Wittes' argument here, boiled down to the fine, is that impeachment puts the case against Trump's re-election in front of voters. Senators may stand by Trump because the risk of opposing him is still seen as greater than the duty to protect the Constitution (read Wittes' argument, it's worth it). In the end, that probably won't matter.“It’s pretty hard to mask the reality of cold political calculus when the president’s defenses have collapsed as they have here,” @BenjaminWittes writes. “There are no plausibly exculpatory facts to hide behind.”https://t.co/PW5nya3jot— Lawfare (@lawfareblog) October 26, 2019
The cruder version of the argument is that the narrative matters. A good trial lawyer knows a story will win where facts alone will be seeds sown on stony ground. The evidence released so far is damning. The responses to it, complaining about process, are whinging. They won't stand up against the evidence presented in the House to pass Articles of Impeachment, or in the Senate when the trial us conducted (and how willing is McConnell to give Trump the kangaroo court he craves?). And if the trial re-establishes the narrative the news is already steadily reporting, then that becomes the story history tells the voters a year from now.
The play is not really to removal; the play is to next November.
No comments:
Post a Comment