Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed Tuesday, centering his case for President Donald Trump’s innocence on the dubious logic that Trump only “requested” and did not “demand” that the Ukrainian President make up a Biden scandal.
Right, so if someone goes into a bank, points a gun at a teller and demands money, they haven’t committed a crime if they don’t get any. F***ing asshole.
No lame excuse, no self-contradicting statement, no mobius-strip of rationale will go ‘unexamined and repeated ad-infinitum’ by the ‘non-partisan press’.
Dem’s need to stay on target. Keep drilling straight through the chaff of bullshit.
I’m wondering whether Schiff and company should use the hearings, in part, as a teachable moment to demonstrate clearly the the evidence that it was Russia, not Ukraine, that interfered in 2016. That approach can stifle the distractions that Nunes and company are planning to lob. I mean, Mueller’s report has chapter and verse on this, printouts of evidence, location information, on and on, much of it used in indicting a bunch of Russians.
You’d hope it will be demonstrated. We’ll see. I know the strategy is NOT to get ‘lost’ in the details that mired down the Muller report. The whole plan was to focus on the ‘call’ basically. The idea being that the public can only focus on one thing at a time.
Seeing the defense at play - which is mostly - "Yeah. it happened but it’s not bad, illegal or impeachable because - Wave hands something something SHINY…
Recall what lawyers do: throw in every possible argument, no matter how little basis there is, legal or otherwise, and see what sticks. The more they throw against the wall, the more time they spend, the more billable hours they rack up. There are no negative repercussions to being wrong, totally off base or totally lacking in legal reasoning. This approach is inculcated in how attorneys like Guliani operate. They’ll keep throwing stuff out until it’s shot down in court. No court, no let up in the absurdity, and, again, no problem if the arguments are patently absurd or indefensible. It’s part of their culture.
Don’t these comments undercut the flimsy excuse that the extortion never came from Trump himself, but from overzealous surrogates (such as Giuliani himself)?
I guarantee you Chuck Todd will ask a Democrat on Meet the Press this weekend (assuming there are any on the show, which is a pretty big assumption), “but isn’t it a stretch to impeach the president for holding up aid to Ukraine when the aid was delivered?” or some variation on that.