I Pity Trump's Defense Lawyers
Donald Trump was interviewed on Fox News last night by Bret Baier, and to say it did not go well for Trump is a vast understatement. It was so bad it left me actually feeling sorry for his defense lawyers. It is, after all, pretty hard to present a coherent legal defense in a court of law when your client essentially goes on national television and admits that the worst charge against him is true. No wonder Trump's lawyers keep quitting, to put this another way.
Trump, of course, thinks he is playing a much different game. He is looking to be exonerated in the court of public opinion, which is a much less stringent arena, because it all depends on how Joe and Jane Sixpack see the law and the legal system instead of what the laws actually say. All of Trump's defenses -- and we've already heard quite a few, some which directly contradict earlier attempts -- can be boiled down into two basic buckets: (1) Trump's memory of events is not to be questioned and is the absolute truth -- no matter what the actual evidence against him may prove to the contrary, and: (2) the law is whatever Trump says it is at any given time, period.
That sounds mocking, but how else can you really put it? Trump still refuses to believe that he lost the 2020 election, after all (a fact which even Baier pointed out, on Fox News). He lives in an alternate reality where things are so just because he says they are so. The Big Lie about the election is just the most prominent manifestation of this deep flaw in his character. Pesky "evidence" is a fluid concept to be defined by Trump alone -- whether it is non-existent evidence Trump claims is real (and therefore must be), or actual concrete evidence that Trump claims is somehow not true (and therefore must not be). The truth is what Trump says is true, at any given time. If Trump's truth today contradicts what he said yesterday, that is no cause for concern and should be ignored. Somehow he must have been quoted out of context. Or something.
This has served Trump well in the world of politics, so far, because the entire concept of "spin" is a big part of the political game. Republicans have always been much better at accepting whatever spin their party's leaders spout and then repeating it verbatim and ad nauseam from that point forward. So Trump had a faithful chorus saying that the sky is actually green... or purple... or plaid -- all depending on what Trump was saying about it at the moment.
Trump is spinning hard on the federal felony case against him, but the fact that this battle will be fought in federal court and not solely the political arena is going to make it all a very different fight. Especially if the audio tapes contain more bombshell revelations than have already been made public. It's hard for Trump to spin his own voice uttering his own words, after all. He tried to, last night, but it wound up just incriminating him all the more. Here are some of the most jaw-dropping things Trump said, when asked why he didn't just give the boxes back, especially after they had been subpoenaed:
"I had every right to have those boxes.... I had boxes -- I want to go through the boxes and get my personal things out. I don't want to hand that over to the [National Archives] yet. And I was very busy, as you've sort of seen.... But before I send boxes over, I have to take all of my things out. Those boxes were interspersed with all sorts of things -- golf shirts, clothing, pants, shoes. There were many things."
In other words: [Exhibit A] Trump had the boxes. [Exhibit B] Trump knew he had the boxes. [Exhibit C] Trump knew that there was a mix of things in the boxes, some of which was his and some of which wasn't. [Exhibit D] Trump knew he had to return some stuff, but he was too busy to sort through the boxes out and then do so -- even after being subpoenaed.
The worst charge against Trump is that he obstructed justice by both refusing to hand over documents he had stolen from the White House and then lying about it and concealing the boxes which contained these documents -- even after a subpoena demanded their immediate return. Trump just admitted to all of this, and you can bet your bottom dollar these interview clips will indeed be played to the jury at Trump's trial. They show intent, foreknowledge, and reckless disregard for the law.
Trump had all this stuff for close to a year and a half after he left the White House. There were indeed a lot of boxes, but seriously, how long does it take to go through a stack of boxes? Any reasonable answer to that question is going to clock in at "much less time than a freakin' year and a half!"
In Trump's fantasy-world mind, there is a law that (rather conveniently) says that Donald Trump can do anything he feels like doing, with no constraints or boundaries whatsoever. He used to point to articles of the U.S. Constitution while he was president, in an effort to claim that: "Whatever I say, goes." This was incorrect, of course (it was rather incoherent, truth be told), and the new explanation Trump has latched onto in this case is just as mistaken. Trump seems to believe that the Presidential Records Act -- a federal law passed after Richard Nixon tried to withhold presidential records and for the specific purpose of telling future presidents that they could not do this -- actually says something like: "Donald Trump gets to keep anything he glommed onto while in the White House which he took a fancy to." Trump kept letters from a North Korean dictator to show off to his buddies, as well as all sorts of secret government documents -- but all of that was fine, since the Presidential Records Act had the "Trump gets to decide what's his and what isn't" clause (a clause, of course, that does not actually exist).
Not only does the P.R.A. (in Trump's fantasy-world mind) say that Trump gets to keep anything he wants to, but it also somehow supersedes every other federal law in existence, dictates that any dispute with the National Archives is Trump's and Trump's alone to decide, and says that any disagreement on this fact has to be filed as merely a civil case and not a criminal one. Trump asserted this last night, as he has ever since the indictment was filed, but it is simply not true. None of it is true. Forcefully saying so and wishing real hard is never going to make it true, either, no matter what Donald Trump may think.
Trump still apparently also thinks that the key to proving his innocence is that he "declassified everything," even though he obviously didn't (as one of those audio recordings of Trump's own voice clearly shows). He has still not quite grasped the fact that the charges against him don't specify classified material at all, so it simply does not matter what is technically classified and what isn't. But Trump still thinks that if he repeats his own belief in what the laws say enough times that everyone else will start magically believing it too. This, again, might at least partially succeed in the court of public opinion, but in a real federal court with a real federal jury it is just not going to fly.
The facts are not whatever fantasy version of events Trump now believes to be true. The facts will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, whether Trump likes it or not. The law likewise does not say whatever Trump thinks it says at any given moment. The law is the law and will be provided to the jury, along with any expert explanations of the law which are required.
Trump is convinced he can talk his way out of any problem. Up until very recently, he has managed to get away with this. But he likely won't even get a chance to talk his way out of this one, because no sane lawyer would ever allow Donald Trump to take the stand, swear an oath, and then give his version of events or the law. Trump would wind up confessing to every crime he's been charged with, while still convinced he was brilliantly explaining reality to the jurors. Allowing Trump to take the stand might even be instant grounds for a mistrial, since if it happened it would pretty much prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his own counsel was completely incompetent and inadequate.
Trump's lawyers may wind up being able to control his actions inside the courtroom, but they'll never be able to do so out in public. And we are just at the start of the 2024 campaign. Trump's going to be speaking to the public a lot from now on, on a constant basis. He'll give speeches and start ad-libbing off script, he'll give television interviews and be asked about the case over and over again -- and he'll just keep right on digging the legal hole he is in deeper and deeper.
As I said, it actually makes me feel just a teensy bit sorry for Trump's lawyers. Not much, mind you -- they're still going to walk away with millions of dollars from all of this -- but even so, it must be hard to sit back and watch your client proclaim his own guilt in such a profoundly clueless manner, on national television for all to see.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
FPC
[11] Caddy wrote:
Elizabeth Miller wrote:
Despite my (and other Weigantian’s) efforts you are unwavering in your belief that somehow sovereign nations Ukraine and the NATOs owe Putin any obedience or even consideration.
Elizabeth replied:
I've never said that and I don't believe that.
That is EXACTLY what you’re saying when you blame the war on Biden and NATO for not taking membership off the table — because Putin didn’t approve.
Good Lord, you guys are so ... so .... LITERAL.
Of course, I do not blame the war on Biden and NATO. But, if I did, I would blame them for taking Ukrainian membership in NATO off the table, not for NOT taking it off the table. Ahem.
I blame Biden and NATO for their big push over the decades to insert themselves into the internal affairs of Ukraine under the guise of the NATO program Partnership For Peace and for their insistence on enlarging NATO to include Ukraine. Which has nothing to do with what Putin approves of or not and everything to do with my belief decades ago and now that Ukraine becoming a member of NATO is a very bad idea. Even Zelensky understands why it is a bad idea. Just as Ukraine can decide for itself what organizations it wishes to be a member of, organizations should be wise enough to know who should and who should not be a member, right?
Ukraine's best case scenario, in my view, was to be a buffer between Russia and the West - for many reasons, not least of which involve historical context and common sense.
I blame Putin for the current situation in Ukraine because he is the one who made the unwise choice to invade. Period.
CW
When you say
"As I said, it actually makes me feel just a teensy bit sorry for Trump's lawyers. Not much, mind you -- they're still going to walk away with millions of dollars from all of this --"
all I can think of is all the stories I've read about how Trump regularly stiffs his lawyers.
Millions of dollars? Hope you got it advance, gentlemen.
[2]
Please explain why Ukraine joining NATO was and is a “bad idea.” What makes Ukraine any different than Poland, the Baltics and Finland?
Russia and Ukraine - The tangled history that connects and divides them
Ukraine joining NATO is a bad idea because the US/NATO see it as in their own best interests, regardless of what is good for Ukraine, number one and, number two, because it ignores the very, very long history that Ukraine and Russia share and struggle with.
Ukraine-Russia-NATO explainer
What really angers me about this war is how the US/NATO have used Ukraine and continue to use Ukraine to further their own interests at the expense of Ukraine and its people.
Now, if you believe that, at the conclusion of this war, Ukraine will have regained all of its traditional territory and repelled Russia completely, then everything I have written in this blog about this war will have (1) made very little sense and (2) worse but understandably, engendered comments accusing me of being a Putin apologist and hopelessly ill-informed.
Now, if you are right and Ukraine emerges absolutely victorious not only in pushing Russia entirely out of Ukraine but also ensuring that Russian incursions will no longer be a threat, then I will be the first to applaud all of you for your steadfast commitment to this outcome and admit that my views on the subject were misguided and wrong-headed, at the very least. I sincerely hope that day comes to pass!
It's amusing that the former guy has always carefully shielded himself from culpability by sending no emails and not allowing people to take notes and speaking in Mafia code to his underlings and repeatedly taking the Fifth in depositions. But all you have to do is put a camera in front of him and he'll lead you to the bodies and help to exhume them. Other people don't know what they're doing after too many beers. He doesn't know what he's doing after too much media attention.
Clothes and government papers, including classified ones, were mixed together in the boxes? That's a bit hard to swallow, even for someone as lazy as Trump, especially as he has employees and lawyers who could at least see whether a box had clothes, papers, or a jumble of stuff and sort the boxes into categories without going through all the contents. Do we really think he packs or unpacks his own suitcases?
I hope someone is quietly drawing up a procedure, which will include some time limits, to be introduced after the dust has settled: better tracking of what documents are where, a reasonable time for the moving boxes to be unpacked and documents returned, a time when the NRA presents a list of documents 'we think you still have', time to locate and return those, and then a time at which someone with governmental/court authority will search for anything still missing.
There are reasons Trump hasn't had the best lawyers in all of this: I gather the top firms, the ones that have presidents among their clients, including one I once worked for in a very minor capacity, refuse to take him on. His reluctance to pay, his failure to take essential legal advice, his apparent belief that a lawyer's job is to help him evade or break the law.... The nightmare client.
So, now Biden wants to pick a fight with Xi. What, the weapons manufacturers aren't raking in enough money!?
"The fight for democracy must continue." Ahem.
SIGH.
If I lived in Taiwan these days, I'd start thinking about how to get out.
Biden really is too old. Yeah, I'm finally seeing the light...
Biden's fav/unfav numbers are just like Trump's. Funny, eh?
Liz,
You seem to be developing a soft side for dictators...
Isn't Biden's need to speak his mind and tell it like it is one of his best personality traits? Fuck Xi, he is a dictator by laws of his own making. Good on Biden telling it like it is.
Why should Taiwan be worried? China is in weak position and they know it. A naval blockade would bring them to their knees. They don't produce enough domestic energy not to mention losing their export trade. Ukraine has proven that in the modern age, defense is much easier then offense and China's military, though in better condition than Russia's is green. They have fought very few wars since the revolution, whereas ours is a well tested and veteran military at the cutting edge of combined arms warfare. Historically, that actually matters. A lot.
I read your two Russia/Ukraine pieces above. Have you? The agreement for Ukraine not joining NATO was a negotiating point with a country that no longer exists that never made it in to a treaty. I found both articles quite good arguments as to why Ukraine should be supported. Everything I have read about Putin and a few of his actions since the Ukraine war started points to him following Stalin's playbook, as mentioned in those articles, of trying wipe out Ukrainian culture. What's the point in saving Ukraine if their culture is erased? Speaking of vague treaties, let remember it's Putin who broke the agreement to not infringe on Ukraine's borders in trade of them giving up their nukes...
A few threads back you asked where we get our news about the Ukraine situation. Well, until the recent unpleasantness, I get it from the news and world news subs on reddit. Which means stories from just about every outfit world wide. Typically that means everything from Foxnews through CNN to BBC, FT, Jerusalem post, Japan times. What about you?
Bashi,
Aside from that first bit about me developing a soft side for dictators, I want to thank you for your thoughtful reply. I really appreciate it. I will respond but have to run now. Thanks again!
[7] et al
So Elizabeth, are you saying that because Russia has dominated Ukraine on and off for centuries that that’s justification to deny Ukraine the right to exist? Please explain your reasoning particularly in light of the 1991 referendum on declaring independence, which had 84% turnout. Did you know that every oblast voted in favor — including 83% of voters in Luhansk and Donetsk and even 54% of Crimea?
Also, you claim that NATO “interfered” in Ukraine’s internal affairs — a Russian talking point since Maidan in 2014 which ejected Putin’s corrupt stooge Victor Yanukovich. Doesn’t that mean that NATO also “interfered” with the internal affairs of West Germany and France? What about Poland and the Baltics? What about NATO’s newest member, Finland? Please explain the difference.
[10] et al
Joe isn’t picking a fight with Xi he’s simply calling a spade a spade. If Xi doesn’t like it, tough titties! China has to import 80% of its energy along with 80% of its agricultural inputs (the stuff that goes into fertilizer.)
Two Australian destroyers parked in the Straights of Malacca would strangle the Chinese. China doesn’t have the amphibious capability to invade Taiwan — end of the decade…perhaps. And Russia’s tribulations in Ukraine along with Western unity of support also gives China reasons to behave.
Biden has done more for America than any President since Ike and FDR before that. He blasted Trump in 2020 and he’ll do it again in 2024. We Yanks like to say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” His poll numbers have sucked for most of his term but not so much that the Dems didn’t have an excellent midterms, eh?
Joe has always been a gaffe machine and that’s just a baked in feature.
@bashi,
to put what you said in a nutshell, putin has proven for twenty years that he's negotiating in bad faith. therefore, it behooves all allies of ukraine to presume that he still is, and not give an inch until he gives two.
JL
Bashi[14],
Isn't Biden's need to speak his mind and tell it like it is one of his best personality traits? Fuck Xi, he is a dictator by laws of his own making. Good on Biden telling it like it is.
Yes, usually that is quite true and, indeed, one of the reasons I have been a Biden fan since 1987.
However, calling Xi a dictator a day after he sends his secretary of state - master of diplomacy that Tony Blinkin is, ahem - to China to meet with Xi about defusing tensions between the two countries is just not very smart.
As for why Taiwan should be worried, well I was being just a tad facetious and tongue and cheek there. But, the way things are proceeding in Ukraine should give Taiwan at least some pause for concern, no?
The Russia-Ukraine pieces I linked to were to illustrate why Ukraine is not Finland. Heh.
Speaking of broken agreements, the Minsk and Minsk II protocols and agreements come to mind and all parties involved there were duplicitous to one degree or another, not just Russia. Still, I think that whole process was given pretty short shrift - of course, that's just me and my penchant for diplomacy. Guess I'm a true die hard in that respect!
Like you, I try to consume news from a wide variety of sources but never from any kind of social media platforms. I can't say a get a lot of it from Fox News, either but the other ones you list I use, too and would add al-Jazeera and the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong and many others, depending on the issue at hand. With ever increasing paywalls, this is becoming difficult and I have had to cut back a bit. I used to like having access to C-span but just found out today that you have to subscribe to a television provider of C-span in order to watch C-span videos online. Bummer! I also peruse a few 'think tank' sites for analyses - like the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, International Crisis Group and Foreign Affairs, to name just three.
More important than the actual sources, though, is the ability to critically look at the news and analysis and be able to discern fact from fiction and recognize propaganda when you see it, coming from all sides. Often times, I find that is a hard thing to do. Which is why I consider myself lucky to also have access to analyses by someone who is steeped in all things military and political, among many other pursuits, and who scours the news from media and political sources far more extensively than either of us.
Caddy,
So Elizabeth, are you saying that because Russia has dominated Ukraine on and off for centuries that that’s justification to deny Ukraine the right to exist? Please explain your reasoning...
No, that is not at all what I am saying. My reasoning to what? Please stop wasting my time!
Caddy,
Also, you claim that NATO “interfered” in Ukraine’s internal affairs — a Russian talking point since Maidan in 2014 which ejected Putin’s corrupt stooge Victor Yanukovich.
That is not what I claimed. Here is what I wrote and meant: "I blame Biden and NATO for their big push over the decades to insert themselves into the internal affairs of Ukraine under the guise of the NATO program Partnership For Peace and for their insistence on enlarging NATO to include Ukraine...What really angers me about this war is how the US/NATO have used Ukraine and continue to use Ukraine to further their own interests at the expense of Ukraine and its people."
Doesn’t that mean that NATO also “interfered” with the internal affairs of West Germany and France? What about Poland and the Baltics? What about NATO’s newest member, Finland? Please explain the difference.
Keep in mind that the interests of the US and NATO don't always align with the national interests of any country they insert themselves in. But, seriously, stop wasting my time!
it's our time too, and we don't consider it wasted. if you want better responses, make better arguments.
Nice.
I suppose you think calling me soft on dictators and a Putin apologist is akin to making a good argument. That is what I have referred to Re. wasting time. Which SHOULD go without saying to you of all people who contribute here.
I may have pegged you all wrong, Joshua.
No, name-calling is not a good counter-argument, and if I've done that i apologize. It's just that your arguments on Ukraine don't appear to be founded in any sort of consistent logic. In one line you acknowledge the invasion is Putin's fault, and in the next you devote equal amounts of energy to blaming Biden and zelenskiy, neither of whom was even in power yet when the invasion of Eastern Ukraine started, nor when decision was made to invade the rest.
And your other line of argument, concern for the ultimate resolution of the conflict, is pinned to a possible future resolution with the expectation that the West put forth said resolution, absent any indication that Putin would under any circumstances accept it. If an adversary is unwilling to negotiate in good faith, i believe it is counter-productive to propose a compromise; it's negotiation with oneself.
Right. Forever war is the better option. ;)
In one line you acknowledge the invasion is Putin's fault, and in the next you devote equal amounts of energy to blaming Biden and zelenskiy, neither of whom was even in power yet when the invasion of Eastern Ukraine started, nor when decision was made to invade the rest.
Well, that certainly goes without saying. Most of my 'arguments' have centered around US and NATO behavior over the decades culminating in the situation we have today.
As for Biden and Z, well, let's chalk up their collective actions over the course of decades in Biden's case and a few short years in Z's tenure in the realm of politics as a massive failure of imagination.
I'm going to give this topic a rest until Chris actually posts a headlining piece about it. :-)
Caddy,
Just so you know, I'll never give up on you finally understanding where I'm coming from on the issue of Ukraine. Just don't ... you know what! :)
Well, that certainly goes without saying.
no, it really doesn't. it must be said. zelenskiy's inability to imagine away the russian army and vladimir putin's determination to use it isn't a failure. regardless of how the ending plays out, his unification of the western world in support of ukranian independence is a massive success.
Elizabeth Miller
7
Now, if you believe that, at the conclusion of this war, Ukraine will have regained all of its traditional territory and repelled Russia completely, then everything I have written in this blog about this war will have (1) made very little sense and (2) worse but understandably, engendered comments accusing me of being a Putin apologist and hopelessly ill-informed.
One of your main problems is the "all or nothing" magical thinking you keep spewing on repetitive loop. Your explanations make "very little sense" regardless of the outcome of Russia's most recent escalation of their aggression in Ukraine.
Now, if you are right and Ukraine emerges absolutely victorious not only in pushing Russia entirely out of Ukraine but also ensuring that Russian incursions will no longer be a threat,...
Therein lies your main (repetitive) problem, Elizabeth; there's not a single person on this blog who has made the utterly asinine claim that we "are right" and/or that Ukraine must meet that ridiculous scenario of yours I quoted directly above in order to "emerge absolutely victorious." That scenario of yours is a certifiably bonkers view of Russian aggression against Ukraine and their current escalation.
... then I will be the first to applaud all of you for your steadfast commitment to this outcome and admit that my views on the subject were misguided and wrong-headed, at the very least. I sincerely hope that day comes to pass!
"This outcome" of yours brought to us directly from the land where unicorns fart rainbows and pixies frolic in the meadow (props to CW) is your certifiably asinine definition of "victory" and no one else on this blog.
Ukraine's choices were surrender or resistance. Appeasement of an aggressor is an invitation to continued aggression. Duh. :)
Elizabeth Miller
24
I suppose you think calling me soft on dictators and a Putin apologist is akin to making a good argument.
You've got this new habit of putting words in people's mouths that they never said. Unless sophistry is your actual intention, you should seriously stop doing that.
I may have pegged you all wrong, Joshua.
You definitely just did. :)
Unintentionally hilarious!
Not to mention, steeped in irony. Ahem.
Elizabeth Miller
34
Unintentionally hilarious!
I see you are getting to know yourself. :)