in less than two hours the senate trial in the impeachment of donald j. (as in 'jenius') trump will begin with time broken down in two 48-hour blocks of opening statements split between the two parties over four sessions of 12-hours each )will there be scheduled potty breaks or do they intend to pass out depends at the door?). whether or not i watch is dependent on whether mitch 'the chins' mcturtle will allow media in the chamber, or maybe his threat to block live coverage will only pertain if witnesses are allowed to testify. i'm confused, but then maybe it really doesn't matter since the democrats are only going to rehash what they've already put forth in the house proceedings since any new information that has come out since then (think lev parnas) will not be allowed (for now) while the other side will set forth a 'defense' consisting, i'll assume, of the usual claims of 'maybe he did it but even if he did it's not an impeachable offense', but with maybe a bit more gravitas (hah!) and a little less whining and and ranting (again, hah!). after all, this IS the SENATE (one more hah! for good measure. that being said, despite the possibility of missing out on some bombshell moment, i'll pass and catch the highlights with david muir.
while i'm on the topic of ranting and raving, in addition to the team of lawyers representing the defendant, several members of the house have been chosen to serve in 'advisory and television advocacy (whatever the hell that means) roles'. these include doug collins of georgia, noted for never being able to keep his voice below screaming level, jim 'but, mom, do i have to wear a jacket?' jordan of ohio, who never met a witness he didn't feel he had the right to bully, and elise 'hey, i'm talkin' here' stefanik of new york (plus others), each expert ass-kissers in their own right. these advisers, since they're not lawyers for the defense, will probably not be allowed to speak but knowing their histories of interrupting, blurting out unsolicited comments and general ranting and whining it could get interesting unless they decide to use ball-gags and muzzles, though i'll admit it would be such fun seeing any one of them hauled off the floor. a true popcorn moment for the books.
now as for his attorneys, it's being alleged that he chose his line up based at least partially on how they come across on television, which in the end i'm sure was a great disappointment to judge jeanine pirro, fox's female version of jim jordan. of course, this brings the question, has he been watching allen durshowitz lately? primarily known as a defender of the likes of o.j. simpson and jeffrey epstein, and in 2011 was advising the legal team of julian asange his basic defense of the president boil down to him claiming abuse of power is not a crime. as cited by richard shelby (r-alabama) durshowitz claims it was 'a mistake', or as shelby put it "stuff happens". his home page refers to him as 'the lawyer of last resort' who takes on cases that are 'the most challenging' and 'precedent setting'. then there's ken starr, a key investigator of the clinton-lewinsky scandal, whose report led to the clinton impeachment and who trump once called in a 1999 'today show' interview 'a lunatic' and 'a disaster'. but i guess he comes across well on television, so that's what really counts. another is former florida attorney-general, pam bondi, who is possibly best known for keeping her state out of the lawsuit against trump u for a donation of a mere $25,000, cheap when you consider stormy got $130,000 for doing pretty much the same thing, i.e. looking the other way and keeping her mouth shut. the rest are basically run-of-the-mill sycophants whose major accomplishments are saying nice things about their new boss and are willing to accept checks that, odds are, will most likely bounce.
the one big name conspicuous by it's absence is trump consiglieri and bag man, rudy giuliani, which may at least prove one thing: if he wanted someone who looked good on television he was paying attention since rudy can never come across as appearing as anything more than unhinged, and if there is fairness in this universe he'll find himself on trial for his complicity.
anyway, i guess they've begun, so enough of the who's-who-in-brief. i'm sure we'll get to know more of them as time rolls on, like speed dating in the twilight zone.
and here i am with no popcorn.
(to be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment