Danger! Democracy, Danger!

We are about to witness the acquittal of a man as guilty as OJ was of what he was charged with, as guilty as Jeffrey Epstein was when he got that sweetheart “child prostitution” deal from the feds (jobs well done, Al Dershowitz).   We are told by the president’s lawyers and members of the sworn impartial jury that the charges, even if true — OK, let’s say they are true and proven, we’ll stipulate to that, some of their unified party say now —  do not amount to any reason for anyone to go to the extreme partisan step of putting a duly elected American president on trial to establish his guilt or innocence for non-impeachable offenses less than a year before the election he may or may not be actively trying to cheat in (and such a hissy value judgment, that).

Once the Republicans acquit Trump, on charges arising from facts not in dispute, on the tortured grounds they gave (and to be straight, the grounds were always strictly: 51-49, suck it!), there is no longer any basis for impeaching and trying a corrupt-looking American president, no matter how openly corrupt he is.  Even (if he is a Republican with a Republican Senate) if he shoots another American in the face on Fifth Avenue, live on camera (can’t arrest him, can’t indict him, can’t investigate him, as his lawyers already told the Federal court, defending Trump in one of numerous ongoing cases against him, lost and now on appeal by his diehard legal team).   Suck it, libs!  51-49.

Jay Sekulow, Donald Trump’s loyal remaining personal lawyer, was probably the weakest of Trump’s lawyers at the impeachment trial.  To call it a “trial” is a bit of a stretch, when you consider the shamelessly partial jury, and the supine behavior of the presiding “judge” (it’s his first trial, give the good man a break, Widaen!) who is not even enforcing the Senate Impeachment Rules that Senators must remain in the chamber during arguments and may not make public statements during the trial proceedings (Rand Paul promptly went into the hall yesterday to release the whistleblower’s name after Chief Justice John Roberts would not read his question that would have done it on live TV during the impeachment–  contempt of court?   ROTFLMAO!). 

This may be the first public American trial of any kind in history where the judge did nothing to ensure that new evidence would be seen or testimony from previously blocked fact witnesses heard and cross-examined.  It’s worth keeping in mind that this is a trial to decide if the president committed, and continues to commit, a high crime by asserting unprecedented powers not to cooperate with lawful investigations into his personally motivated shakedown of a foreign ally.   Trump had his lawyers’ (on AG Barr’s advice and blessing) make repeated blanket refusals to participate in investigations or to obey legal process of any kind in any investigation of his wrongdoing, up to and including impeachment.

Every American knows that the Checks and Balances power of Congress, particularly vis a vis colorable wrongdoing by the president, is at its peak, and Executive Privilege at its nadir, during an impeachment.  It is established principle that every presumption should be construed toward Congress’s right to uncover the truth, according to the Constitution, especially during an impeachment  — or, if you prefer, its updated restatement:  51,49 suck it, losers.   As they continue to insist (leaving out the actual timeline, of course) the Democrats should have simply waited 15 months for full resolution by the courts on appeal, of all of the controversial evidentiary claims by Trump, losers!   It would have all likely gone in the Democrats favor in the end anyway, LOL!  Too bad all the subpoenas would have expired by then!

Back to loyal Jay Sekulow and his largely incoherent recitation of Trumpian innuendo about a vicious, baseless partisan attack sprinkled with the attendant hollow legalisms.   He did keep saying one indisputably true thing over and over, to underscore the deathly seriousness of the proceedings America is half-watching. “Danger!” he said, then paused, then said it again “danger!” —  a trope he’d repeat throughout his presentation of the impartial Mr. Dershowitz’s constitutional views.   Danger, Will Robinson!   Danger, America, danger!

No truer warning  could be sounded at this moment.  The danger to democracy is being rubbed right into our loser faces, America.   Whatever you think of this messianic figure who is radicalizing the federal judiciary, who hates abortion like the plague, who brought peace to the Middle East, and jobs to all Americans and who is making America greater every day, this precedent-setting non-trial on Trump’s impeachment is the end of democracy’s ability to even have a fair hearing about corruption and abuse of power by the Unitary Executive.  Nobody is above the law, but some, a privileged few (OK, a very privileged VERY few), are simply, and indisputably (by a 51-49 binding vote) beyond its reach.  (Danger.)

Republican senators even thinking about supporting a fair trial in the Senate are now considered traitors within the party of Trump.   It is now a risky, partisan position to support a fair trial.  Think about that for a second — a fair trial is unfair to the accused.   The Republican party’s position is that hearing previously blocked fact witnesses and new evidence at a trial, as at every other impeachment, every other trial that is not a kangaroo court is — OUT OF THE QUESTION!  Republicans supporting anything resembling a fair trial, in favor of even a vote on  a”radical” proposition like hearing new evidence that arrived after the indictment/impeachment or hearing from previously blocked fact witnesses, are continually threatened to stay in line.  Danger.

One powerful Republican who probably didn’t need any threatening was life-tenured “neutral” balls and strikes umpire and corporate hero John Roberts (inventor of the brilliant arbitration clause that squashes class-action– or any other kind of — lawsuits against negligent corporations), the principled “tie goes to the runner” tie-breaking “swing vote” Justice who is quietly “presiding” over the impeachment trial, with his eye on history, as we are told.  This fair-minded legal moralist has positioned himself as the towering, impartial Switzerland of this vicious war between patriots and traitors.  Danger.

The president’s band of loyal legal defenders, the lawyers at his impeachment trial, made a series of arguments against why the impeachment trial should have the minimum for a traditional fair trial — fact witnesses and evidence that the president impeached for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress has been abusively obstructing during a long and seamless campaign of obstruction of justice going back at least to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  He successfully obstructed justice in that investigation, including into his well-documented pattern of obstruction of justice, by the brilliant final stroke of appointing a diabolically capable extremist ideologue AG who auditioned for the job by promising Trump to get him off the hook no matter what.  Now, all of that publicly displayed personal ugliness and disregard for law, norms and rules (things that bind only “losers”) is about to become one more big, fat “Nothing to See Here! LOL!”  Danger.

The president’s lawyers’ fierce, often quite intelligible arguments (some, like Dershowitz’s demented claim that whatever a candidate for public office does, if he honestly believes it is in the public interest, can’t be wrong, were also intelligible, but in a bad way) set the table well enough to give grounds for at least one of the very few “vulnerable” Republican senators who might vote in favor of a fair trial to publicly announce that he will stop supporting calls for anything even mimicking what anyone  might think of as the appearance of due process for the fair administration of justice.  Case proved, he said, but I still don’t care, it duddn’t mean shit.  Danger.

There is no purpose, they said, to have any previously blocked fact witnesses testify, since the president might well have an assertable privilege of some kind that could  be upheld 5-4 in the Supreme Court in a precedent-shattering decision.  A ruling on the president’s claim of absolute immunity to withhold all evidence and testimony in any investigation including impeachment, of course, would require a new precedent, since Nixon and Clinton both lost on similar, far more modest, privilege claims during the lead up to their impeachments.  No matter,  it is merely the president’s legal assertion of a theoretically facially valid privilege that is the question under discussion, not if the court would actually overturn long precedent to decide in Trump’s favor stating, unappealably, that he has no obligation not to interfere in an investigation into him.   Danger.

Why should the House be able to overrule the will of the American voters, the authority of the Supreme Court, the president’s lawyers ask?  (Both of those were answered by the Framers, in the Constitution itself)  Their ultimate argument is their unified insistence that, even if the facts of the case already establish that the president abused his power for personal gain and obstructed the lawful powers of Congress, that it doesn’t matter, those things aren’t impeachable under their brand new Originalist definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  (Pulled, after all, directly from Alan Dershowitz’s completely unbiased, liberal ass.)  Nothing further that could point to the president’s known guilt can be introduced at trial because it would only hurt a great man who will never be removed from office anyway, and it would nullify the decisive votes of those 78,000 Americans in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin who voted with surgical precision to put Trump into office by giving him an Electoral College victory.  Even Ken Starr, principle ideological architect of the partisan Clinton impeachment, argued against the horrors of partisan impeachment.    You want a “fair trial”?  Danger.

No reason to hear from even one witness, a man with highly relevant, even dispositive, facts who is suddenly willing to testify (after refusing the same request from the House).  That mad, vindictive liar, out of a personal grudge against the innocent, well-meaning man who fired him, could give sworn testimony harmful to the president’s insistence that he’d done everything perfectly and blamelessly, and in the best interests of America!  The job of a defense attorney is to acquit his client by any means necessary.   A majority of the jury had already publicly announced its commitment to working with the defense to acquit their client no matter what, and everyone knows their “oath” to carefully weigh the evidence and be impartial jurors was a legal requirement that bound them to nothing but the party line, so why drag things out?  If the Schitt don’t flit, you must acquit!   DANGER.

No legal way to restrain an impulsive and corrupt president with a long history of fraud [1], criminality and the aggressive, sometimes absurd, use of expensive, bludgeoning litigation and endless appeals to bully, cow and bankrupt opponents, defrauded customers and creditors, women he molested and everything else?   To paraphrase Trump loyalist former Tea Party insurgent Mick Mulvaney:  get over it, losers. DANGER.

Stay tuned for the actual terrorist arson of the House of Representatives right before the 2020 election, the first arrests in Barr’s criminal investigations into the evil traitors who orchestrated the baseless Mueller witch hunt, the publication of the first official presidential enemies lists, and eventually, silence from this viciously opinionated, f-word bristling blahg.   I’ll send you a postcard from the vacation camp they send me to, don’t worry.   The weather’s great, the food is good and I am being given all the hard, honest work I can handle!

 

 

[1]  Trump University: small $25,000,000 settlement in early 2017 to end a frivolous suit, and an agreement, with no admission of guilt, to close down the supposedly fraudulent business.     The dissolution of the Trump Foundation in 2019 for its illegal practices, and the court-ordered payment of $2,000,000 to other charities, but no admission by Trump of anything fraudulent about the foundation that is now legally shuttered.  NOTHING TO SEE HERE, you fucking HATERS!!!  A conspiracy of fucking haters!!!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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