Trump hired Starr & Dershowitz not because of their legal skills but because of their TV skills—which is where the court of public opinion is convened. The first filing by Trump’s lawyers makes clear that they have no interest in a substantive defense. https://t.co/KPC9MuEefH— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) January 19, 2020
That's damn simple: the next president does not pressure or request foreign governments to produce dirt on his--or her--rivals. #IntendedConsequence https://t.co/IjX5HQ1GHZ— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 19, 2020
.@JohnCornyn suggests Giuliani's incriminating letter to Zelensky, which was revealed by Parnas and which neither Trump or Giuliani has suggested is fake, might be a piece of Russian disinformation.— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 19, 2020
"I would be careful before crediting the veracity of somebody under indictment" pic.twitter.com/i3rLbC21oe
That's the argument of a defense attorney before a trial. We have a system for handling his kind of issue: it's called a trial, where the veracity of witnesses can be weighed and tested.
Moments after suggesting that key evidence at the heart of the impeachment trial that literally has Rudy Giulani's signature on it might be fake, @JohnCornyn says he doesn't want Giuliani to testify.— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 19, 2020
"I'd say he's not relevant to the articles [of impeachment]," Cornyn claims. pic.twitter.com/QaOxgK1JXR
A retired Texas judge once described this to me as "preaching it round and square." He was well aware of the irony of it. Cornyn, also a former Texas judge, knows better.
No comments:
Post a Comment