The GOP is falling back to the rhetorical “bunker” on Trump’s collusion and obstruction of justice.

0
85

You know, one snowflake is just a snowflake. Ten snowflakes is a flurry, and one hundred snowflakes is a blizzard. But when it comes to Trump, and his collusion and obstruction of justice problems, it’s starting to look like his GOP lackeys are staring into potential whiteout conditions.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Trump’s newest nut warmer, Lindsey Graham, looked so damn cute the other day, huffung and blustering about Andrew McCabe, and the “deep state conspiracy” of actually investigating the President of the United States! “9 Iron” Lindsey looked like a Pekingese cornered by a puma when he threatened to haul McCabe in front of the judiciary committee to explain himself. Suggestion. Before he wastes the time, money, and risks looking like an even bigger dick than normal on national television, Graham may want to ask Chuck Grassley why he never brought him into the loop when McCabe briefed the Gang of Eight on the probe when it started. Remember the “6 P Rule” Lindsey. Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performances.

The Republicans in congress are now at the dessert table at the A;; You Can Tweet Buffet. They’ve gone from there was no collusion with Russians to we were too stupid to collude with ourselves much less Russians, to OK, maybe we colluded with Russians but collusion isn’t a crime, to maybe collusion is a crime, but it’s just a “process crime,” to OK, maybe collusion is like, an actual crime, but he’s Donald Fucking Trump fer Crissakes! Give the guy a break, will ya?!?

But, as more and more pebbles keep piling on top of each other, turning into a political Great Wall of China on Trump, collusion, and obstruction of justice, the GOP is retreating to the bunker, and pulling out the big gun. They’ve moved away from the “process crime” mantra. And just like the dessert bar at the buffet, they’re hoping that you’re already stuffed, and eating it out of habit, so you won’t notice that the flavor ain’t that great.

I’ve noticed the new talking point come to the forefront in the last couple of weeks. Conservative Alphonso Aguilar used it again today on MTP Daily, when he said something akin to, “The Democrats have been hammering this collusion, and this obstruction of justice line nonstop, and if the Mueller report comes out, and if the investigations complete, and there’s no ‘smoking gun’, then the Democrats are going to have some serious explaining to do to the people of the country.” Ahhhhh, the old “smoking gun” nonsense. That’s like naming your kid William Williams, a complete and total lack of creativity.

It is also complete and total bullshit. I hate to break it to Alphonso, and all of the rest of the GOP bib droolers, if it took a “smoking gun” to convict someone, there would be no reason for criminal justice reform, and private prison companies would be filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy left and right. The vast majority of people convicted in this country are convicted without the presence of any “smoking gun,” or cell phone video, or any of that other shit. They are convicted largely with circumstantial evidence, combined with direct evidence. Most people confronted with a “smoking gun” are smart enough to try to cop to a lesser plea to save time in the can.

This is especially true when crimes of conspiracy are concerned. When is the last time that you saw, or heard of, a prosecutor standing up in court with a notarized piece of paper that said, “, Vinnie “The Nose,” will pay you, Louie “The Tush,” $100,000 once you whack Jimmy “9 Toes.” In fact, it is a monument to his stupidity that Jared Kushner’s father left such a “smoking gun” lying around that Chris Christie didn’t even have to put down his jelly cruller to send him off to the crossbar Hilton.

The problem with this whole scam is that it is both simple enough, and stupid enough to be plausible. The phrase “smoking gun” is a staple on TV crime and courtroom shows, and the media loves to bandy it around whenever they think they’ve found something conclusive about a crime or misdeed. The prospect that a sitting U President is so stunning that, absent video of Donald Trump handing Vladimir Putin a signed sanctions relief bill in return for a Moscow hotel golden shower DVD, people could be conned into thinking anything less is not enough.

In conspiracy cases, judges instruct juries that since, “It is impossible to read someones mind to determine intent, you should look at all of the evidence in its totality, and look to see how it all fits together to determine intent.” Or something close to that. We have a mother lode of former prosecutors either running, or thinking of running for President this year. It might not be a bad idea for them to start talking a bit in their rallies about the improbability of the existence of a “smoking gun” in a case like Trump’s, and that it is not actually required to show intent. And it wouldn’t hurt the media to play that sound bite enough to hammer the point home. Because, if we don’t, I fear that we may return to the days of that shyster Johnnie Cochran, with his signature “If it doesn’t fot, you must acquit” bullshit. Say what you will, it fucking worked, and that’s all that really matters, isn’t it?

Liked it? Take a second to support Joseph "Murfster35" Murphy and PolitiZoom on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of