Thursday, January 14, 2021

No, It Means Less Than Dershowitz Declining to Represent Trump in the Senate Trial

Cotton is one of 7 Senators who voted not to accept the EC ballots.  7 is not a majority of the Senate, which will be 50-50 after Biden is inaugurated, or 51-50 with Harris sitting as the tie-breaker.  

Cotton may not even speak for the remaining 7, but he has no voice in whether or not there is a trial.  The majority of the Senate (or less than 2/3rds of the majority) could deny impeachment on the grounds Cotton states, or for any reason whatsoever.  But this is not a "big" issue, since the Senate doesn't decide jurisdictional issues on impeachment.  It votes up or down on the question:  nothing more, nothing less.  This is a non-lawyer trying to look clever.  He isn't.

More important is this:
So Dershowitz is not representing Trump, and Trump is telling staff not to pay Giuliani. Who's left? But the best part is this: That, of course, would be delicious. What's he likely to say? "I won." In a thousand variations. And probably some defense of his inflammatory language, which, frankly, goes well beyond what he said on the fateful day just before the crowds stormed the Capitol. The excessive focus on his words there misses everything else he said and did leading up to all those people assembling on that day for that purpose. They weren't there by happenstance, and they weren't guided by signals from the Mothership hovering in space beyond the reach of terrestrial radar and hiding behind the Moon so the satellites wouldn't see. There's some fairly dumb legal analysis in the press that pretty much starts and stops with whatever news reports said Trump said that day. Prosecutors will have much, much more to work with, especially in a trial where Trump has no legal counsel beyond (oh please, oh please!) Sidney Powell or L. Lin Woods.

That's the issue to keep an eye on!
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. The Thought Criminal6:37 AM

    Wow, the Dersh sure seemed cocksure about defending Trump at a Senate trial as recently as last weekend. I wonder what it was, maybe finding out that he was going to stiff Rudy for publicly selling his soul, or what was left after Rudy's made so many whore-cruxes before. I wonder if someone who knows what they're talking about told Dersh about the historical precedence that actually establishes that the Senate has impeached people after they left the position they were being impeached from. I have the feeling that Dershowitz doesn't do much research except what he finds in his own ass.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rmj6:56 AM

    Dershowitz says the Senate trial would be a “show trial.” Just like the first one, but this time acquittal is not as certain. Dersh doesn’t want to take on a case he might lose, so better to declare the grapes sour now than try to eat them.

    Just like a real defense attorney. Not.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)