Here it is on Monday, the day before the start of a most-rare event in American history and the ratfucking bullshit from Republicans continues with unfaltering zest, even outside constitutional reality.
Right now I’m watching Hallie Jackson on MSNBC shred the thin skin of one of the T-Rump’s ‘lawyers‘ Alan Dershowitz as he attempts to shuffle-shift the legal issues defending the T-Rump’s abuse of power via Skype or whatever and looks like an old-asshole unable to formulate clear sentences.
Especially with this video, Jackson questions open-up the idiocy of T-Rump’s so-called defense:
#AlanDershowitz should resign from Trump's Legal Team now, while he's ahead. Every time he's interviewed on TV he exposes the deep corruption of his client's guilt & that he is placing him #abovethelaw!
— Joyce Ann (@TruthWins22) January 20, 2020
In obvious response to the T-Rump’s defense, Paul Waldman at the Washington Post this morning upends the moronic tack of the Orange Turd’s legal position, aimed at the dumb-ass six-page brief in retort of the Democrats 110-page opening brief — some highlights:
Indeed, it reads as though it was written by a ninth-grader who saw an episode of “Law & Order” and learned just enough legal terms to throw them around incorrectly.
It makes no attempt to contest the facts, instead just asserting over and over that the president is innocent and the entire impeachment is illegitimate, calling it “unlawful” and “constitutionally invalid,” with no apparent understanding of what those terms mean.
The articles of impeachment, Trump’s lawyers say, “fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ as required by the Constitution.”
They then repeat this argument multiple times throughout a screed seemingly pitched to the Fox News hosts who will spend the coming days repeating its absurd claims.
The trouble, as any historian or constitutional scholar will tell you, is that just as there are crimes the president could commit that would not be impeachable (say, shoplifting a candy bar), there has never been any requirement that impeachment can only be used for violations of criminal law.
Not only were the Framers deeply concerned about the potential of the president abusing his office, at the time the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as a federal criminal code.
Trump has found the one constitutional “expert” who will take such a position, however: Harvard professor emeritus and frequent Fox News guest Alan Dershowitz, whom Trump added to his defense team last week. “Criminal-like conduct is required” in order for a president to be impeached,
Dershowitz now claims, to the puzzlement of pretty much everyone who knows anything about this topic.
So why is the White House falling back on this argument when it’s so plainly wrong as a matter of both law and logic?
There are a number of explanations.
The most obvious is that they know the president is guilty of the central charge driving the impeachment, that he abused his power by trying to coerce a foreign government to help his reelection campaign by discrediting a potential opponent.
So the last thing they want to do is argue about the facts of the case, except in the most perfunctory way (“I JUST GOT IMPEACHED FOR MAKING A PERFECT PHONE CALL!” the president tweeted last week)
And the end-game: ‘To return to the question with which I began, it’s not quite that the White House isn’t trying to defend Trump in a serious way. It’s that they’ve decided they don’t really have to.’
This is a most-terrible offering, though, most-likely true.
And back to the Jackson/Dershowitz interview — Hallie asks the nutjob-perv if the T-Rump abused power, yes or no?
He couldn’t answer, then blubbers, “It’s irrelevant.”
(Illustration by illustrator and portrait painter, Tim O’Brien, and can be found here).