The sentence that headlines this post, from the brief filed on behalf of the God Emperor in opposition to his conviction, contains an inadvertent typo. By contrast, THESE TWO sentences—some of the weaselliest I have ever seen in a legal brief—were crafted with excruciating care:
It is admitted that after the November election, the 45th President exercised his First Amendment right under the Constitution to express his belief that the election results were suspect, since with very few exceptions, under the convenient guise of Covid-19 pandemic “safeguards” states election laws and procedures were changed by local politicians or judges without the necessary approvals from state legislatures. Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the45th President’s statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies they were false.
The Mango Moroni’s Legal Defense: Three Overall Comments
One. Orange Man’s legal team has meticulously eschewed arguing that the election was in fact “stolen.” I will, accordingly, be surprised if the Orange Man’s legal team long remains his legal team.
Two. Quite the contrary, in the lengthy sentence I just quoted, it seems that the God Emperor’s lawyers are assuming the burden of proving affirmatively that
- first, he didn’t say what he actually said, namely, that the election was “stolen” from him, but merely that the election was “suspect,” and
- second, that whether or not the election was “suspect” is, some way, somehow, a metaphysically unknowable matter.
Well, why defense counsel should want to people to believe this load of codswallop is, to me, metaphysically unknowable.
An even deeper mystery is why they should take upon themselves the burden of proving this nonsense. Back in New York, the first thing they told a young lawyer named Davis was, “Son, never undertake a burden of proof you don’t have to bear.”
What’s the solution to the mystery? I think the carefully crafted weaselly language was an attempt to appease Mango Moroni, while avoiding making the defense all about the “stolen election.”
I don’t think it’s going to work, because I don’t think it’s actually going to appease the Moronic Messiah.
Three. The defense team’s only real argument is that the trial is unconstitutional, because He Who Must Not Be Named—referred to only in the brief as “the 45th President”—is no longer in office.
As an initial matter, let me observe that this claim is in tension with the proposition that the election was “stolen.” If the election was “stolen,” then Joe Biden is an imposter, the God Emperor remains the real President, and therefore the God Emperor can be impeached.
But lay that thought aside. The unconstitutionality argument would be plausible if the only remedy following conviction were removal from office. But conviction can also be a predicate for an order forbidding him to run again. And that’s anything but moot.
However … however … the unconstitutionality business is the kind of process argument that people can latch onto, when they don’t want to face up to what the real facts of the case are.
And, from the standpoint of legal ethics, there is not, I believe, any case that says itchier argument is wrong. So, there is that.
Get out the popcorn. It will be amusing to see whether Orange Man lets his spokesbots focus on their best argument, or whether he forces them to make utter fools of themselves.
Anyone want to bet which way this goes?