Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Poll Analyses
Share on Facebook 15 Share on Twitter 4 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 1/29/20

Impeachment Thoughts: As the Defense (seems to) Rest

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages) (View How Many People Read This)   1 comment
Author 50778
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Steven Jonas
Become a Fan
  (20 fans)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President . . . is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else."

Theodore Roosevelt, Editorial in The Kansas City Star May 7, 1918

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The "Defense" for Trump-in-Impeachment-mode was fascinating, because it wasn't a defense in the conventional sense. It was rather, for the most part, classic Trumpian "Always attack, never defend." As I said in my most recent column : " 'Always attack; never defend' is central to Trump's way of thinking. The tactic was originally developed by Sen. Joe McCarthy who taught it to Roy Cohn (Trump's lawyer until he got disbarred) who taught it to Trump. . . . Briefly, never deal with the substance of a question (unless it comes from a VERY friendly questioner like Sean Hannity or Fox and Friends). Rather always attack the question and/or the questioner, thus a) taking the focus off Trump and transferring it to the questioner, and thus b) making sure that he/she never has to answer the question."

There was Pam Bondi (the former Florida Attorney General who was accused of accepting a campaign contribution from Trump in return for dropping a case against Trump University; the case was disallowed for "not enough evidence") presenting a defense statement in which the words "Hunter" and "Biden" appeared in just about every other sentence. The was the White House Counsel (and by the way the person in that position is supposed to be the senior advisor to the President for governmental legal matters) Pat Cippolone, acting like a defense attorney for the President. In that regard, he kept repeating the lie that on the House side the President was never provided an opportunity to present a defense, when that was offered numerous times by the House, all offers/request/demands turned down by the White House. Then there was one of Trump's private defense attorneys arguing that it was Obama who should have been impeached(I kid thee not). While it would appear that none of the above (and there were others) would play very well in a real court of law, they certainly play well for Trump and Trump Media.

2. On Mitt Romney, who has been edging ever-so-slowly towards anti-Trump positions of one kind or another, in a tweet last October I said the following: "http://aol.com/article/news/2019/10/04/wrong-and-appalling-romney-blasts-trump-for-calling-on-china-to-probe-bidens/23827687/". Romney is simply stepping up to be first in line for the 2020 Repub. nomination should for any reason (impeachment and "other") Trump is not the Repub. candidate." What he is doing now on the matter of hearings is simply confirming his hoped-for "first-in-line" slot.

Actually, this is not Mitt, but his father George, who was actually a member of that extinct species, Liberal Republican.
Actually, this is not Mitt, but his father George, who was actually a member of that extinct species, Liberal Republican.
(Image by Wikipedia (commons.wikimedia.org))
  Details   DMCA

3. Today, the "Defense" argued strongly against allowing John Bolton to testify, holding that his testimony would be based on "leaks and "an unsourced manuscript." That he would be testifying under oath, rather than simply writing stuff in a book, would seem to go a long way to "substantiate" his description of various conversations directly with the President didn't seem to enter into Cippolone's thinking (or if it did, he kept it well-buried). Asserting a Trump-like internal contradiction is just another indication of how far Trump has gotten into his defense team's heads.

4. When Abraham Lincoln was a rural lawyer in Illinois, one day he had two different cases to argue before the circuit-riding judge (and in those days those folks really rode, on horseback). For the morning case he raised a particular interpretation of a given Constitutional provision in the defense of his client. For the afternoon case he used precisely the opposite interpretation of the same Constitutional provision in defense of that client. "But Mr. Lincoln," the judge said, "how could you use one interpretation in the morning, then a completely opposite one in the afternoon?" "This morning, your honor," Mr. Lincoln replied, "I was wrong."

So Alan Dershowitz --- a fine criminal defense attorney, I'm sure, a Constitutional scholar not so much --- did his Lincoln impression. For the Clinton impeachment, he had argued that abuse of power, not a crime under the U.S. criminal code, was an impeachable offense. This time around he argued that it is not. Interestingly he noted that his interpretation now disagreed with that of the majority of Constitutional scholars who have weighed in on the case. Why had he changed his position? He allowed that he had done a great deal of research on the matter, especially in "dusty law books." Several observers have said words to the effect of "What? You didn't do that kind of research the first time around?"

Abraham Lincoln by Nicholas Shepherd, 1846. This is around the time when that incident would have occurred.
Abraham Lincoln by Nicholas Shepherd, 1846. This is around the time when that incident would have occurred.
(Image by Wikipedia (commons.wikimedia.org))
  Details   DMCA

5. Then we come to Ken Starr. At least two observers have said words to the effect of when he made a big case about how impeachment is bad for the nation, did Ken Starr know that it was Ken Starr up there? Perhaps there are two Ken Starrs, for the current one is rather heavier than the one who prosecuted (literally) the Clinton impeachment, over a sex scandal, but who himself was later effectively fired as President of Baylor University --- over a sex scandal involving football players.

Also, it was Starr who, as then Special Counsel, illegally set the perjury trap that Clinton walked into in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial. Before he was appointed Special Counsel, Starr had worked in the Chicago law firm which was representing Jones against Clinton. As that trial was proceeding, Starr had privately heard about the Lewinsky-Clinton affair before the matter became public. He then transmitted that information, against the law controlling special counsels, to Jones' lawyers. The trap was thus set, and Clinton walked right into it.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Steven Jonas Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, MS is a Professor Emeritus of Preventive Medicine at StonyBrookMedicine (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 35 books. In addition to his position on OpEdNews as a "Trusted Author," he is a Senior Editor, (more...)
 
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Pope Francis and Change in the Roman Catholic Church

Limbaugh, Santorum, Sex, and the Origins of the Roman Catholic Church

The "Irrepressible Conflict" and the Coming Second Civil War

Gay Marriage and the Constitution

The Republican Party and the Separation of Church and State: Change Does Happen

What the Gunners Want: What's in Rick Perry's Pocket, Unlimited

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments


Susan Lee Schwartz

Become a Fan
Author 40790
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Oct 25, 2009), 22 fans, 20 articles, 4269 quicklinks, 7898 comments, 2 diaries (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Facebook Page Twitter Page Linked In Page Instagram Page

  New Content

As alway, so interesting. Love this one: "This morning, your honor," Mr. Lincoln replied, "I was wrong."

Dershowitz is scum. Starr is poop.

The future is watching.


I am exhausted by this.

Submitted on Wednesday, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:34:03 PM

  Recommend  (0+)
Help