The first week of the Vice President's impeachment trial has showcased brilliant legal minds on both sides, but with starkly opposing premises. The prosecution argues glaring guilt backed by hard evidence, while the defense claims political persecution. However, the defense of political persecution falters when faced with evidence of actual crimes, according to the author, a former law student and current interrogator.
Death Threats and Shifting Defenses
The author recalls hearing the VP threaten to have the President, First Lady, and Speaker of the House killed during a press conference, a statement many may have also heard. Initially, the VP's camp dismissed these as jokes. Now, the reasons for leniency have multiplied: emotional distress, no hired hitman, personal capacity, and even questioning whether it was the VP in the video. The author sees these constant changes as a red flag.
Dilatory Tactics and Lack of Substance
If the VP is innocent, why try to stop the trial? If confident of acquittal, why resort to dilatory tactics? The author notes that no actual defense has directly rebutted the charges. The focus on procedural objections suggests a lack of substantive arguments.
A Lesson in Logic and Desperation
The trial has shown the beauty of logic and the frailty of desperation. The author draws a parallel to a bar case where a lawyer claimed dancers were clothed, then argued they undressed due to audience joy—an absurd defense. Similarly, the VP's team seems to gaslight the public. The author, who chose not to become a lawyer, reflects on the tragedy of mindless cult following, where decent people commit deplorable acts in a herd.
