I remembered this clip from a movie, “A Civil Action”. It’s part of my legal background.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=61&v=zuaLlyXv_Hk&feature=youtu.be
I’m what’s known in the vernacular as a “out-house lawyer”. High-school graduate, watched a lot of Judge Judy and once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. No shingle, but never short of an opinion on all things judicial.
So I imagine myself as Eugene, attorney at law, just retained to defend President Trump. What’s my first move?
What’s the best strategy?
1. Try to have the case declared moot, avoiding a trial altogether? Base the appeal on grounds the Senate cannot try a president after his term ends? Ask for injunction?
2. Insist on a trial, tying up the Senate for weeks, disrupting the start of the new guy’s agenda?
If there is a trial, President Trump’s address to the rally on January 6th would no doubt be entered into evidence. During that speech, he mentioned voter fraud, big tech influence, and rigged elections, mail-in ballot security issues and several other points. Wouldn’t anything mentioned in that speech something that could be used by the defense?
Could State election officials be subpoenaed ? Imagine the ballot security questions one could ask the Postmaster General. I’m dreaming of Dominion’s lawyers playing defense against the President’s defense.
Get the Zuk on the hotseat. (am I dreaming?)
Would Trump himself attend the trial? Would he demand to testify? There has to be some hard e-mail/text message trails that would prove premeditation/coordination to riot, completely divorced of anything Trump.
The Defense and Justice departments’ offers of National Guardsman and FBI to bolster security are documented, as are the refusals by the Capitol police.
The FBI had advance warnings of trouble.How widely was that information disseminated? There has to be a chain showing who saw those reports, and who (intentionally?) ignored or suppressed them.
My meager legal mind cannot understand how democrats think another kangaroo-court show trial (another acquittal?) will play well with the public. Yet they press on.
Considering the pro/con arguments and evidence I’d predict House prosecutor(s) play the bumbling Mr. Berger as Republican’s Perry Mason dissects the impeachment article like a frog in a high-school biology class. Just like the last time.
Of course, I could be totally wrong. Go ahead, disbar me.
Eugene Mattecheck Jr.
