Sunday, July 24, 2022

By Their Fruits

"Entirely a violation of the constitution,” isn’t a rational argument, much less a legal one. What is it about old white men that makes them think everything is about them? I mean, it should be embarrassing to say this kind of thing in public.
Speaking with the host he explained, "The only provision of the Constitution, which appears basically twice, is trial by jury in and in front of a fair jury. Number one, he didn’t have a fair jury. Number two, the judge took his defenses away from him." 
Asserting that jury pool was drawn from a community that is "97 percent Trump haters," he continued that Bannon wanted to invoke "executive privilege" but that the judge wouldn't allow -- with the Harvard professor glossing over the fact that legal experts have argued he was not covered after leaving Trump's employ. 
"The judge denied the jury that basic facts," he continued before adding, "The issue in this case has always been a legal one." 
He added the Supreme Court will have to "resolve that issue."
There’s nothing about that which is even on the same planet as a legal argument. (There’s nothing in the court record establishing that the jury is mostly “Trump haters,” and the court can’t take judicial notice of Dersh’s claims. I hate to waste words on this, but I’m not just spewing invective. Dershowitz is.). The less said about executive privilege, the better.

This rant makes as much sense as one of Trump’s.

1 comment:

  1. Almost inspires me to use him as an example of the ultimate degeneracy of secular "liberalism," what happens when you hold that there are really no moral absolutes such as the one to not lie. Something the ACLU championed while in control of his age cohort.