As the President’s Defense Begins

The president’s defense is that even if he did exactly what has been shown over the course of several days of opening arguments by his hated enemies, supported by the cherry-picked sworn testimony of anti-Trump members of the Deep State– traitorous career “diplomats” and their ilk– and so-called “corroborating” video clips of the president and his most powerful advisors — it does not amount to a crime, nor, by definition, anything serious enough to merit any kind of detailed fact-finding trial in the Senate.   The President’s position is that even if his irrationally enraged enemies in Congress manage to “prove” their case, which they can’t because they are all traitors and liars and don’t follow the law so their arguments are all false and invalid — it is not a case that merits impeachment, let alone removal from office.

Every American accused of a crime (or a high crime and misdemeanor) is entitled to a vigorous defense at trial.   Defense lawyers must cast reasonable doubt on the facts in evidence and the testimony of the witnesses to get acquittal for their client.  The appearance of a fair process is crucial to integrity of our legal system.  

If a judge has some connection to the case that gives any appearance that she might take one side or another, she must recuse herself, even if the suspicious looking connection is innocent.   The standard for recusal is an “appearance of impropriety”.   The same is true for the jurors, anyone with an interest in convicting or acquitting the accused, or an expressed prejudice, may not sit in judgment on the case.   That’s why the Senators who are acting as jurors in the impeachment had to take an oath to be impartial and uphold the constitution.

The accused never has any say about (let alone control of) the conduct of the legal proceedings.  The unalterable procedures that ensure due process for all accused citizens are part of our law.   In certain cases (as in overtly racist trials down south back in the day– and in some places to this day) the outcome is a certainty before the first bit of evidence is presented during the trial, but American law strives to avoid this kind of openly unfair trial today.   If active prejudice is involved in a conviction, and can be shown on appeal, it is grounds for overturning the verdict.   There is no such appeal in an impeachment trial, making it even more important that all relevant evidence and witness testimony is presented and carefully examined by the jury at the trial.

In the present impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, the head juror and trier of fact has announced, ahead of the trial, that he will work in close coordination [1] with the defendant’s defense team for a speedy acquittal, since once again, treason is afoot and the extremist opposition party, motivated by unreasoning hatred of an innocent man, is a lynch mob that must be stopped.  

The position of the president’s party toward impeachment is identical to their unified stand after the Special Counsel’s investigation of Russian influence on Trump’s behalf in the 2016 campaign (“sweeping and systematic” and ongoing) and the detailed description of Presidential Obstruction of Justice.  Their narrative is that the traitorous Mueller team was so twisted by their hatred of one innocent man that they contorted themselves to find no grounds to exonerate him for obstruction of justice!  Other members of the impeachment jury have also publicly committed to a speedy acquittal for the persecuted president.  No need for witnesses the defendant has been blocking from testifying, no need for any further evidence from anyone.  If it’s Shifty Adam Schitt, you must acquit!

OK, fine, everybody knows the deal.   The accused, the most powerful man in the world, has tremendous power over these elected officials of the Senate majority party who are now sitting in judgment at his impeachment trial.  He is the leader of their party.  He can destroy disloyal, “impartial” jurors’ chances for reelection by denying them campaign funds from the RNC, if he were that kind of vengeful person.   He can publicly mock them, instantly expose them to ridicule — a dangerous thing for any politician– if he were that kind of mean guy.  He can publicly and privately bully them, if he was inclined to bully people.  He could even invite reprisals against disloyal members of his party, if he was that kind of angry person.

Thankfully, the president is a very stable genius, an extremely stable genius.   Nothing to worry about here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

A complete, very, very short summary of Mr. Trump’s legal defense in the impeachment trial is here.



[1]  This pre-coordination neatly fits the definition of criminal conspiracy, not to mention violation of a sworn vow (perjury) to act as impartial jurors, Mitch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s