Well…

There may well be reasonable arguments about the prudence of prosecuting Trump, but I don't see how anyone could think that the conduct *alleged* in the indictment isn't criminal.

Instead of denying the allegations, Trump's defenders are making ridiculous arguments on law.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) June 13, 2023

"On law," if by law you mean “whatever uneducated people think ‘law’ means.” Otherwise, the arguments are, indeed, ridiculous. But they have as much to do with law as Trump has to do with integrity.

Bad arguments drown out good arguments.

If you have good arguments, don't make bad arguments.

If you're making a slew of bad arguments, one might suspect that you don't have any good arguments.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) June 13, 2023

Ya think?

While much might depend on facts unknown, I'm sympathetic to argument that Hillary should have been prosecuted.

But Trump supporters making that argument overlook that *Trump's DOJ* declined to prosecute her.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) June 13, 2023

I’d be sympathetic to Hilary’s prosecution if you had any facts to support it. At least Bill fudged under oath on getting blow jobs from Monica. But while that might have amounted to misrepresentation, there’s no way it was ever perjury (it was material to what crime under investigation?). It became the “crime” Clinton was impeached for. Something no prosecutor would have wasted the court’s time on.

You need facts to support a criminal prosecution. And you need facts of a crime serious enough to investigate and prosecute. If you could show that for Hillary, fine. Trump’s DOJ couldn’t find one. Don’t be an equivocating ass.

It’s hard to overstate the degree to which Trump is determined to fight this battle in the court of public opinion instead of a courtroom for as long as possible. And he is determined to act as if nothing has happened, including having Walt Nauta staffing him today.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 13, 2023

A) Don’t do it for him.

B) What else has he got? He can’t bring those cries of “PRA!” and “WITCH HUNT!” into court. And in the end, the courtroom is all that matters.

The judge said they can’t discuss the case but not that they have to avoid contact. https://t.co/yiRdE45hmP

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 13, 2023

One can’t happen without the other.

Trump heads to court with Todd Blanche and most likely Chris Kise, but it’s in flux with a last ditch push from some quarters for Lindsey Halligan to be there instead. ⁦@alanfeuer⁩ me https://t.co/uaBR26L4CK

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 13, 2023

That didn’t happen. Which makes Trump’s legal representation even more interesting. He’s in a serious world of hurt if he can’t get competent legal counsel. And all the appeals to the court of public opinion won’t mean shit without that.  Or even with it; but that’s not on the horizon right now.

And still at least two indictments to go; and neither of them will be in Florida. His troubles finding attorneys is only going to get worse. And be more consequential.

It couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.