad Markovic contracted came from.
“There’ll be no doubt it’ll have come out of one of the hotels,” Mr Tobin said.
“Once the cluster is identified in relation to Mr Markovic, we will then proceed in relation to his claim against the hotel from which the cluster came, and therefore the security company responsible for that hotel.”
Unified Security supplied guards to the Rydges – the site where 90 per cent of cases came from – while MSS provided security for the Stamford.
MSS Security’s lawyer Lachlan Armstrong, QC, said there was a slight chance Mr Markovic was infected with a strain that didn’t come from the hotels.
The hearing before Justice John Dixon heard the plaintiffs couldn’t directly use evidence put before Justice Jennifer Coate’s inquiry last year into the bungled program. The inquiry found there was a lack of training provided to workers and inadequate infection control processes among a litany of other failures.
Mr Tobin told the court that didn’t prevent them from independently accessing some of the inquiry’s evidence, such as calling the same witnesses who were before the inquiry.
Justice Dixon adjourned the case for a date later in March.
The court also dealt with two other COVID-related class actions brought on the basis of the economic loss caused by the state government’s lockdowns.
In one, lead plaintiffs Keilor Park restaurant 5 Districts NY and its owner Anthony Ferrara, represented by lawyers from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, allege the government’s bungling of the hotel quarantine program led to restrictions that devastated businesses throughout the state.
In the other, 21-year-old Jordan Roberts, who lost his job at a Tullamarine warehouse just after stage four restrictions came into force, and Carbone Lawyers allege his retrenchment was the result of mistakes by the government in hotel quarantine.
Rachel Doyle, SC, is defending the government in both class actions and the court heard on Wednesday that the defendants are applying to strike-out both cases in a hearing in May.
Other court action against the government’s COVID-19 policies has so far failed.
Restaurant owner Michelle Loielo lost her lawsuit last November in which she alleged the curfew during lockdown was unreasonable or disproportionate and infringed her human rights.
The High Court also dismissed a constitutional challenge from Sorrento hospitality figure Julian Gerner, who tried to argue the restrictions violated his freedom of movement.
Start your day informed
Our Morning Edition newsletter is a curated guide to the most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.
Tammy Mills is the legal affairs reporter for The Age.
Most Viewed in National
Thanks for dropping by and checking out this article regarding National and Queensland News and updates published as “Lawyers told to find out which strain killed father in COVID-19 class action”. This article was brought to you by MyLocalPages as part of our Australian news services.
When a Nigerian judge ruled in 2005 that Shell’s practice of gas flaring in the Niger Delta was a violation of citizens’ constitutional rights to life and dignity, Nnummo Bassey, a local environmental activist, was thrilled.
Bassey’s organization, Friends of the Earth, had helped communities in the Niger Delta sue Shell for gas flaring, a highly polluting practice that caused mass disruption to communities in the region, polluting water and crops. Researchers had found that those disruptions were associated with increased rates of cancer, blood disorders, skin diseases, acid rain, and birth defects—leading to a life expectancy of 41 in the region, 13 years fewer than the national average.
“For the first time, a court of competence has boldly declared that Shell, Chevron and the other oil corporations have been engaged in illegal activities here for decades,” Bassey said on Nov. 14, 2005, the day the Federal High Court of Nigeria announced the ruling. “We expect this judgement to be respected and that for once the oil corporations will accept the truth and bring their sinful flaring activities to a halt.”
Yet the judgement was not respected. A United Nations report published six years later found that Shell had not followed its own procedures regarding the maintenance of oilfield infrastructure. Today, Shell is still gas flaring in the Niger Delta.
In the 15 years since the ruling, Bassey has come to believe that Shell’s executives might have been held accountable had the case gone to the International Criminal Court (ICC). “Shell could ignore [the case] because it wasn’t in the international media but if it had gone to the ICC, it would have gotten global attention and shareholders would have known what the company was doing,” he says. “If we had had an ecocide law, things would have turned out differently.”
The word “ecocide” is an umbrella term for all forms of environmental destruction from deforestation to greenhouse gas emissions. Since the 1970s, environmental advocates have championed the idea of creating an international ecocide law that would be adjudicated in the ICC and would penalize individuals responsible for environmental destruction. But the effort has gained significant traction over the past year, with leaders from Vanuatu, the Maldives, France, Belgium, the Netherlands—as well as influential global figures like Pope Francis and Greta Thunberg—expressing their support. Although there are questions about whether the ICC as an institution has the teeth to prosecute any crimes, Bassey and other activists believe the law will act as a powerful deterrent against future forms of environmental destruction. “We will not get different outcomes in cases of exploitation and marginalisation unless we reimagine the laws that govern us,” Bassey says.
In December 2020, lawyers from around the world gathered to begin drafting a legal definition of ecocide. If they succeed, it would potentially situate environmental destruction in the same legal category as war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. But even within the movement, questions remain on how far the law should go — and who might fall under its jurisdiction.
The history of the ecocide movement
The term ecocide first rose to the public consciousness in 1972, when Olof Palme, the premier of Sweden, used the term at a United Nations environmental conference in Stockholm to describe the environmental damage caused by the Vietnam War. At the conference, an ecocide convention was proposed but never came to pass.
The idea resurfaced again in the 1990s when the ICC, the world’s first permanent international criminal court, was being created. As a court of last resort, the ICC was established not to override national courts but to complement them, creating a global tribunal that would adjudicate the gravest crimes of concern to the international community. When lawyers came together in 1998 to draft the Rome Statute, the founding document of the ICC, there was a law in the pipeline that would have criminalized environmental destruction.
But the law never came about. “My recollection is that there was just no political support for it,” says Philippe Sands, who was involved in drafting the preamble of the Rome Statute in 1998 (and who would go on to co-chair the expert panel formed in 2020 to draft a legal definition of ecocide). Environmental destruction, Sands says, was not on the public’s consciousness.
This began to change in 2017 when Polly Higgins, a British barrister, launched the Stop Ecocide campaign alongside environmental activist Jojo Mehta. Higgins, who sold her home in 2010 to raise funds to combat environmental destruction, wrote an influential book, Eradicating Ecocide, that informed the legal debate. When the campaign launched a few years later, it quickly gained unprecedented momentum: Greta Thunberg donated €100,000 of the money she received from that year’s Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity to the cause, and for the first time in history, several world leaders publicly backed the idea. Fast-forward three years and now, an expert panel of international criminal lawyers is drafting a definition of ecocide. “Six months ago, we never would have believed where we are at now,” says Mehta. Higgins, sadly, never lived to see her campaign bear fruit, dying in 2019 at the age of 50.
Environmental advocates believe an ecocide law at the ICC would be groundbreaking. While some countries have national laws on environmental harm, there is no international criminal law that explicitly imposes penalties on individuals responsible for environmental destruction. If adopted, experts say there are three main areas where an ecocide law would make a difference.
The first is the symbolic impact of having the ICC elevate environmental destruction to the same level as genocidal crimes. Mehta argues that the fear of being labelled an ecocide criminal could create incentives for leaders to behave more responsibly. “A CEO doesn’t want to be seen in the same bracket as a genocidal maniac,” she says.
The second area where this law could make a difference is by setting a legal precedent, creating a bandwagon effect where international law could prompt changes in national criminal laws, as countries look to signal their environmental commitment to others. ICC laws have influenced national policies before: several countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, have adopted national laws that criminalize ICC crimes.
The third way an ecocide law could be useful is by prosecuting environmental crimes that fall outside of national jurisdictions. This is especially helpful in poorer countries where legal barriers make it difficult to hold foreign companies accountable. An ecocide law, Bassey says, would create an arena in which marginalized communities in countries like Nigeria have a voice against powerful, polluting actors. “Most of this ecocide devastation is happening in communities where voices are not heard,” he says.
Advocates of an ecocide law also believe it would change the way the environment is valued. “There is something powerfully urgent about the idea that nature has rights,” says Mitch Anderson, founder and executive director of Amazon Frontlines, an organization that works with Indigenous communities in the Western Amazon to protect their lands. “The [ecocide] law would ensure that nature has a legal voice.”
There’s still a long way to go, though. While lawyers are expected to finish a draft of the law by the end of spring, it will take at least 3 to 5 years before the law might be ratified. Drafting the law is just the first of many steps: a member state needs to propose it to the ICC, at which point, 50% of ICC states have to approve it. States will then need to convene to debate the exact definition of the law before eventually, adopting and ratifying it.
But if passed, an ecocide law would be unique in the ICC’s history, not only because of what it would protect but who it could go after—the heads of countries and corporations that are big polluters. Historically, the ICC has been criticized for targeting only African dictators while turning a blind eye to Western leaders responsible for mass atrocities. But with an ecocide law, powerful white men—who are often disproportionately represented in extractive industries—could face criminal charges. “The ecocide movement is powerful not only in the legal precedent it could set for protecting rivers, forests, oceans and the air but also in the names and faces it identifies as being behind this destruction,” says Anderson. “[They] may not look like the picture we’re used to seeing.”
Oil and gas companies contacted by TIME did not want to comment on whether they support an ecocide law, but the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) said in a statement they “want to further improve the environmental performance and reduce the likelihood and consequences of incident.”
What counts as ecocide?
Bassey is confident that many of the world’s worst environmental offenses —such as Chevron’s pollution of the Ecuadorian Amazon in the 1990s or the ongoing coal-seam fires in Witbank, South Africa—could have been prevented had an ecocide law been in place. “If we had an ecocide law, no one would allow this to go on,” he says. In theory, that might be true. But in practice, much depends on how the term is defined.
Sands, the co-chair of the panel drafting the law, is concerned that the bar for what counts as “ecocide” could be set too high. There’s historical precedence for such a scenario: When the idea of “genocide” was first proposed in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer, he envisioned a law that would prosecute individuals that killed members of a national, ethnic, racial, religious or political group. But when member states—many of whom who were worried about their own histories of discrimination—came together to actually draft the law in 1948, they decided that lawyers needed to prove not only that an individual killed members of a group but that they did so with the specific intention to kill.
The result is that most genocide trials heard by the ICC have not ended with a guilty verdict because the burden of proof is too high. Sands is worried the same mistake might be made with the definition of ecocide. “It will never be possible to prove that someone intended to destroy the environment on a massive scale,” he says. “If we set the bar too high, we won’t catch anyone.”
On the other hand, if the bar is set too low—if the ecocide law encompasses too many types of alleged environmentally destructive acts, and implicates too many types of people and institutions—it may lose political support. Many people might get behind an ecocide law that charges mega-corporations for polluting on a grand scale; it is less likely they would support a law that penalizes anyone who destroys the environment in any way. The lawyers drafting the definition didn’t want to offer their opinion on what, specifically, a “low bar” would look like out of concern that doing so would put at risk their ability to advocate for a more robust law.
But even if a robust ecocide law is put in place, the movement faces another big challenge: the limited legal powers of the ICC. On its own, the ICC does not have the authority to enforce laws; it is completely reliant on its member states to arrest and surrender the accused. If a country does not comply—if it does not arrest the accused individual—there is no trial. In addition, over 70 countries are not members—including the United States. Some of the biggest fossil fuel corporations, such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron, are American owned, meaning they would be unlikely to be drawn into a prosecution.
Lawyers working on the ecocide law are acutely aware of these limitations. “Let’s not be starry eyed about our legal international frameworks at the international level,” Sands says. “Let’s be realistic.” Holding perpetrators of environmental destruction to account, he says, must ultimately be done at the national level. Nevertheless, international criminal law can be a tool that catalyzes thinking and helps set a precedent. Although only four people have been convicted at the ICC since it began hearing cases in 2002, the creation of ICC law has influenced national policy through the norms and precedents it helped to generate. Advocates of ecocide believe the law could do something similar.
“We know one law won’t change everything,” says Mehta. “But without something like this in place, it’s hard to see how these [environmental] targets will be met.”
Thank you for visiting My Local Pages and seeing this article involving Global and World news titled “Lawyers Are Working to Put ‘Ecocide’ on Par with War Crimes. Could an International Law Hold Major Polluters to Account?”. This story was brought to you by My Local Pages as part of our news aggregator services.
The organisation representing women lawyers in Tasmania has called for an end to the “culture of secrecy” surrounding how sexual misconduct is dealt with within the state’s legal system.
Last week, it was revealed Tasmanian Supreme Court Justice Gregory Geason had been counselled by the Chief Justice after he was photographed at a Hobart nightclub in an embrace with a junior court employee.
The photograph was taken at the Grand Poobah nightclub in Hobart on Friday, January 29 — the evening of the opening of the legal year.
A statement from a spokesman for Chief Justice Alan Blow said the Chief Justice had investigated the matter following concerns expressed by members of the legal profession.
The junior staff member involved had not made a complaint, had been provided with information as to her options, and offered support.
In a statement on Friday, the Tasmanian Women Lawyers (TWL) said it welcomed “the Supreme Court’s investigation of and response to this allegation.”
“Conduct such as that alleged raises issues around power imbalances in personal relationships, and the potential of workplace sexual harassment, which may bring the judiciary and the legal profession into disrepute, and in turn undermine the public’s confidence in the justice system,” it said.
Calls for a judicial commission
Tasmanian Women Lawyers said the incident was concerning and required a firm response.
“We note that the current counselling provided to the staff concerned is not transparent and it is not clear to the public or broader legal profession what it entails,” it said.
“We call upon Parliament and the judiciary to implement a judicial commission, similar to models used in other Australian states, which would allow a clear process for all complaints regarding judicial behaviour that is open and allows for procedural fairness for all parties.
“This would provide opportunity to restore public faith in the justice system by showing the willingness of the Judiciary to be held to the same standards and process for accountability as public servants.
The Tasmanian Women Lawyers said without that process being available in Tasmania, one of the few options available for the resolution of such allegations was to call for the judge concerned to resign.
“We understand that this option has not been taken in this case,” it said.
‘Inherent power imbalance’
In its statement, the Tasmanian Women Lawyers noted numerous reports into sexual harassment and misconduct in Australian legal workplaces identified “wherever there is an inherent power imbalance between the parties to such conduct, there is the risk of exploitation”.
“In this case, the conduct involved one of the highest officers of the law in this jurisdiction and a junior staff member.
“TWL recognises that the historically male-dominated and tight-knit nature of the legal profession has led to a culture in which sexual harassment and misconduct has been allowed to continue.
“We understand that members of the profession have been reluctant to discuss this matter publicly out of fear of recrimination.
“TWL reiterates that in situations where there is an inherent power imbalance between the parties, the person in a position of authority should always bear the consequences of their actions.
“Women and other subjects of such misconduct should be supported and made to feel safe by the profession.”
Thank you for visiting My Local Pages and reading this article about Tasmanian and Australian news titled “Tasmanian women lawyers call for end to ‘culture of secrecy’ around judicial sexual harassment and misconduct allegations”. This news update is shared by My Local Pages Australia as part of our local and national news services.
Donald Trump's impeachment lawyers: Who is leading his defence team?
Thank you for dropping by My Local Pages and seeing this story about the latest United Kingdom News items published as “Donald Trump's impeachment lawyers: Who is leading his defence team?”. This news update was shared by My Local Pages as part of our national news services.
The legal team for former President Donald Trump makes their opening arguments in his second impeachment trial on Friday — and they are expected to allege that Democrats are being hypocritical by saying that Trump incited the Capitol mob by telling his followers they have to “fight” against a “stolen election.”
They’re likely to point out past instances when Democrats have used combative rhetoric, playing videos similar to how the House impeachment managers used video of Trump speaking to make their case against him.
Trump’s attorneys are also expected to argue, as they previewed in briefs submitted to the Senate, that the House impeachment managers are taking Trump’s words out of context as they aim to get 67 senators to vote to convict him of inciting an insurrection.
“I think you’ll at least be moved by what you see and get a much better picture of exactly what’s going on here and the hypocrisy in some of the positions taken by the House managers in this case,” Trump lawyer David Schoen said on “America Reports” Thursday.
David Schoen, President Trump’s attorney, speaking at his impeachment trial on Feb. 9, 2021.
“They built a sort of a false dichotomy here. Either you condemn what he said and … find him guilty or there’s no middle ground. There’s no possibility of thinking what he said maybe was inappropriate,” Schoen added later Thursday evening after meeting with a handful of Republican senators. “But when you use the word ‘fight,’ most of the times during the case, it’s clear he’s talking about legislators fighting for our rights, people fighting to advocate. And, you know, everyone likes to overlook the word peacefully in there.”
SCHUMER LEAVES DOOR OPEN TO 14TH AMENDMENT MEASURE TO BAR TRUMP FROM OFFICE
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, met with Trump’s lawyers on Thursday. Cruz alluded to a similar argument.
“The House managers focused a great deal on the president, using words like ‘fight’ or ‘fight like hell,'” Cruz said. “Well, if that constitutes incitement, then every single political candidate in America is guilty of incitement, because I guarantee you all 100 senators in that chamber have stood on the stump and said we need to ‘fight’ or ‘fight like hell.'”
Democratic elected officials who’ve previously used objectionable rhetoric who are expected to be featured on Friday may include Reps. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.; Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.; and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., among others.
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., leaves a leadership meeting as the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives begins a day of debate on the impeachment charges against President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Meanwhile, speculation among those involved is that the impeachment trial could end sometime before the end of the weekend — potentially Saturday or even earlier. That would require the Trump lawyers to wrap up a brief presentation Friday and for the Senate to blow through the remaining procedural hurdles between them and the end of the trial.
“We’re hoping they — the thing concludes by Saturday,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Thursday.
“We were talking earlier, maybe … three or four hours, something like that,” Schoen said of his planned Friday presentation when speaking to reporters Thursday.
TRUMP STEERS CLEAR OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL RAPID RESPONSE WITHOUT TWITTER MEGAPHONE
One of those hurdles is whether there will be witnesses in the trial. The House impeachment managers have left the door open to asking the Senate to subpoena witnesses, but they have continued to refuse to confirm that they will bring witnesses.
“I’ll just say you’re going to see a devastating case against Trump in the managers’ presentation in the coming days,” a senior aide on the House impeachment managers team said Tuesday when asked about witnesses.
“The American people with this … The senators witnessed this,” said impeachment manager Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., when asked about witnesses Thursday.
This is a stark break from Democrats’ comments during Trump’s previous impeachment trial. Last year, they alleged that Senate Republicans were holding a sham trial because they refused to bring witnesses despite weeks of hearings and depositions in the House of Representatives that created a record on the Ukraine matter Trump was impeached over.
“Whoever heard of a trial without witnesses and documents? It’s unprecedented,” now-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on Jan. 7, 2020.
Supporters of President Donald Trump climb the west wall of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
The Trump team lawyers on Friday will also be aiming to redeem themselves after a widely panned performance Tuesday. Attorney Bruce Castor gave a meandering speech as the Senate was considering the constitutionality of impeachment. Several GOP senators, including Graham and Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said Castor’s performance was weak. Cassidy himself switched his vote from previously saying that the impeachment trial was unconstitutional to saying that it is constitutional due to the Tuesday arguments.
“If anyone disagrees with my vote and would like an explanation, I ask them to listen to the arguments presented by the House Managers and former President Trump’s lawyers,” Cassidy said in a statement. “The House managers had much stronger constitutional arguments. The president’s team did not.”
It’s also possible the Trump legal team could debut Philadelphia personal injury attorney Michael T. van der Veen, who joined the team in recent days, in a presenting role Friday.
Trump’s lawyers will likely also revisit the constitutionality argument on Friday even though that issue was settled on a vote Tuesday. All they need is to prevent 17 GOP senators from voting to convict — only 6 of them voted on Tuesday that the trial is even allowed to happen.
LEAD IMPEACHMENT MANAGER RASKIN REVEALS QUESTIONS HE WOULD HAVE ASKED TRUMP IF HE TESTIFIED
Democrats attempted to preempt this argument Thursday. House manager Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., implored senators to “focus like a laser beam on the facts and not return to the constitutional argument that’s already been decided by the Senate. Just as a defense lawyer who loses a motion to dismiss on a constitutional basis in a criminal case must let that go.”
Now-former President Donald Trump arrives to speak to supporters from The Ellipse near the White House on January 6, 2021, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)
The Trump team is also expected to explain that Trump’s speech on Jan. 6 was protected speech under the First Amendment and that the House did not provide Trump with sufficient due process.
“The Senate, in reviewing the House actions, should immediately dismiss this case because the process was completely unfair and one-sided,” Schoen, Castor and van der Veen said in a brief. “Throughout this entire process Speaker Pelosi was never acting to apply her understanding of the laws of impeachment in any principled manner. The Speaker did not think it was necessary to call for an impeachment so long as she got her way, and twice told the Vice President, and the country, just that.”
“President Trump’s speech at the January 6, 2021 event fell well within the norms of political speech that is protected by the First Amendment,” the lawyers also said. “The Supreme Court of the United States has long held that the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech protects elected officials such as Mr. Trump. The House Managers’ argument to the contrary both ignores well-established precedent and erodes the constitutional principles guiding this august body.”
Trump’s team is also expected to argue that the impeachment article alleges too many smaller offenses against the president and should have been broken up into several articles instead of just one.
Former Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor heads back into courtroom A after a break in a pre-trail hearing for entertainer Bill Cosby and his sexual assault case February 2, 2016 in Norristown, Pennsylvania. Castor is now a defense attorney for former President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial. (Photo by Clem Murray – Pool/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“Because the Article at issue here alleges multiple wrongs in the single article, it would be impossible to know if two-thirds of the members agreed on the entire article, or just on parts, as the basis for vote to convict,” the Trump team’s pre-trial brief says.
Trump’s current impeachment was spurred by the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump, after months of making false claims that he’d won the presidential election, held a rally in Washington, D.C., with his supporters on the same day Congress and then-Vice President Mike Pence were meeting in a joint session to certify the results of the election. That day, a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, forcing Pence and hundreds of lawmakers into hiding as they interrupted the election certification.
Trump, at the rally, repeated his false election claims and he and advisers used pitched rhetoric, riling up the large crowd. Trump at one point during the rally told his followers to “peacefully and patriotically” march to the Capitol, a comment his defenders point to as part of the reason why he does not bear responsibility for the ransacking of the Capitol.
But House impeachment managers are arguing that one comment does not cancel out the balance of Trump’s other comments in that speech or in the proceeding months. They say the former president is fundamentally responsible for the Capitol riot and that it was foreseeable that his words and actions would have led to the Jan.6 violence.
Fox News’ James Levinson, Jason Donner and Kelly Phares contributed to this report.
Thank you for stopping by and checking this article regarding current USA Business and Political news titled “Trump lawyers expected to allege Dem hypocrisy Friday as defense gets its turn at impeachment trial”. This news release is brought to you by MyLocalPages Australia as part of our local news services.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump fumed that his attorneys’ performance on the opening day of his second impeachment trial was a disaster, as allies and Republican senators questioned the strategy and some called for yet another shakeup to his legal team.
Trump, who was watching the proceedings in Washington from his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, was “furious” at what he saw, according to a person familiar with his thinking. Senators, too, balked at what they described as an unfocused and rambling performance as Trump’s team and Democratic House managers began to lay out their cases in front of the Senate jury.
U.S. Senate says Trump’s 2nd impeachment trial is constitutional in 56-44 vote
While it remains unlikely that more than a handful of Republicans will join Democrats in convicting the former president at the end of the trial, the proceedings were a chance for Trump to try to repair some of the damage to his legacy incurred over the storming of the Capitol by a mob of his supporters. Trump has been charged with inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection, and last month he became the first president in history to be impeached by the House twice.
Story continues below advertisement
But Trump’s team — which was announced little more than a week ago — appeared unprepared as they attempted a good cop, bad cop routine that veered from flattery to legalese, and stood in dramatic contrast to Democrats’ focused emotional appeals.
U.S. Senate votes Trump’s impeachment trial constitutional in 56-44 vote
U.S. Senate votes Trump’s impeachment trial constitutional in 56-44 vote
Trump — ever the showman — was impressed with the Democrats, who opened Tuesday’s session with powerful video that compiled scenes of the deadly attack on Congress. And he complained that his team — especially lead lawyer Bruce Castor — came off badly on television and looked weak in comparison, according to the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
The anger was echoed by Trump allies, who blasted the lawyers both publicly and privately and with repeated profanities.
“There is no argument. I have no idea what he’s doing. I have no idea why he’s saying what he’s saying,” said Alan Dershowitz, an attorney who represented Trump in his first impeachment trial, as he weighed in on Castor during an appearance on Newsmax as the session was underway.
Story continues below advertisement
The 6 Republicans who voted with Democrats on Trump impeachment trial’s constitutionality
Peter Navarro, a former Trump trade adviser, had already been urging the former president to ditch his legal team and hire Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz before the trial began, warning: “You gotta get rid of those guys. These people don’t understand. This is a political trial.”
Canada approves Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine label change to 6 doses
Marco Muzzo, drunk driver who killed 4, granted full parole
Republican members of the Senate appeared equally baffled, especially at Castor, who spent much of his time buttering up senators with compliments, praising the case made by Democrats and going on tangents.
GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said Castor “just rambled on and on and on and didn’t really address the constitutional argument.” He said that Trump attorney David Schoen, who spoke second, “got around to it” and “did an effective job. But I’ve seen a lot of lawyers and a lot of arguments and that was not one of the finest I’ve seen.”
U.S. Senate agrees on rules on eve of Trump impeachment trial
U.S. Senate agrees on rules on eve of Trump impeachment trial
Before the criticism mounted, another Trump adviser described Castor’s presentation as part of a “very clear, deliberative strategy.”
Story continues below advertisement
After the Democrats’ emotionally charged opening, Castor had set about “lowering the temperature” before “dropping the hammer on the unconstitutional nature of this impeachment witch hunt.”
The hammer did not appear to hit its nail.
‘Grievous crime’ or ‘theatre’? Senate prepares for Trump’s 2nd impeachment trial
Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who voted with Democrats on Tuesday to move forward with the trial, said that Trump’s team did a “terrible job” and was “disorganized,” “random” and “did everything they could but to talk about the question at hand.”
GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who also voted with Democrats, said she was “perplexed” by Castor, “who did not seem to make any arguments at all, which was an unusual approach to take.”
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, one of Trump’s staunchest allies, said he didn’t think the lawyers had done “the most effective job,” while South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, another close ally to Trump. said he didn’t know where Castor was going with his arguments.
Schumer says GOP vote to dismiss impeachment ‘deeply irresponsible,’ vows trial will go forward
Schumer says GOP vote to dismiss impeachment ‘deeply irresponsible,’ vows trial will go forward – Jan 27, 2021
Trump’s team did not respond to requests for comment on the day’s events or on whether they are planning any shakeups to the legal team.
Story continues below advertisement
Asked for a response to the GOP criticism as he was leaving the trial, Castor — who had said during the trial that the team had “changed what we were going to do” at the last minute because the House managers had done a good job — would say only that “we had a good day.” Schoen told reporters that he hadn’t spoken yet to the president, but would “have to do better next time.”
“I mean, I always hope to improve. I hope I can do that,” he said.
Trump parted ways with his original impeachment team just over a week before the Senate trial was set to begin, in part because Trump wanted them to use a defence that relied on unfounded allegations of election fraud, and the lawyers were not willing to do so.
Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.
Thank you for stopping by and checking this news update regarding International and Canadian Political updates published as “Trump ‘furious’ at his lawyers’ performance as 2nd impeachment trial begins: sources – National”. This news article is shared by My Local Pages as part of our Australian news services.
Lawyers for former President Trump on Monday submitted a brief saying that Democrats’ effort to convict the president in an impeachment trial after he’s left office is “political theater,” and that the trial is outside of the Senate’s constitutional authority.
“Instead of acting to heal the nation, or at the very least focusing on prosecuting the lawbreakers who stormed the Capitol, the Speaker of the House and her allies have tried to callously harness the chaos of the moment for their own political gain,” the brief says, according to the Associated Press.
The brief also echoes arguments made in the Trump team’s initial answer to the impeachment article that Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen were within his First Amendment rights.
President Donald Trump reacts after speaking near a section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall, Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2021, in Alamo, Texas. Trump is the only American president to ever be impeached twice. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
The brief comes the day before the trial is set to begin in earnest, with arguments over its constitutionality likely, and Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., set to preside.
TRUMP IMPEACHMENT CONVICTION? ‘ZERO CHANCE, REPUBLICANS SAY, AS DEMS MOVE FORWARD WITH CASE
House impeachment managers, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., are also expected to file a brief of their own on Monday morning.
The filings from both Trump’s team and the Democrats who aim to secure the former president’s conviction will provide a preview of the arguments they plan to make during the trial hearings.
The Senate has yet to officially agree to a framework for the trial. But a potential one is currently being circulated that would allow for four hours of debate Tuesday about whether the trial is constitutional, followed by a vote on “Constitutionality.”
There could also be debate and a vote on a call by impeachment managers for witnesses. And the trial may switch from the traditional six days per week with Sunday off model to six days per week with Saturday off. Trump lawyer David Schoen observes the Jewish Sabbath and asked that the trial pause Friday at 5 p.m. and resume Sunday.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Fox News’ Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Thank you for stopping to visit My Local Pages. We Hope you enjoyed checking this post involving USA Business and Political news published as “Trump lawyers rail against impeachment trial as ‘political theater’ on eve of proceedings”. This news update was presented by My Local Pages Australia as part of our local and national news services.
Thanks for dropping by and checking this news article regarding International and World News and updates called “Trump lawyers quit before impeachment trial as Giuliani to be sued over Capitol riot claims”. This post was posted by MyLocalPages as part of our national news services.
Trump is set to stand trial on the week of February 8 on a charge that he incited the riot inside the US Capitol. Republicans and Trump aides have made clear that they intend to make a simple argument: The trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office.
CNN was first to report the departure of the lawyers.
The decision comes days after Trump added two more former federal prosecutors from South Carolina, Greg Harris and Johnny Gasser, to his impeachment legal team.
Harris is a former county and federal prosecutor with expertise in white-collar cases. He’s currently in private practice with Gasser, who has also been a prosecutor at the local and federal levels, serving as South Carolina’s acting US Attorney for more than a year. He went into private practice with Harris.
Both attorneys have experience in public corruption cases, with both representing Republican state Representative Rick Quinn on charges of misconduct in office. Quinn ultimately resigned in a 2017 deal that resulted in the termination of conspiracy and illegal lobbying charges against his father, GOP consultant Richard Quinn — who had at times counted former President Ronald Reagan and senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham among his clients.
It’s in part on the advice of US senator Lindsey Graham that Trump is turning to the South Carolina team after other legal allies passed on the case. It’s a notable departure from his 2020 impeachment trial, when Trump had a stable of nationally known attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz, Jay Sekulow and Kenneth Starr.
Bowers has years of experience representing elected officials and political candidates, including former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. Bowers represented Sanford when state lawmakers mulled impeaching the governor after revelations Sanford had disappeared from the state, leaving no chain of command for five days, to see his lover in Argentina in 2009. The impeachment effort never made it out of committee.
Bowers also successfully guided another former governor, Nikki Haley, through an investigation into whether she had violated state ethics law.
Barbier spent more than a decade as a federal prosecutor and now, in private practice, specialises in white-collar defence. She also represented Richard Quinn in his illegal lobbying case.
The House officially transmitted the article of impeachment – accusing Trump of inciting the mob that rampaged through the US Capitol on January 6 – to the Senate on Monday. The trial could have officially begun Tuesday, but Republicans pushed to delay it to give Trump a chance to organise his legal team and prepare a defence.
If convicted, Trump could be barred from holding public office again, ending any hopes of mounting another White House bid in 2024.
Most Viewed in World
Thank you for visiting My Local Pages and checking out this news release involving VIC news titled “Trump loses lead impeachment lawyers a week before trial”. This news article was brought to you by My Local Pages Australia as part of our news aggregator services.
The U.S. Treasury Department must grant former President Trump’s lawyers a 72-hour warning if it allows his tax returns to be released to Democrats, a judge ruled Friday, according to a report.
U.S. Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is still seeking the returns after he was refused access to them in 2019 by then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who claimed Democrats didn’t have a “legitimate legislative purpose” for the request, Politico reported.
Neal had cited a law that requires the Treasury to turn over tax documents at the request of House tax committees.
Democrats sued in federal court in a case that is still pending a year and a half later.
NEW YORK TIMES AND TRUMP TAXES: WHY IT’S NOT A CAMPAIGN BOMBSHELL
Washington, D.C., District Court Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, put the two-week order in place because the Treasury Department could reverse course under the new Biden administration.
He also ordered both sides to give a status report on Feb. 3.
The nomination of President Biden’s Treasury secretary pick, former Federal Reserve boss Janet Yellen, was unanimously approved by the Senate Finance Committee on Friday and now heads to the full Senate for a vote Monday.
WHO IS JANET YELLEN, BIDEN’S PICK TO LEAD THE TREASURY?
Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House, told McFadden in the hearing that Treasury has a “clear legal obligation” to turn over the documents that Democrats still want even though he’s out of office, according to Politico. “Our feeling is enough is enough. The statute is clear,” he said.
It’s unclear if the Treasury Department under Biden will allow the House access to the returns.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Democrats and the district attorney of New York City are also seeking his tax returns in separate cases.
Thank you for dropping in to My Local Pages and reading this news release regarding International and USA Business news and updates called “Trump’s lawyers must get 72-hour warning if Treasury turns over president’s tax returns to Democrats: judge”. This post was presented by My Local Pages as part of our USA news services.