So Friday was for the defense in the Senate Trial of Donald Trump. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I hate those guys. I know they are lawyers, hired to do one thing: get their client acquitted. And I know that as defense lawyers, even in this Senate \u201cimpeachment\u201d environment, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the House Managers. But there are three terms that characterize their Defense: specious legal arguments, continuing Trump\u2019s lies, and my least favorite term of all, \u201cwhat-about-ism\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In any \u201cregular\u201d court, the defense would normally call for a summary dismissal of a case. They\u2019d do it at the beginning of the trial, trying to find jurisdictional or legal grounds that disqualify the prosecution. And they\u2019d do it again after the prosecution rested their case, claiming that the necessary burdens of proof were not reached. But once the judge ruled on those motions for dismissal, then the defense would drop it, and move on. In fact, if the defense continued to try to press their dismissal claim, the judge might well hold them in contempt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the first leading argument of the Trump defense team is that the entire hearing is unconstitutional. Their claim is that the Senate has no standing to try a \u201cformer\u201d President. But the Constitution expressly makes one thing clear: The Senate is the sole decider on trials for impeachment. And the Senate voted, twice, that the trial of Donald Trump was in fact Constitutional. Just as if a judge ruled in a trial, the decision was made, the question \u201casked and answered\u201d. There is no appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So why do the Trump lawyers continue to \u201cbeat this dead horse\u201d? It\u2019s simple math, adding up to the number thirty-four. They need to give at least thirty-four Republican Senators \u201ccover\u201d to vote for acquittal. The evidence, in spite of the defense attorneys\u2019 attacks, is absolutely condemning of the President\u2019s actions. The Republican Senators don\u2019t won\u2019t to be pressed into deciding on that basis \u2013 so the faux Constitutional argument gives them a \u201cfig leaf\u201d to hide behind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But in full fairness, the lawyers have one job to do \u2013 defend the President. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? There\u2019s one thing we have learned from the Era of Donald Trump: repetition of a lie over and over again does not make it true. There really is no such thing as \u201calternative facts\u201d. But the Trump attorneys felt duty-bound to continue the lies: that Trump was for \u201claw and order\u201d, that Democrats want to \u201cdefund the police\u201d and \u201cburn down the cities\u201d. That the President of the United States has a \u201cfree speech right\u201d such that he can incite a mob. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But we also know that while the whole nation, and much of the world is watching, the Trump attorneys are speaking to thirty-five people: thirty-four Republican Senators and one former President living in Florida, who may or may not pay their bills.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The new-speak term of art is \u201cwhat-about-ism\u201d. It is a debate tactic: rather than discuss the actual focus of the debate, the actions of the President of the United States leading up to and on January 6th<\/sup>: talk about something else. \u201cWhat about\u201d something that Nancy Pelosi, or Joe Biden, or that demon of all demons, Maxine Waters said. From that comes the false equivalency. If they can say what they said, then Donald Trump was legal and justified to say and do what he said up to and on January 6th<\/sup>. That\u2019s a \u201cfalse equivalency\u201d (another new-speak term). None of the named sources, or Johnny Depp or Madonna (or even Robert DeNiro) were in front of a mob ready to follow their leader to save his \u201cstolen election\u201d. If Joe Biden did take Donald Trump behind the gym and punch him, it wouldn\u2019t rise to the level of insurrection, or impeachment. It would be at best an assault, and looking at the two, Trump would get his ass beat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And even if all of those things were \u201cequivalent\u201d, it doesn\u2019t matter. If we are all driving at eighty miles an hour, we are all breaking the law. The fact that only one of us gets pulled over doesn\u2019t make the ticket any less. \u201cWhat-About\u201d means everyone is guilty, not that one is \u201cmade\u201d innocent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then onto the \u201clightening round\u201d. Senators ask questions of the House Managers or the Defense Lawyers or both, and they answer the questions. Some of the questions are \u201csetups\u201d, patsy questions for one side or the other to \u201chit out of the park\u201d. And some are serious, the Senators who seem to have real concerns. And out of those questions we have come down to the one critical issue that might actually change some minds in the thirty-four decisive Senators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No one is seriously questioning the base House premise: that Donald Trump incited the mob. But what seems to be a more significant issue for the Senators is what did the President do while the mob was in the Capitol. Utah\u2019s Mike Lee foreshadowed this debate when he threw a fit about a House Manager quoting him in a phone call from Trump as the mob reached the Senate chamber. \u201cI am the only witness to that call,\u201d Lee shouted, \u201cand they have it wrong.\u201d The call was on Lee\u2019s phone, but it was Trump for Alabama\u2019s Tommy Tuberville. And the rookie Senator stands by his own statement: The President called to have him delay the vote on certification. Tuberville told the President that the Vice President was being hustled away by the Secret Service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What does that matter? It is the definitive proof that Donald Trump knew, in real time, that his Vice President was in danger \u2013 and did nothing. And Friday night it was revealed that around the same time, Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy had a profanity laced screaming match on the phone, as McCarthy demanded Trump do something. But nothing was done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump sent the mob, then did nothing as they ransacked the Capitol, threatened the proceedings, and searched for our national leaders, threatening death. Shouldn\u2019t he be punished for that?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Defense Team is terrible. They have walked into a sure thing, a guaranteed thirty-four Republican votes to acquit, and managed to allow doubts to creep in. I still believe the Senate will acquit the former President, so his team will \u201cget one job done\u201d, but they didn\u2019t help much. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And I still wish there might be an \u201coutbreak\u201d of honor and courage in the Republican Party. If not enough to acquit, enough at least to give America hope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Addendum<\/em> (2\/13\/21 – 11:30 am)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Trial of Donald Trump has finally taken an unexpected turn. Saturday morning the House Managers called for the deposition and testimony of Congresswoman Herrera Beutler (Republican-Washington) who overheard the Kevin McCarthy phone call with President Trump. The Defense lawyers threatened to depose \u201chundreds\u201d in his office in \u201cPhilly-delphia\u201d if that request was agreed. But \u2013 by a 55-45 vote \u2013 witnesses will be called \u2013 and this Trial will last quite a bit longer.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Who will really be called \u2013 and how many \u2013 will be debated and voted on. What is not clear:<\/em> To what end? The House Managers have made their case \u2013 but have determined that it is to their advantage to push this on further. Is there more pressure on Republican Senators than we realize? Chuck Schumer does not operate \u201con the fly\u201d, he must have known this was coming. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n So what is the greater strategy?\u00a0\u00a0Only time will reveal it.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Addend<\/em>um II – The Greater Strategy<\/em> – 2\/13\/21 – 4:15 pm<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nHave a Question<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Outbreak<\/h3>\n\n\n\n