This is kind of funny…
I wrote recently (yesterday, in fact) that Donnie Dumbass had assembled his legal team. The very best team Donnie could get – likely because nobody in their right mind would trust the guy. Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr are the lucky opportunists.
Dershowitz defended or participated in the defense of OJ Simpson and (along with Ken Starr) Jeffery Epstein. He’s currently working to defend Harvey Weinstein – and now he’s doing Trump. I guess he was once viewed as a liberal – likely because he once helped get a porn star (Harry Reams) out of jail on obscenity charges.
Ken Starr actually did to Bill Clinton what Trump now claims is being done to him; railroad a sitting President until tripping him up enough to…well…trump up an impeachment. The difference, of course, is that Ken Starr had to create a crime. (Starr “got” Clinton by asking about an illicit affair. Clinton tried to parse words, as cheating spouses are often wont to do, and Starr called Clinton’s response perjurious.) Curiously, Starr did put in a good word for an old pervert, Christopher Kloman, who, yes, pleaded guilty to molesting 5 girls but, c’mon…he’s an old family friend! Pretty much, Starr is a dependable conservative, willing to adjust his legal opinions depending upon the political affiliations of the people in question.
These two legal scholars have offered up the official defense of the ImPOTUS’ crimes. The thing is, the positions they’ve taken are just the Fox “News” crap conservatives have been spewing ever since Fox “News” told them to spew. But these are in a 171 page legal brief filed today! These two highly regarded legal scholars have filed Fox “News” talking points as considered legal positions.
Oh, the process isn’t “fair”. (It is…)
No Republicans were allowed to participate. (They were…)
No impeachable offense was committed. (More than one…)
Dems want to overturn the last election. (Not possible…)
Dems just don’t like the President. (Likely true but moot…)
They just don’t like the President?!? As a legal defense? Since when did ‘you can only be arrested by someone who likes you’ become the deal? Feel free to file that one right next to ‘the process is unfair.’ If accused criminals can avoid prosecution simply by claiming the process is unfair, I think we’ve convicted our last criminal.
I like the ‘No impeachable offense’ bit, myself. In my own reading of the Constitution, I’ve always believed that a President had to commit an actual crime in order to be impeached. Still, I’m no Constitutional scholar and a case was once made that says I’m wrong. “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.” You know who said that? Alan Dershowitz on ‘Larry King Live’ in 1998.
I still think I’m right…but the point is moot. There was, in fact, an impeachable offense. Trump tried to commit bribery – an actual crime. The fact that he failed doesn’t excuse him. Also, Obstruction of Congress is, in fact, an actual thing. Trump ordered his minions to ignore Congressional subpoenas. They did. That’s a crime.
It’s my understanding that they only needed to show up. They didn’t need to testify beyond asserting Executive Privilege or Fifth Amendment protections but they had to show up.
The single most important thing I noticed about the points the shiny sober legal team offered up? There’s not one point that directly contradicts the charges against ImPOTUS. All of their complaints are about the process, complaints AROUND the charges. Nothing about the charges themselves. Just yesterday, I wrote: “The ImPOTUS had better hope they’ve got something better than that for the actual trial…” Turns out, they don’t.
This might be the scariest moment I’ve ever known as an American. The mountain of actual admissible evidence against Trump is so high as to be undeniable. The defense is and has been pure sophism – fallacious arguments used deliberately to deceive. I don’t care that the rank and file conservatives repeat the silly things they’ve been conditioned to repeat. But the grown-ups in the room, the people who will be presenting evidence at trial, haven’t offered ANY exculpatory evidence at all. Nothing. To me, that indicates that EVERYONE concerned knows Trump is guilty. Yet the Senate has already stated their determination to nullify the charges regardless of their validity.
What happens to a country that moves from rule of law to “Yeah, he did it. So what?”