WaPo: Trumps lawyer and GOP allies offer the worst defenses ever

[ginnyinWI]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/06/08/the-worst-defenses-ever-malpractice-in-trumps-defense/?utm_term=.6640e80467b7&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

"From the get-go President Trump has been his own biggest legal and political problem. Blabbing that he fired FBI Director James B. Comey because of the Russia investigation, hinting that there were tapes of the conversations and smearing the intelligence community have all backfired on him. Now, it’s his lawyer and his fellow Republicans who are doing him no favors.

Marc Kasowitz, Trump’s personal attorney, continues to demonstrate why he’s the wrong person for the job. His appearance today was buffoonish as he treated the situation his client is in as a PR problem, not a legal or impeachment problem. On one hand, he claims the president is “vindicated,” in essence vouching for Comey’s testimony. He then turns around and disputes Trump’s effort to extract loyalty from Comey and in any way, shape or form asking him to stop the investigation of fired national security adviser Michael Flynn. It was telling that he could not explain or deny Trump’s clearing the room to speak to Comey without witnesses. How is this vindication?

Moreover, the bulk of Kasowitz’s appearance was devoted to discussing Comey’s admitted leak of unclassified memos (he explained he drafted them to be unclassified) to the media via a Columbia law professor. This is relevant to nothing, absolves Trump of nothing and constitutes a clumsy way to impugn Comey’s integrity. The problem with this non-defense is that Trump’s problem is not Fox News viewers but the special prosecutor and ultimately Congress, which may choose to impeach Trump. Noteworthy was the lack of dispute that Comey was fired over Russia, a fact that remains one crucial aspect of an obstruction case.

Even worse were Trump’s GOP defenders, who now converge on the insistence that there is not enough to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice. There are a bunch of serious problems with this tactic. First, conceding the behavior was wrong, they then must explain why they think it is not sufficient to begin consideration of impeachment. Second, Comey is not the only witness. We got a strong suggestion that there will be other evidence from multiple witnesses — Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats (who likely will say he was asked to intervene in the case), National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers (the same), Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein (who will corroborate that his memo provided a bogus excuse for firing Comey, another powerful bit of evidence of obstruction). Third, there is already evidence that likely would be sufficient to reach an obstruction charge (e.g. Trump cleared the room and leaned on Comey to let Flynn go; Trump advanced a phony reason for firing Comey; Trump tried to persuade the FBI director to be “loyal” — that is to compromise his independence; Trump lied after the firing to conceal his interactions with Comey). If everything Comey says is true — and not a single senator seems to be taking issue with the facts he presented — the president is in deep trouble."

(Don't believe people who say Donnie isn't in deep doo-doo.)

[Gothmog]

1. The release of the memos is not a crime

[unblock]

2. It was an act of disloyalty to dear leader

Which is a heinous crime in the foxnews world