Jeffrey Toobin says Jay Sekulow isn't really such a bad guy:Isn’t the WH lawyer essentially arguing that the military aid didn’t flow until the WH got caught???— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) January 25, 2020
“I was surprised that Jay Sekulow, who I think is a very fine lawyer, seen him argue in the Supreme Court several times, wandered in the wasteland of the Mueller report, that didn’t seem relevant,” said Toobin.
Yeah, fine lawyer, that Sekulow:
[In 2009, Sekulow] approved plans to push poor and jobless people to donate money to his Christian nonprofit, which since 2000 has steered more than $60m to Sekulow, his family and their businesses.
Telemarketers for the nonprofit, Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism (Case), were instructed in contracts signed by Sekulow to urge people who pleaded poverty or said they were out of work to dig deep for a “sacrificial gift”.
“I can certainly understand how that would make it difficult for you to share a gift like that right now,” they told retirees who said they were on fixed incomes and had “no extra money” – before asking if they could spare “even $20 within the next three weeks”.
In addition to using tens of millions of dollars in donations to pay Sekulow, his wife, his sons, his brother, his sister-in-law, his niece and nephew and their firms, Case has also been used to provide a series of unusual loans and property deals to the Sekulow family.
Really, really fine lawyer:
Admittedly I didn't watch arguments this morning (I was washing my hair), but Mr. Toobin and I have very different ideas of what a "fine lawyer" is; and generally, you are judged by the last appearance you made in public as a lawyer:IS THIS NOT THE SAME EXACT THING THAT THE NY AG USED TO SHUT DOWN THE TRUMP FOUNDATION...USING A FOUNDATION AS UR PRIVATE BANK? @realDonaldTrump— OUTLAW 09 (@rich_outlaw) January 25, 2020
SO BIRDS OF A FEATHER DO FLOCK TOGETHER https://t.co/gzha1WUwG7
I dunno, but that seems like a more accurate summation. And in point of fact, Trump's lawyers are arguing the Constitution is unconstitutional, and cannot be used against Trump. No, seriously:Sekulow’s brief seems to be a ragbag of everything someone has said on Hannity over the past 2 years. He’s relitigating the Mueller probe and the FISA court. We’re heading for the Deep State, people.#ImpeachmentTrial— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) January 25, 2020
Pat Cipollone is seriously arguing that removing a president through impeachment -- which is literally the remedy for presidential misconduct written into the Constitution -- would violate the Constitution.— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) January 25, 2020
Got that? Konstitooshinal skollar Alan Dershowitz says using the Constitution violates the Constitution; at least where Presidential elections are concerned. And it's worth noting, as an evidentiary matter (not that rules of evidence matter here in the least):Alan Dershowitz said invoking the 25th Amendment was unconstitutional. https://t.co/kfjys88qcX— Windsor Mann (@WindsorMann) January 25, 2020
I'm quite sure, in fact, Mr. Pierce is right, and none of this matters. The fix is clearly in. But think of the campaign ads this is gonna make for the Democrats in September and October."CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned t_o listen.and memorialize the conversation..."— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) January 25, 2020
Besides, if battle lines are already drawn and sides already chosen, the polls show almost 50% favor removal, and 70% favor witnesses in the trial. Is that going to change by November?Trump's impeachment lawyers are simply arguing the case on the basis that they Have The Votes. https://t.co/wokWq5uafg— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) January 25, 2020
You can do a lot with that question. Especially if Bolton ever publishes his book, and if his books tells anything closely resembling the truth.Manchin tells @mkraju that Trump’s team did a “good job” and are “making me think about things... One thing that stuck in my mind is they said there isn’t a witness they have had so far that had direct contact with the president. I’d love to hear from Mulvaney and Bolton.”
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 25, 2020
Shorter Dershowitz, La Constitution, c'est moi. Toobin's comment about the ultra sleaze Sekulow adds weight to what I've been thinking about how the whole field of the law, at those elite-as-seen-on-TV and heard in front of the Supreme Court level is endemically corrupt.
ReplyDelete