Trump’s defenders
I’ve only seen the briefest of clips, but I hear that yesterday Dershowitz and company were restrained, particularly compared to the feverish Democrats who preceded them. Of course, the president’s defenders can afford to give a more relaxed presentation because they don’t have to make stuff up.
But I’ve also heard that they were boring. Well, I guess legal speeches have a tendency to be boring unless you’re Clarence Darrow, or unless you’re a fabulist like Schiff. I’m curious, though, what readers who actually watched a lot of it thought about it.
Here’s a little clip to whet – or extinguish – whatever appetite for the proceedings you may retain:
And Pam Bondi finally was able to bring the Hunter Biden issue into view, despite Democrat and MSM efforts to suppress it. That’s the price the Democrats pay for starting this whole theatrical production in the first place; the Republicans get to have input into some of the script. Of course, one wonders whether the news will trickle down, since a lot of people are neither watching it (that includes me) nor following it.
I did pay attention to Dershowitz’s calm, powerful presentation on why the impeachment articles do not pass the Constitutional sniff test.
I wasn’t bored one bit.
I recorded everything from Saturday through today (Tuesday) and have re-watched some of the better arguments.
Prof. Dershowitz was brilliant and electrifying to watch. Let’s hope he’s not the last of a dying generation of erudite and genius legal minds.
The only negative: I thought Eric Herschmann, while he made excellent arguments, was a poor public speaker insofar as he read, too fast and with little intonation, his entire presentation.
Dershowitz has gone to great pains to explain that he’s not defending Trump, he’s defending the Constitution.
He’s perfectly fine with impeaching and convicting Trump as long as it’s constitutionally viable. That distinction is obviously lost on democrats, who lust for Trump’s demise.
I watched all of Ray and Dershowitz’s presentations. Both well argued, but a bit short on passion. I watched all of today’s presentations. Philbin was good, but dull. Jay Sekulow had an excellent presentation – well argued with lots of dramatic pauses and energy. Pat Cipollone was short, but effective. He showed video clips of all the House managers arguing against impeaching Bill Clinton, which were the exact opposite of their arguments against this POTUS.
I enjoy hearing good arguments and was not bored, but I am probably in a minority. As Matt Gaetz said, the White House defense lawyers needed a little less lawyer and a bit more politician in their approaches to their arguments. Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Louis Gohmert, or Gaetz would have been much more fiery and aggressive in their presentations of the defense arguments.
Well, the whole thing was not watched by many. The House managers repetitiveness managed to drive most viewers away. The polls seem to be all over the place. I don’t trust any of them. My guess is that this spectacle is not changing many minds. That’s too bad. In a sane world more people would recognize and turn against the prevarications of the Democrats.
None of these folks are Perry Mason, but a little less droning and a little more verve would be appreciated.
Just because it’s worth remembering.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1222157837322932225.html
Long but worth reading.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/01/26/the-non-subpoena-subpoenas-reminder-of-why-the-second-article-of-impeachment-is-bogus/
public Service Announcement
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/28/mitch-mcconnell-prepares-for-next-steps-in-senate-trial-questions-then-possible-witnesses/
“I refuse to accept that Republican senators are stupid.”
Well, there’s your problem…they aren’t called the Stupid Party for nuthin’
No, I wouldn’t call them “stupid” either. Not at all.
It’s something else. Lack of awareness, perhaps. A general naivete that one might attribute to a less than wholesome(?) optimism about human (or at least American) nature and behavior.
The basic problem is…they’re…just…for the most part…unwilling (unable?) to acknowledge just how diabolical the Democrat Party is. (One might understand…)
But this is precisely where a street fighter like DJT comes in (Protector of the Diffident! Shield of the Republic!)…and although the GOP was generally hesitant about the “optics” of such an ungentlemanly outsider, he has proven himself.
(To be sure, three years later a certain segment of the GOP is STILL finding the strength to be righteously outraged…. Ah, the luxury of principles!…)
Nonetheless, I think the GOP—it’s collective eyes having been pried open (think “Clockwork Orange”?) by “events”—has been “getting better”. Those who’ve been able to learn have looked on in awe as the Donald is somehow still standing; and they’ve benefited from the fact that he’s been a lot better (perhaps even saner)—more successful, durable, robust—than many if not most of them expected.
For their part?…well, the Democrats have insisted on donating a generous amount of time and effort tutoring the Deplorables(TM) among them. Up front and personal, ubiquitous and sustained. Nasty and deranged.
And all for free!
(They always did claim to be in favor of education for the masses….)
Gee, I thought all court arguments were like Perry Mason!