| | | Bill, You said they would argue that it was a witch hunt Among other things, including the notion of Trump being above the law.
Some of their arguments would essentially do just that, including the title "officer of the U.S." not applying to the president.
Good lawyers make multiple legal arguments. Yes, but then there's the Broken Kettle defense.
A man was accused by his neighbor of breaking a kettle that he borrowed, In his defense, the man argued the following things:
1) He never borrowed the kettle in question.
2) He returned the kettle undamaged.
3) The kettle was already broken when he borrowed it.
Had the defense focused on one of those arguments, they could have won the case. But since the defense tried to employ all three at once, the court found the defense's arguments to be logically inconsistent with each other, and therefore found in favor of the plaintiff.
That's what's wrong with Trump's arguments. He and his lawyers could have focused on one, two, or maybe three of them, but to present them all at once in hopes that one of them will stick smacks of desperation.
And this isn't a case that Trump and his lawyers ought to be sweating.
Tenchusatsu |
|
