Trump’s Impeachment Defense


You’re new to Harry’s team aren’t you?  Yes  Then what makes you think that any of the slack I cut them transfers to you?   Charlton Heston   True Lies

Emperor Numbus Nuttus has spent the last several weeks portraying the House Intelligence committee impeachment process as some kind of a star chamber kangaroo court of a sham, with no process of fairness. He has bemoaned the fact that he could have no lawyer resent to ask questions and could call no witnesses of his own. Trump has mis-characterized the process, which is akin to a grand jury in a criminal proceeding, where the prosecution only tries to prove there is reason to move forward, not to convict. But Trump’s only hope is to de-legitimize the process.

Now the scene has shifted to the House Judiciary committee, which will decide whether or not to write up and vote to release actual articles of impeachment, as well as which articles to write up and vote to forward on to the fyll House. As such, Judiciary chair Gerry Nadler has invited Trump’s lawyer to participate to question witnesses, as well as  to call his own. This is what Trump has been screaming for for months, and his eager response was to flip Nadler double barrel birds. If Trump participates here, it legitimizes the process, and Trump is all-in on de-legitimizing it instead,

One of the tactical choices every defense attorney faces at a trial is whether or not to call the defendant to the stand to testify. The risk is that the defendant, under vigorous cross examination, will end up doing himself more harm than good. But there are also times when a case is so daunting that the defense offers no case at all, preferring only to present a closing argument in rebuttal to the state’s case. The recent Roger Stone trial is a case in point where Stoner’s attorney’s presented no witnesses or evidence in his behalf. Trump’s defense so far has been basically the same, choosing to attack the process rather than the evidence itself.

But if the House votes to approve articles of impeachment, then the process will move on to the Senate, and a jury trial, with the 100 Senators sitting as jurors. Every juror swears an oath when accepted as a juror. I’ve done it twice, while serving as foreman on a personal injury case, as well as a dental malpractice vase. Jurors swear that they will listen to the evidence as presented with a fair and open mind, draw no inferences from a single piece of evidence until retired to deliberate and to follow only the judges instructions when deliberating. Basically, jurors swear that they won’t be the same opinionated jerks in the jury room that they are all the rest of the time.

There are already rumblings that Trumpenstein may continue the same strategy through the trial in the Senate, refuse to participate in protest of the process. But whether The $1 Store Caligula chooses to participate or not, that process will continue to its completion. One would think that with both his presidency, as well as his place in history on the line, that Trump would want to put on some kind of defense. And he will.

Even if Trump doesn’t cross examine a single witness, nor does he present a single witness of his own, or present any evidence in his defense, it doesn’t mean that The Great Pumpkin doesn’t have a defense. Oh, he has one alright, and it’s every bit as toxic and odious as the man himself. And all it requires is an artful closing argument from his lawyer.

His form of defense has a legal name and it’s called jury nullification. Jury nullification is not new, and it isn’t even uniquely American dating back ti British common aw. I’ll let Wikipedia explain the concept;

Jury nullification (US) or a perverse verdict (UK)[1][2] generally occurs when members of a criminal trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit him anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust,[3][4] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case,[5] or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favour of the defendant.[6]

That’s Trump’s defense against impeachment right there, and you have to admit, it has an almost artful elegance to it when you consider who’s using it. Trump has sent this entire impeachment thumbing his nose at the process, and now, at the end,, he’s going to keep right on doing it, thumbing his nose at the very jury deliberation and verdict process. Put on whatever evidence you want Trump is basically telling the Democrats, It won’t matter, because I’ll just tell the jury to forget about the evidence and let me go. And you don’t have to go all the way back to colonial days to find examples of jury nullification being attempted. In the OJ Simpson trial, defense attorney Johnny Cochran nibbled at the concept of jury nullification by playing up Simpson’s fame and popularity to the jury, hinting that even if Simpson were guilty, it would be a miscarriage of justice to convict him. The judge slammed Cochran for the argument, and ordered the jury to disregard it, but how do you unring a bell?

The damn closing argument nearly writes itself, especially with all of the prep work that Trump has already put into the foundation. Senate members of the jury, you have now heard the Democratic House’s case. But does it really matter? After all, Donald Trump is the President, and the most popular and successful President in history. As President of the United States, Donald Trump holds great power, and with freat power comes great authority. Even if he did everything that the prosecution says that he did, and we do not concede for one minute that he did, he would still not be guilty of these crimes, simply because he is the President of the United States. There has never been a President removed from office for doing his job, and to do so now would be a travesty to everything that justice is supposed to represent. The evidence is what it is, and they can portray it to be anything they want it to be, but in your heart, you know what’s just and right, and you have the chance to prove that with your verdict. Your President is trusting you to do the right thing. Thank you.

Trump has 53 GOP Senators sitting o that jury, and in pure reality he only needs 34 of them to vote his way to keep his baboon ass in office. An when you have GOP Senators like Lindsey Graham, coming right out in public and saying that they don’t give a fuck. that he’s not even going to read the report, it is’t hard to see which way this is going to go. My realistic hope and prayer is that there will be 4 Republican Senators with enough recognition of history, and their prospective place in it, that they vote to convict, providing a majority conviction vote in the Senate, even though not enough to remove His Lowness. Hey, you gotta have dreams, even when you’re  up against a stacked deck.

To know the future, look to the past. before the insanity of the 2020 election, relive the insanity of the 2016 GOP primary campaign, and the general election, to see how we got to where we are. Copies of  President Evil, and the sequel, President Evil II, A Clodwork Orange  are available as e-books on Amazon, at the links above. Catch up before the upcoming release of the third book in the trilogy, President Evil III: All The Presidents Fen

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

Leave a Reply

7 Comments on "Trump’s Impeachment Defense"

newest oldest most voted

My wife got me to watching the anti-Trump tarot card readers on Youtube. The half-dozen or so I watch ALL get cards that show him leaving in the late winter or early spring. None of them show him being removed by impeachment. Laugh if you want, but they are as well informed as any pundit and hell of a lot more fun.

p j evans

Feet first, head first, in a straitjacket, or upright?

Murf, you might want to recheck your math. Unless, 10 senators should happen to *suddenly* disappear before an impeachment vote can be taken, Trump’s going to need more than 24 GOP senators to keep him in office. (Unless you believe there might actually be some Democrats who’d vote “not guilty.”) Since the requirement is 2/3 (the rules accepted back in 1986 only require the vote of the “Members present”), if no more than 24 senators vote “not guilty,” then that means Trump would only be acquitted if his loyal minions arrange for the other 29 GOPers to be “away” from… Read more »
old grey dude

Clinton was not found guilty, but he was not innocent. Front and center I think that has to be at the nexus of bush getting into the whitehouse in 2000. trump even if he is found not guilty, maybe censured will drag that with him all next year. People I think want this drama to be over, they don’t want to continue to fight at thanksgiving. Whichever candidate from the dems who comes out as best to mend to wounds will win in my opinion.