0
0
Just yesterday I watched a bit of the Republican response to the charges against Donald J. Trump, and it made me wish I had gone to law school. I am sure I would have loved my required first year course, Misrepresentation and Half-Truths: Making Lies Sound Like Something Else. In that course, we aspiring lawyers would have gained foundational knowledge from great professors such as the Honorable William Barr. If I had earned an A in that course I would know how to quote out of context and how to utilize the smallest phrase from a much larger set of damning statements to reverse the gist of the message 180 degrees.
Another critical skill I would have learned is that facts are never facts if we can call them presumptions. With this sort of training, I would have been a star interrogator for the Trump team. Just imagine:
“Were you told by President Trump, sir, that he insisted upon an announcement of a Ukrainian investigation before he granted Zelensky the meeting he wanted?”
“Yes, sir. That is exactly what I was told. I heard it directly from the horse’s mouth.”
“I see, so from that interaction you presumed that’s what the President wanted. My good man, presumption is not fact. Case closed. Next witness.”
Another sophisticated strategy I would have learned involves an understanding of how to cite only that testimony that supports my case:
“If we want to know about that perfectly innocent phone call, why should we bother to listen to the whistle blower? Why should we trust the testimony of others who were listening in on that call as it occurred? Why should we trust the transcript? The most direct evidence, the only evidence we can rely upon, is the testimony of the two participants.”
So first let’s hear from the Ukrainian President. Let me put Zelensky on the witness stand and see which side of the argument he supports:
“President Zelensky, remember you are under oath, so please tell us the truth. Tell us exactly how you feel about your dealings with Mr. Donald J Trump, because this is the evidence we will all treasure and rely upon. Don’t give a moment’s thought that if he doesn’t like what you say you won’t ever see even a single US bullet to use against Russian aggression. And don’t be afraid that if you cross the Trumpster the US would simply look the other way if 20,000 armed Russians should decide on a Sunday afternoon stroll into Kiev. So please, Mr Zelensky, tell us the truth. Was it a perfect call?”
Zelensky: “Is there an English word for more than perfect? If there is, that is the word I would use. Trust me. Honest truth. Why would I lie?”
But even if you didn’t choose to rely on the testimony of the Ukrainian President, what could be more direct and honest than evidence from the Man himself, the man who never tells a lie. “Mr Trump, tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the Truth. Were you trying to influence the 2020 election by pressuring a foreign government? Was there any quid pro quo?”
“You’ve got to be kidding me. It was perfect. I am perfect. I have never lied nor will I ever do so.”
“There you have it, your Honor. It’s an open and shut case.”
The Trump team, they’ve been to law school. They’ve taken Advanced Prevarication. They’ve taken senior seminars on how to represent your client even when the two of you are the only people on earth who could even imagine his innocence. They’ve learned how to say the most outrageous things while keeping a straight face. They have penned Law Review papers such as Misrepresentation in the cause of representation: Twenty-six ways of making every bit of damning evidence look good.
So, the verdict was never in doubt. Here on this day, the twenty-first of December, I declare that Donald Trump is innocent as the day is long.
