The Reckless Choices: An Examination of Donald Trump’s Legal Team’s Incompetence and Errors

Hello, friends. Today, I’m donning my analytical hat to dive deep into a subject that has puzzled many: the questionable choices Donald Trump has made when it comes to legal representation. To anyone familiar with Trump’s two impeachment trials, his attorneys, especially Michael van der Veen, have been a curious mix of brazen and baffling. If your lawyer becomes the story, and not in a good way, you know you’re in trouble.

The Case of Michael van der Veen

Let’s begin with the most prominent figure, Michael van der Veen, who featured in Trump’s second impeachment trial back in February 2021. The man was a spectacle, to say the least. In a venue where decorum is a virtue and precision of argument a necessity, van der Veen stood out like a sore thumb. His performance oscillated between petulance and boisterousness, seemingly void of legal finesse. He yelled at senators, made dubious claims, and took opportunities to moan about his personal grievances. He could have easily been mistaken for a guest on a sensationalist talk show rather than an attorney arguing a case of monumental significance.

Van der Veen’s earlier errors in June 2020, where he effectively denied his client constitutional rights by closing jury selection to the public and not swearing in prospective jurors, are egregious missteps. This isn’t just a legal faux pas; it undermines the integrity of the justice system.

Beyond van der Veen: A Pattern of Ineptitude

But why focus only on van der Veen when Trump’s carousel of legal counsel is fraught with other questionable choices? Just this month, Trump forfeited his right to a jury trial in a New York civil fraud case because someone on his legal team couldn’t even fill out paperwork correctly. If that sounds like a joke, trust me, it’s not. The consequence of such ineptitude is far-reaching, impacting not only the course of specific legal cases but also eroding the confidence the public should have in due process.

It doesn’t end there. Last year, Trump’s lawyers were slapped with sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. To those versed in the law, a frivolous lawsuit isn’t merely annoying; it’s a misuse of the legal system, a waste of resources, and an affront to jurisprudence.

What’s Really Going On Here?

Now, one could argue that Trump’s choices reflect his penchant for combative, showboat lawyering rather than competency and ethics. But it begs the question: Is this a strategy or a reflection of a deeper disdain for the legal system and, by extension, the rule of law? I lean towards the latter. When attorneys knowingly or unknowingly mislead the court, as evidence suggests Trump’s lawyers may have been exposed to regarding his retention of classified material, the issue transcends mere incompetence. It inches perilously close to unethical territory and brings into question the client’s — Trump’s — respect for the legal framework that binds our society together.

The Backfire Effect

You’d think someone with Trump’s resources could procure a dream team of legal eagles. Instead, what we’ve witnessed is a series of fiascos that are almost Shakespearean in their tragicomic unfolding. The end result? A litany of legal setbacks and a reputation that continues to be pockmarked by allegations of incompetence and wrongdoing. His choice of attorneys has created an echo chamber that amplifies, rather than mitigates, his own flawed strategies and disregard for legal ethics.

Conclusion: The Importance of Accountability

Trump’s story is more than a cautionary tale about the importance of good legal advice; it’s a reflection of how the legal profession can be both weaponized and trivialized by those who fail to respect its cornerstone principles. It’s also a wake-up call for the American people. When such high-profile cases manifestly erode the credibility of the judicial process, the damage isn’t contained to the parties involved. It reverberates through the system, undermining public trust and accountability.

So, as we sift through the legacy of these series of missteps and debacles, let us not lose sight of the larger narrative here: the sanctity of the legal system. In a time when that very system is being tested in ways we never imagined, its preservation remains incumbent upon both the lawyers who practice within it and the citizens who rely on it. And that, dear readers, is a responsibility too significant to entrust to the incompetent or the unscrupulous.