Trump Legal Team Adds Starr and Dershowitz for Senate Trial

Ken Starr and a third lawyer named to the team, Robert Ray, were independent counsels who investigated President Bill Clinton.

Comments: 245

  1. C'mon. The dangerous constitutional precedent sits in The White House Oval Office.

  2. another person of questionable repute...

  3. Having Ken Starr there is like when the Clinton accusers were invited by trump to be at the debate. Pure showmanship , as telling as a failed Atlantic City casino

  4. @RP Agreed, but lest we forget, the Clinton accusers were invited to the debate as a cruel stunt to rattle Hillary Clinton.

  5. @RP, People seem to forget the failed AC Casino. I was always under the impression that the "house always wins."

  6. @Steve Beck Only if the house is competent.

  7. "Only the best people, folks." The plot thins considerably.

  8. @H. Clark Earlier it was Giuliani and ... Michael Cohen, so indeed.

  9. I hope people appreciate the irony of lawyers who once went after Clinton now defending Trump. If you wrote that as fiction people wouldn't believe it.

  10. @Bookpuppy If you wrote any of this whole story as fiction, people wouldn't believe it. Imagine writing the screenplay (as I imagine dozens are right at this moment) - if it hadn't happened as it actually did, every production company in the world would reject it as too convoluted and impossible to imagine.

  11. @inkspot Good point... I wonder what genre it would be, a comedy, a drama or a horror story?

  12. @Flatfoot film noir

  13. TV’s best lawyers, except for Matlock.

  14. @Steve Or Jack McCoy!

  15. They're definitely going play him as the "I've impeached a president before and this case is much weaker than that one" card despite the mountains of evidence against Trump.

  16. The lowest of the low. No surprise here.

  17. Of course every defendant has a right to the best council he can obtain. Dershowitz is always in it for the show and I am doubtful of his true concern for our Constitution. The on real question is will get to hear real witnesses?

  18. So it will be a circus!

  19. @jewel It already is a circus and has been since trump entered the race in 2016 and will continue to be even if trump should lose in 2020 which is not likely to happen. Oh well, it sells media.

  20. @jewel A continuation of the circus

  21. @jewel Just ned the Oom-Pah band now...

  22. Doesn't any of these men have the integrity to tell the president, "I cannot be part of your legal team. I am... um... washing my hair that day"?

  23. @JimG no

  24. @JimG Who among these guys has hair?

  25. So Dinero will play Starr, who will play Dershowitz? Tom Hanks? Should be a good movie. Trump is demanding 5% of the gross.

  26. Hanks plays too many good guys. I say Pacino

  27. @Bob Dershowitz will be played by Ron Silver, who also played him in Reversal of Fortune (1990).

  28. @Bob Paul Giamatti would play Starr and Larry King could play Dershowitz.

  29. Since Trump is bringing such famous, hot shot, silk stocking lawyers, why don't they open this up fully to the press and let the public (and voters) see what is transpiring? Seems the public and press are encountering continued obfuscation and obstruction that goes to the heart of this proceeding.

  30. @LFDJR Trump isn't used to being on the receiving end of judicial system charges of dishonesty and abuses of power.

  31. The public has no right to know how their government functions.

  32. Dershowitz certainly is consistent in representing crooks. While I agree that even crooks deserve good legal counsel, it is surprising when the attorney seems to avoid representing the innocent. I am counting on Chief Justice Roberts to uphold his office and the constitution and at least be willing to hear all available facts.

  33. @Wallace Berman Don't count much on Roberts.

  34. You disparage a great man with a great mind. Defense attorneys defend. Has he not defended the innocent also ? You are confused about his record, sir

  35. @Wallace Berman Roberts has no power. Majority of the senate has to agree.

  36. "Money changes everything"

  37. Who is paying for this? Us, right?

  38. @Betty Lacy 'Who is paying for this? Us, right?' Mexico.

  39. Trump is hiring a lot of former somebodies for a man who swears up and down that he's innocent.

  40. @T3D: It is usually the far right and the far left that claim that one does not need a lawyer if they are innocent.

  41. @Jeff Now we see an interesting precedent: the defendant claims that witnesses are not needed.

  42. @T3D He, as are you and I, entitled to the best defense he can mount. It is as simple as that.

  43. What great constitutional principle is Mr. Dershowitz protecting, the right of the President to remain in office after he shoots someone on 5th Avenue?

  44. @Sherry Hopefully, he will protect the constitutional right to a fair trial. I mean a lot of witnesses, es[pecially first hand witnesses: Bolton, Mulwaney, Parnas, Sonderland, Pompeo, Giuliani etc. I strongly believe that they all completely exonerate Mr Trump, they are eagerly waiting to confirm his complete innocence during the perfect call. Everybody has a right to a fair trial!

  45. I would love to hear A.D. argue that a shooting on 5th Ave. was either a perfect shooting, or not an abuse of power.

  46. They will have the simplest job in the world. They don't need to put up a defense or ask any questions, there are not going to be any witnesses, just some formalities to enter documents into the record. We know the outcome already, acquittal.

  47. Hasn't Ken Starr done enough damage to our democracy? And Dershowitz has plenty to answer for in regards to his own relationship with Epstein. Not to mention Sekulow who used his Christian "non-profit" to enrich himself and his family. We shouldn't be surprised I guess. After all, Trump always surrounds himself with people he can relate to - grifters, conmen, and charlatans.

  48. @logic Because we are a free country, our legal system demands that everyone be represented by qualified council. Attacking a lawyer because of the clients they have represented, is a standard trick used by fascists; woe be upon us, when the readers of our liberal press start to do this.

  49. @logic Great comment. Well you know, as the old saying goes - "vultures of a feather flock together"

  50. @logic And people accused of sexual assault or ignoring sexual assault allegations - that's like Old Home Week to Trump.

  51. Blatant gaslighting by Trump, which is unfortunately what he does far better than anything else. Upping the level of hypocrisy between treatment of Clinton and Trump impeachment inquiries 1000% leaving the country to think they must be crazy. It’s always his playbook and unfortunately, it always works. People who engage in this behavior are extremely destructive and the only thing you can do is avoid them at all costs.

  52. @Tim Unfortunately, avoiding Trump isn't an option, at least for the next year.

  53. Gaslighting? Such an overused and misused term. He, like every American, is entitled to a competent defense.

  54. @Joe Yohka But he doesn't need a competent defense. He doesn't need any defense. For senate republicans, "I didn't do it" is enough evidence. Trump's right, it truly is a sham.

  55. From TV to the White House right from the top. By the way, who pays the legal fees in Presidential impeachment cases? The President or the taxpayers?

  56. I dunno about Presidential impeachments, but the impeachment of THIS loser is definitely on our tab. Since when has he paid, let alone in full, for ANYTHING? Well, apart from the hush money. In installments... Roberts and the Senate ought to seek court costs. They're on his side and won't, but ought to.

  57. @SR If Trump wins, the costs should be on the Democrats in the House. If the Mueller probe turns out to have been criminally started, then Trump should sue the DNC for ALL the money it received from donors, and more...

  58. @ALN - I'm remembering that the Clintons had huge legal bills to personally pay when they left the White House. I assume at least some of it was for the impeachment defense.

  59. WOW! Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz have been added to the president’s legal team. What that represents to me is shear desperation and hope that the Senators will be impressed with their past track records. No matter how Trump tries to dress up his defense team, the facts, the evidence, and the testimony will not alter his abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

  60. Maybe each defendant deserves the best legal representation possible Or you can believe otherwise as you seem to, in this case

  61. @Marge Keller Mr. Trump has the right to hire whomever he wants to represent him. In my view he has chosen well. I am sure that these attorneys will weigh in on the key issue of whether the Senate should take additional testimony and review additional documents. Of course, that decision will be made not by the attorneys, but by the Senate itself.

  62. Actually, no, Trump will NOT be removed from office and he knows it. He's far from desperate. Moscow Mitch will bury evidence that could convict and Trump gets to walk. Worse yet, the mind of the narcissist will realize that he is completely above the law and will commit even more egregious offenses. Don't count on the election to save our democracy. All that's left is massive protests across America. One is planned for tomorrow. Google WOMEN'S MARCH for the local event near you.

  63. The impeachment needed to be done however politics have entered a new realm where facts don't matter. Lawyers have figured out loopholes for politicians usually on our dime for decades now and they got it down to a science. Justice Roberts who should have never been appointed is in the GOP's pocket not to mention all of the republicans who lied under oath yesterday stating they will be impartial. This is a tough mountain to climb for justice but it needs to continue. I'd like to see a few million Americans protesting outside the White House next week.

  64. @Hal Sorry to say, Justice Roberts was duly appointed. He is not in GOP's pocket. You may not agree with this philosophy. Concentrate on getting right senators elected. Elections have consequences.

  65. Democrats and other liberals do a marvelous service to this country when they lay aside their daily obligations to take time to tell lawyers who they may and may not represent. These directions are in the finest tradition of the American legal system.

  66. @Rodgerlodger and the GOP do a marvelous service to this country when they lay aside their daily obligations to take time to tell lawyers who they may and may not represent.

  67. @Rodgerlodger Starr and Dershowitz can represent whomever they want. It's the 19-times-accused Trump who should have the brains not to hire two guys with a history of allegedly enabling sexual harassment and assault.

  68. @Rodgerlodger No one really cares who his lawyers are. It is the obstruction under some guise of executive privilege. The privilege to lie and break the laws and not be found out. How do you define yourself as an independent and accept that?

  69. Las Vegas is taking bets on how long it'll take Trump to say "You're fired!" to a member of this legal team. Personally, I think it's a big mistake as the GOP Senate will push through to a pre-determined acquittal as fast as possible.

  70. Dershowitz does not surprise. Starr shocks me that he would lend his hand to this effort. I realize everyone is entitled to a good defense but the collateral damage sloughing off on Trump associates of all kinds suggests this might be suicidal. I'm not against suicide in and of itself; it is practiced as a fundamental right in most of the world.

  71. Well, it all works out well after Epstein and the 14 year old pictures with Alan were taken care of in an efficient manner.

  72. I believe, in 2016, the Baylor Unversity board of regents fired school president Ken Starr because of a sexual assault scandal involving the Bears football team. The regents believed that the blame for the school’s failure in handling rape and sexual assault reports fell on Starr. There is some irony to consider as he is part of the legal team for the defense ...

  73. Actually, the last client that Starr had that I knew about was Jeffery Epstein.... and we all know how THAT turned out.

  74. @rosa - You're right - Starr helped get Epstein's jail sentence in Florida served at his mansion during the daytime. But Starr is a committed "Christian", so what could possibly go wrong?!

  75. @rosa -we can only hope...

  76. @rosa You know, you have just cheered me up.

  77. More of Timothy Egan's "good guys" who do nothing, except become enablers of trump.

  78. These lawyers would be smart to get their fees up front, given Mr. Trump's track record on paying his bills.

  79. @Donna A. Serious question: Does Trump or do we taxpayers pay the legal bills for this?

  80. Something tells me there’ll be some shuffling of $ in government books that will ensure we the taxpayers foot the bill, just like this weekend of golfing in FL.

  81. @Crea May I actually don't know the answer to that question. I'm sure it will be covered on MSNBC tonight with either Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow.

  82. Ken Starr, huh? What the matter, running out of real lawyers they can hire?

  83. Wow. No wonder the Dems are trembling about their second thoughts on forwarding shoddy articles of impeachment. The defense team of Ken Starr and Alan Dershowtiz and others will blow the persecution of the president by the prosecution out of the water. In addition there is the expert testimony from the constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley who had warned that rushing the articles of impeachment will be an abuse of power by congress if it does not involve the judiciary. The democrats can retract the impeachment or it will get dismissed or be declared null and void. Either way it is going to result in an angry nation or at least the independents like me who are not going to forgive the members of the house who voted for a hasty, partisan impeachment, which is an abuse of power by the house.

  84. @Girish Kotwal Independent and looking at the facts, only at the facts, including recent evidence... Really?

  85. @Girish Kotwal Regardless if Trump gets removed from office this sends a powerful message. But because of the House impeachment you'll now vote for another 4 years of Trump and then you will complain about what a horrible President he is. So thanks for helping along with the demise of this country. I have to believe you would have voted for Trump anyway.

  86. @Landis from Denver Co. There are 2 sets of facts and the burden of proof is on the accuser and not the accused. In our great country, a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. I don't think the facts proved any high crimes so yes REALLY.

  87. I don’t think it’s setting a dangerous precedent to remove an irresponsible and inept POTUS who has already shown his open contempt for presidential norms, basic decency, and the truth. If anything, removing Trump sets the precedent that you can’t act like Trump as president and get away with it.

  88. @Anthony Spot on comment.

  89. Wasn't Mr. Dershowitz at the table of the President at a Mar-a-Lago dinner when and important call was made/received at the table? I remember being so surprised to see they were friends.

  90. @Trish "All virtue is a matter of prices." Margaret Mitchell, Gone With the Wind. And trump had the Epstein dirt on Dershowitz.

  91. Dershowitz is represented to be protecting the constitution? Then he's the wrong person for the job. It's the constitution that trump and his criminal enablers are ignoring. I guess it's not fair to say that Dershowitz and Starr have allowed their reputations to be sullied by joining this criminal gang, but in fairness they have no reputations to protect.

  92. Neil Young’s better to burn out advice over fading away has proven all too effective.

  93. I couldn't help but guess earlier this week that Alan Dershowitz would join Trump's defense team. This notorious defender of O. J. Simpson has been outspoken about excusing Trump's trashing of the Constitution. Dershowitz is smart and he knows the law but his penchant is to circumvent or trounce the law. Ken Starr has repeatedly made clear that he didn't spill all of his bile and venom against Democrats in the Clinton impeachment so it comes as no surprise that Trump would want him on his team. What is a surprise is that Trump wasn't able to get Putin to join the team. After all, Putin owes Trump a few return favors. Some might argue, Putin would not be legally allowed to represent Trump, but Trump never concerns himself with nuisances like legality. Bottom line, Trump and McConnell are determined to put on a show, turn the impeachment "trial" into a multi-ring circus. They have two objectives: distract the American people from the truth and entertain the MAGAts.

  94. @JABarry "Putin owes Trump a few return favors" Putin ows Obama, not Trump. After all, Obama refused to give the Ukrainians defensive weapons, so tens of thousands were slaughtered by the Russians on Obama's watch. Trump gave the weapons, and the slaughter stopped. If anyone, Obama was Putin's man, he even let Putin interfere in the 2016 elections, without stopping him. Nice deflection, to blame it all on Trump.

  95. @novoad Oh brother, tho hath no true knowledge of events.

  96. Very sad for two men who will now not salvage their reputations.

  97. @S. Mitchell I don't think there's anything to salvage. They are both pretty despicable as is.

  98. @S. Mitchell Do they care?

  99. @S. Mitchell What reputation salvaging for Dershowitz, he is with a predator pedophile. Dershowitz already bottom of the tar pit.

  100. HA! HA! HA! Trump cant get an A Team, so he goes for the Reality TV team! Only the best (not!) for Don the Con! If he tweets during the trial, does it count as testimony?

  101. @Am Brown Under ordinary evidence rules, since he's a party, and of his statements, however made and communicated, would be admissible. But this trial, of course, has nothing to do with the ordinary, with the jury foreman (McConnell) collaborating/colluding with the accused on their defense and his admission that he's not impartial (what a revelation!).

  102. @Am Brown Sure hope so. Mitch must have a special rule for that.

  103. I guess we can assume the entire Fox lineup will eventually be added. They can air their shows from the Senate chamber trial.

  104. Ken Starr: Always on the wrong side of history.

  105. @Kbw The devil made him do it.

  106. As reported right in this paper, Ken Starr who prosecuted Bill Clinton for his sexual improprieties, then went on to being a University president in Texas where he could not control sexual improprieties of the football recruiting team is now going to defend a president with history of another sexual improprieties. When are the people going to say enough is enough?

  107. Never. The people are pawns. They do what they are told to do and avoid controversy.

  108. The worst that money can buy.

  109. Mr. Starr was removed as President of Baylor University within two weeks of a law firm's report that his administration failed to respond to reports of rape and sexual assault filed by at least six female students from 2009 to 2016, including involving a football player who was convicted of rape. And, Mr. Dershowitz settled a lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged that he had sex with her while she was a teenager, and has two pending defamation suits against him by the woman and David Boies, her attorney. Seems like a perfect legal team for Donald Trump to me.

  110. @Didier Just when one thought the bar could not go any lower. Good job Didier!!!

  111. Exactly! Like attracts like.

  112. @Marge Keller Excellent pun!

  113. I'd like an order of hypocrisy with a side of irony, to go. Apparently, you don't have to hold the integrity...that's how this dish is served.

  114. A big mistake to add Starr and Dershowitz. Shows that the Trump team are a bunch of amateurs. Starr who zealously prosecuted and recommended impeachment because Clinton lied about his relationship with Lewinsky and is going to defend Trump who has trashed the constitution? Sure.

  115. @cec There is a fine irony, isn't there, that Ken Starr, who prosecuted Bill Clinton for lying to Congress about sex and had to resign his post at Baylor over a mishandled sexual assault investigation, is now defending an accused sexual miscreant and World Champion Liar? A person can go far in the Republican party if they altogether lack a sense of shame.

  116. This is the geriatric legal dream team.

  117. @Prudence Spencer I agree- then again so is the entire make up of both Houses of Congress. I believe 86% are +65 YO and up..

  118. @Aaron Wouldn't it be great if we had term limits or age limits (or both) on positions that play such an important part in the future of our country!

  119. Having Starr on the defense team will lay bare the GOP's hypocrisy. There are absolutely no good faith arguments for why Clinton should have been removed but Trump should not.

  120. @Bryan Ah, but Clinton wasn't removed. He was impeached, but let off by the Senate.

  121. So Starr will defend a sitting president that was using congressionally authorized funds to leverage false reports about a potential political opponent - but contrarily spent years and tens of millions of tax dollars prosecuting a sitting president that was having sex with an intern in the Oval Office. The seriousness of the offenses are dramatically different. The former was a multifaceted constitutional violation and the latter a behavior not a rarity for previous administrations. Dershowitz will defend the sitting president to avoid personal obscurity like so many of the elder White House ineffective swamp inhabitants. When do rats quit boarding, much less abandon, the sinking ship? Don’t any of these people have morals - or at least hobbies? Blind obedience seems to be contagious.

  122. One would think that Dershowitz and Starr would give defense of Trump "a miss". After all, attorneys who involve themselves with Trump, often destroy their professional reputations and generally are not paid.

  123. @batpa Yeah,but their bargaining power on right wing news shows just went up.

  124. Why not Brad Pitt and Fyodor Dostoyevsky?

  125. @RSM If it would help our President, sure thing! But really, using them as counsel makes about as much sense as these "articles of impeachment"

  126. Ken Starr. So this charade is going to re-litigate the Culture Wars. With Trump as Cyrus the Persian leading the forces of light against the forces of darkness in the American apocalypse. Evangelicalism will cheer. Yet the truth of the gospel, which is forever found only in the shadow of the cross, will elude them. The gospel wants peace, not war. American Christianity is at a crossroads. Evangelicalism is following Trump into the way of falsehood and disaster. The mainstream church can only say: this is not the truth found in Scripture. You are making a terrible mistake.

  127. @Paul C. McGlasson Evangelicals, Muslims, Jews, Mormons....have been basing their religions on the myth and superstitions of their ancestors for centuries. If they can survive and flourish with that, they can add Don to their various dieties(good guys or bad) and continue to brain wash their adherents. They all left fact behind long ago.

  128. And what "dangerous Constitutional precedent" will be set if the President is allowed to seek assistance from foreign enemies in rigging our elections? I understand the white supremacists, the hyper partisan, the ignorant, the xenophobes, the religious right, the 1% and the just plain mean people's motivations for backing Trump but his support among smart people is chilling. They know, or should know, the gravity of the situation, the seriousness of the accusations and the historical weight of this argument, which can only lead to one conclusion. These men are simply evil.

  129. @Rick Gage: Just substitute the adjective "smart" with the adjective "greedy," and it all falls into place.

  130. Maybe the Yankees should out Keith Hernandez back on their roster. Kind of seems like the same strategy the White House us using.

  131. The addition of high profile lawyers such as Starr and Dershowitz indicates they are reversing course and hunkering down for a long trial. Long enough to cripple if not derail the Senators who are running for the Democratic nomination and cannot leave Washington for the duration.

  132. A long trial is great news for Dems and a President Pelosi.

  133. @Susan And who's fault is THAT? Perhaps if the House was not in such a rush to impeach without without more "evidence" or calling witnesses they REALLY wanted but were too much in a "time crunch" to get their much desired testimony and then the "genius" of Pelosi acting like a bully child with a toy in a playground and not delivering the articles of impeachment in a timely matter, then these Dems would not have to come off the campaign trail in this timeframe. The Dems have no one to blame for the timing of this nonsense - but themselves.

  134. @DB more evidence?

  135. A weird legal team. One common thread among the recent additions to the team seems to be Jeffrey Epstein. They all seem to be shrouded in either controversy or some scandal whether it be getting massages at Epstein's (Dershowtiz) mansion or sexual assault at Baylor within their sports programs (Starr). Our values, standards and what we accept as a culture and for personal behavior seems to be falling.

  136. @Ian Weird, like everything about Trump's circle--and Recycled! All of these people, Trump himself, Barr--we just can't seem to get out of the 20th century.

  137. @Ian McConnell has more lawyers at his beck and call than Pelosi has pens.

  138. @Ian A Dream Team for Trump. A nightmare for America!

  139. Trump still thinks this is a reality TV show.

  140. @Mark OMG! Are you telling me that this is not a reality TV show?

  141. Of course. Like attracts like: the creeps and the criminals. Is there ever a moment when any Republicans in the current leadership will put country above party and stand up for the rule of law, decency and the integrity of our Republic? Yeah, I didn’t think so ...

  142. So...the guy that argued for impeaching a president for lying about sex is going to defend this guy. And a "shady land deal" kicked off the investigation. Has there ever been a shady deal POTUS didn't like?

  143. Kenneth Starr, staunch guardian of public morality (unless it involves the Baylor football team) now returns to defend the dignity and integrity of the Oval Office. Another sickening display of hypocrisy from this supposedly upright public figure. How does he even justify this to himself?

  144. I would have thought that Starr, after failing to act against football players who sexually assaulted women when he was President of Southern Methodist, and then was removed by the university board for his egregious stupidity, would have stayed in the shadows and let his tattered reputation rest. Instead, he comes out and puts himself at the service of the worst criminal to occupy the White House, in a Senate trial his party is doing its best to subvert and turn into a charade. Try as I may, I can't picture some honorable former Republican like Howard Baker, Elliot Richardson, or Ev Dirksen in that role. This should cap off his lamentable career.

  145. @Robert Levine make that Baylor University

  146. Ken Starr? I guess it takes a crook to defend a crook.

  147. I'm not sure the expensive, star lawyers much matter. The vast majority of Republican senators, despite any "oaths" they took to be impartial jurors looking out for justice and the Constitution, are coming into this with their minds made up for acquittal (in fact, McConnell and Graham have already said as much). If you follow actions and not words, you will see that the real oath is to continued consolidation of power, attraction of partisan campaign donations, and re-election. What Trump did or continues to do matters not.

  148. @Ken, While I am on your side, to be fair - not that McConnell would ever be fair - an almost equal number of Democratic senators' minds are equally made up. It is a pathetic statement that our senators of both parties so easily swore oaths to be impartial jurors, but yes, especially deplorable for McConnell and Graham.

  149. @Ken do you naively believe that even one Democrat senator has not already committed to his leadership that he or she will vote for removal? By the way, Alan Dershowitz is a committed liberal Democrat who publicly acknowledges his vote for Hillary in 2016.

  150. @Bill They were persuaded by this pesky thing called ‘evidence.’

  151. I watch Robert Ray on cable news channels panels. My observation is that when others speak, the guy puts his ears on mute.

  152. So much for eliminating the potential to have everything devolve into a circus. Our* only hope now is: 1. The whole thing goes as predicted (i.e., Senate acquittal). 2. DJT is even more emboldened than he was after Mr. Mueller's tepid and overly delicate presentation/s. 3. DJT then does something even more egregious. 4. Everyone everywhere perceives the lack of spin and wiggle room available this time around. 5. Restart, retry, remove. *More our democracy as we've understood it and come to expect it to function, less "us" on the side of reason.

  153. No matter how much evidence is acquired, if the senate refuses to accept anything after the impeachment was sent to the senate, important evidence of Trump's guilt will be omitted. Justice will be thwarted by gimmicks and Trump will claim he's been exonerated despite the omission of important facts by equally corrupt senators. When asked if she would examine all pertinent evidence, AZ Senator McSally insulted the reporter. While the "recall" process cannot remove McSally from office, AZ citizens can circulate a non binding petition demanding she accept new evidence. Said petition will make it abundantly clear of her reelection prospects. I suggest every state circulate a recall petition for those (so called) representatives who refuse to examine all of the pertinent evidence against Trump.

  154. Have people listened to Alan Dershowitz on Fox Radio? The guy has lost a step or two for sure. He's great at summarizing irrelevant legal theories on the Trump issues, knowing that Trump is as guilty of abuse of power as one could possibly be. But one thing is for sure, he is a notable CRIMINAL defense attorney and scholar, and Trump definitely needs that type of expertise. Ken Starr was run out of Baylor (as head of the law school and President of the University) for his complete and utter incompetence at handling a wide spread rape and sexual assault crisis that ensnared the football program, its coach and the University's leadership. Add to that the fact that Starr spent two years and tens of millions chasing Clinton and could only come up with Clinton's misconduct with Ms. Lewinsky. So Starr may be beloved by American conservatives, but he really won't have anyone shaking in their boots when opposing him. Trump is going to need more than these guys.

  155. @T Mo Indeed. Interesting that Trump hires a criminal attorney…

  156. @T Mo Bill Clinton is a convicted FELON, for crimes committed while in office.

  157. They are really bottom fishing in the mud here. But Ken Starr certainly does know a lot about cover ups and protecting the guilty. He had a lot of experience with that at Baylor and the sexual assault issues he ignored while he was president of that university. A total disgrace.

  158. Starr - Talk about turning up like a bad penny!

  159. Are they going to depose Monica Lewinsky as a character witness?

  160. @Fromjersey No, they'll just introduce the Dress as evidence.

  161. Now we know the defense’s strategy. Doesn’t matter whether I did it or not. It’s not a “high crime and misdemeanor”. The Dems better get constitutional scholars of equal or greater weight on their team to bury these two partisan advocates or their stature will give the Republicans just what they need to bury the impeachment.

  162. Having read that great bumpersticker, “ELECT A CLOWN, EXPECT A CIRCUS,” it’s clear why Starr and Dershowitz have been added to trump’s defense team: The Greatest Show on Earth can always use a couple more clowns.

  163. Starr, Dershowitz, Barr... It follows a pattern if you dig what I mean. Thanks Gil Scott-Heron

  164. Wow ! Trump will have more attorneys than the number of witnesses called by the House trial managers.

  165. You mean, the number of witnesses who showed up, of course. The rest who were called/subpoenaed were forbidden by their Dear Leader to show their faces in the House, and are still cowering in the White House, terrified of leaving the shelter of the president's mob and being forced to tell the truth under oath.

  166. Get ready for a lot of "up is down, down is up" talk. Trump cheated in the first election using Russian help. He was all set to do it again, but got caught. He then tried to shoot the messenger, the whistleblower. Most of Trump's success has been by cheating. If the republicans get away with all of this, the democrats ought to scream, "Secession!". Of course secession would be a huge mess, but far worse is a totally corrupt and fascist regime.

  167. @Stephen I don't think you can legitimately call it success if he cheated. His father, no angel himself, was at least a capable builder and manager. If he had not left Trump with so much he'd be the black sheep of the family sitting in a Queens bar drinking himself silly and complaining about how some imaginary enemy did this to him.

  168. @Stephen I support California secession. I will then move to Arizona. California won’t miss me.

  169. This isn't a dream team of Trump defenders. It is a nightmare squad of creepy self-righteous lawyers, shysters, really, who are helping send this country into a moral abyss.

  170. @Tim well said!

  171. @Tim you forgot "has beens" - locked in the same time warp as Treasonous Trumpie

  172. @observer Trump, Starr, Dershowitz... I can picture them together exchanging salacious jokes in the boys' locker room.

  173. As much as he wishes it so, Mr. Dershowitz will not be remembered as his generation’s most brilliant legal mind. It’s most opportunistic? Probably.

  174. That will depend on his arguments and his professional responsibilities.

  175. Absolutely not, he’s a conservative shill and not a very good one!

  176. Actually, he will. I am generally not concerned with what baristas think about lawyers.

  177. And maybe throw in Epstein and Putin as character witnesses.

  178. @Richard: Don't forget that paragon of virtue, Prince Andrew.

  179. A reality TV extravaganza to blanket the Republican sham proceedings!

  180. @vm Trump won't be pleased with the press black-out. Maybe he'll twitter what we can't watch, pictures included. Remember, there are no rules and no laws when it concerns him...….someone will keep him in the moment-to-moment loop.

  181. @LEE You make a good point!

  182. I guess Judge Judy and Jerry Springer weren't available. It must have been a shock for trump to learn that Raymond Burr died.

  183. While I get the intent of your comment, it must be mentioned that Raymond Burr, an actor whose character (Perry Mason) would, somehow ,defend only the innocent, was a Canadian man who sponsored over 20 foster children, did many tours for the USO, and was quite well-regarded by people who worked with him. I know that, a quarter of a century deceased, he is an easier choice for a joke -- and, god knows, we all need humour, Tim, now that nearly 4 dozen Republican U.S. Senators are likely to betray their oath to run an honest trial --.....but, it seems that Raymond Burr was a good dude, and folks should at least be aware of that. Just sayin'.

  184. He'd be shocked to learn Aaron Burr died.

  185. @Tim Lynch Judge Judy has scruples. Why is she on your list?

  186. We need the trial. The defense team will center it on the corruption of the Bidens, which made the aid suspension necessary and commendable.

  187. @novoad The suspension of the aid was illegal, or didn't you read yesterday's GAO report?

  188. riiiiight

  189. @novoad That will be a short defense then.. maybe they can also chant "Lock her up" too in between their pontificating over nothing. Good to know an alleged pedo and a former President of a church related University who was fired for ... wait for it.. ignoring sexual misconduct by the football team.

  190. Ken Starr was always dubiously an “independent” counsel. This confirmation of his partisanship is not especially necessary to understand the true intention of Clinton’s impeachment, but it is surprisingly that Starr, who has tried for years to maintain his claim to integrity, would sell it so cheaply.

  191. @JR I agree with all you wrote except “surprisingly”. It’s not a surprise that Starr is in the middle of this. It’s been a long con plan, including putting Kavanaugh (who worked for and was mentored by Starr on the Clinton impeachment) on SCOTUS for Trump & Co’s benefit and to help the Republicans.

  192. @JR Probably not cheaply. I suspect he will be well paid.

  193. @JR Oh, it will not be "cheap".

  194. I just looked up Dershowitz's biography. OJ Simpson and Klaus Von Bulow have been some of his better known clients. However, Dershowitz was connected to Harvard and that "trumps" everything.

  195. Considering what Vidal rightly pointed out was Starr's very curious over-concern with the gory details of Clinton's sexual life and Dershowitz's current difficulties, if I didn't have taste I'd say that, unsurprisingly, the Trump team is going full-pervert. Luckily, I have taste.

  196. Kenny-Boy Starr. The man who thinks lying about a consensual sexual relationship is an impeachable offense (at least if you're a Democrat) but thinks that the President using the power of his office to bully a foreign country to interfere in our elections is not impeachable (at least if the President is a Republican). Kenny-Boy Starr. May he reap the rewards of his evil deeds when the time comes for his final trial.

  197. Well when it comes to honorable people I guess you can't get more honorable than a lawyer who represented both OJ Simpson AND Jeffrey Epstein. That alone tells me Trump is as guilty as sin.

  198. The Clinton impeachment was about telling lies about sex in an attempt to spare Ms. Lewinsky a life of notoriety. I think what is publicly known about Trump's black ops is just the tip of the iceberg.

  199. But of course! Because the hypocrisy wasn't already blatant enough....

  200. I have a feeling Dershowitz will be sitting at home for much of next summer in Martha's Vineyard. Summers past he complained that the invitations to cocktail parties slumped once he started defending Trump on the airwaves. Good luck with his social life now - I wonder how the Harvard professor will do summering at Mar-a-Largo?

  201. "More recently, Mr. Dershowitz has faced questions about his representation of Jeffrey Epstein" The "new style" liberals are showing their true colors - lawyers are smeared for representing clients. The ultra left, operates just like the ultra right.

  202. @Peter Zenger I thought that "representation of Jeffrey Epstein" was quite kind since Dershowitz (as well as Trump) have been accused of having sex with underage girls they met at Jeffrey Epstein's residences.

  203. @Peter Zenger You would have preferred that the sentence read “More recently, Mr. Dershowitz has faced questions about his participation in sex with underaged girls at Epstein’s island” I guess.

  204. Who will ultimately be PAYING these new legal Geniuses ?? Get out your checkbook, Taxpayers. Guaranteed.

  205. So, Starr is back. This man had no business pushing for impeachment of Clinton. His responsibility was to investigate and present the evidence to the House. But he purposefully went out of his way to recommend impeachment. The high crime and misdemeanor for which he wanted to impeach was lying on a personal transgression. Now he is going to defend someone who has been lying for years about something that deals with national policy. It will be interesting how he is going to manage this with a straight face. But then, Republicans have given up having a sense of shame.

  206. How long until he fires one of them....or one of them quits in frustration? Days? Weeks? A couple months at most?

  207. @HereToday They have nowhere else to go, except Fox News.

  208. Well, there isn't language strong enough (or printable) for the pack of them.

  209. That’s why Cyrillic suits them.

  210. Das Ru, I get that you're trying to shoehorn Russia into this, but that comment makes no sense whatsoever. Agreed, though, that Putin is having a blast as our country continues to unravel under Trump's malevolent rule.

  211. How does someone like Starr reconcile his role in the last two impeachments? I guess not having a conscience must make life really simple. Seems to be rampant in this administration

  212. I remain firmly convinced that the "trial" will be a complete farce, given the bottomless corruption of the Republican Senators. I set out to write that a small silver lining would be the millions of dollars Dershowitz, Starr et al would soak him for only to quickly realize that the money is much more likely to come from the people's pockets rather than Trumps.

  213. Nancy Pelosi faced two challenges in impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. First was to irrefutably show that Mr. Trump was guilty as charged. Done. But because Mitch McConnell repudiated his oath to "impartially judge," this fault allowed Mr Trump to walk. So that citizens of our country will have final say in the matter. Mrs. Pelosi has secured her first goal . The outcome of the second will soon be revealed.

  214. The list of Trumps lawyers is cringe-worthy, to say the least. An interesting tidbit - that a current Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, had a big role in writing the salacious parts of Ken Starr's big report after the Clinton trial. How do these people rise to the top, I wonder.

  215. More Lawyers than Witnesses. The House now has a crime to investigate. Perhaps they will force the subpoena issue in the second attempt.

  216. It is not about who defend Trump. There is enough evidence out there to do any legal process. This is all about politics, GOP is going to sell last crumbles of their soul to Trump or not.

  217. I've had this nagging feeling the past couple years that Alan Dershowitz must owe Donald Trump something, or that "the Don" has something on him. Surprised Dershowitz is willing to hang his reputation on Trump and go down in history alongside him. As for Starr, didn't think we'd need to hear from him again but whatever...

  218. What about Rudi?

  219. Slow on the risk assessment, this Trump.

  220. trump, the GOP and legal advisors still want to make this about all the previous presidents from the Democrats. If they can't blame Obama, Clinton they will try to dig up dirt and blame Carter for something. The complete lack of accountability for all the crimes under trump is mind numbing. trump's strategy is to throw enough of his cadres under the bus so it will eventually come to a stop.

  221. Didn't Judge kavanagh work for Ken Starr during the Clinton trial? In my convoluted thinking, there's some kind of conflict of interest here :)

  222. That’s an ‘unprecedented’ amount of ego, hot air and desperation for one courtroom.

  223. I would love to see this Impeachment tried on "Judge Judy." Sheindlin would show the Donald what's what.

  224. Trump can't have too many lawyers at his impeachment trial. Only Johnny Cochran is missing.

  225. Who will set strategy? These egos are not easy to satisfy.

  226. Hasn't Ken Starr done enough damage to this country already?

  227. what has happened to dershowitz. epstein, now trump. i remember going over to his house for a campaign event for scott harshbarger when he was running for DA. whereas, starr continues to live down to your worst expectations of him; baylor and now this.

  228. This is so rich on so many levels. Starr pursues Clinton relentlessly over matters much less consequential to the constitution and national interest. I guess he has moved past presiding over Baylor University during its sex scandals. Good for him. As to Dersh, he has been a Trump shill for the entire term but he ain’t not Johnny Cochran.

  229. Has there ever been a criminal trial with defense attorneys, prosecutors, a planted pot judge, no witnesses, no evidence and a jury that has already decided to acquit the defendant? What is the point to this farce orchestrated by Mitch McConnell? I guess to get it over with before the State of the Union address and to obscure the fact that Trump is actually guilty of both articles of impeachment. How far we have fallen in the three years of the Trump presidency. And I'm afraid the worst is yet to come.

  230. Too bad the reality television President can’t get Judge Judy on his legal defense team. Judge Judy has already endorsed and is campaigning for Mike Bloomberg. She would have been the perfect pick for the highest rated television trial of all time. He probably hopes that after he’s acquitted, he’ll finally win that Emmy he so richly deserves. And when he goes on to win the Nobel Peace Prize he will finally have bested President Obama, a dream come true. So much winning! He did say that we would get tired of all this winning and, for once, he told the truth. I am tired of it all.

  231. Where are the Epstein tapes? So many who support the President seemed to have spent time with Epstein. Why are the tapes not public? Did the DOJ seize them when they searched his residences? Who has them and how powerful are they?

  232. The more I have listened to Dershowitz and Starr the more certain I am they are men without any real moral character. That they are defending a president without moral character makes perfect sense.

  233. I will be curious to learn how any defense lawyer can defend away the Obstruction article of impeachment. Trump has stonewalled all White House personnel and documentation, releasing nothing. That will be the textbook case of obstruction in law school.

  234. The news about the inclusion of Ken Starr and Ray in Trump's defense team comes as a useful reminder of how objective and impartial these guys were while investigating President Clinton - and how fair-minded they ever can be. Or Never Can Be.

  235. Kenneth Starr, of Jeffery Epstein and Baylor University fame. A self proclaimed man of faith. Tell us how Matthew 25:40 King James Version (KJV) plays with the little girls who were trafficked ? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me It's a novel defense theory to obtain representatives whose reputation is so horrid that yours seems flawless by comparison. The flip side is birds of a feather.

  236. When I read this I thought of the old circus routine where the tiny, tiny car pulls up and 235 clowns come out to the delight of the crowd. Oh, if weren't so serious!

  237. @jimmboy Next, the trained elephants! Oh, wait, the Republicans are already there...

  238. @jimmboy I thought you were referring to the Democratic field of potential nominees. They did do a credible job of narrowing it down to mostly white people though. I though they were the party of diversity and inclusion. Guess not so much.

  239. Could anything on earth have made Dershowitz happier than signing the deal to be on this team? Dershowitz, for all his talk about principle, is the same sort of showman as Trump. He loves ratings and a big payday. He loves to be hated. He loves to be in the center of the action. He is animated only when he's aggrieved. Dershowitz conflates provocativeness with intelligence - forcefulness with truth. His students, colleagues and neighbors have all turned away from him. Trump is all he has left.

  240. @Cousy The turning away is not due to the personality and character traits you list. It is down to his association with Epstein and how he got himself out from under similar charges.

  241. @Cousy You're wrong on only one point. This fragile little egomaniac does not love to be hated he wants approval and admiration. He deserves cancellation.

  242. @Cousy and the ghost of Roy Cohn presides over all.... Tim Egan wrote a column today about the infectiousness of evil; it would seem Roy Cohn set a bar for sheer malevolence that Dershowitz strives to exceed.

  243. Seems like the addition of Ken Starr adds something of a rhetorical vulnerability. There are undoubtedly arguments from Starr's case against Bill Clinton that can be applied in the current case in such a way that would force Starr, et. al. to either concede the points or to concede that Starr's original arguments were wrong. If he admits he couldn't construct a valid argument before, why should anyone believe what he says now?

  244. Seems like the addition of Ken Starr adds something of a rhetorical vulnerability. There are undoubtedly arguments from Starr's case against Bill Clinton that can be applied in the current case in such a way that would force Starr, et. al. to either concede the points or to concede that Starr's original arguments were wrong. If he admits he couldn't construct a valid argument before, why should anyone believe what he says now?

  245. But, where's Rudy? Isn't he the Asset's "personal attorney?"