With lawyers like these, who needs enemies?
Jay Sekulow went full tin foil hat word salad in the well of the Senate floor this morning, in his introductory argument to his jury: 100 senators and presumably 130 million or so American people. First he claimed that just because all of our Intel Community and Robert Mueller determined Russia DID interfere in our elections, doesn't mean Ukraine DIDN'T.
This is called, in legal terms, the "Why not both?" argument, and is usually accompanied by a cute GIF.
Notice three things, please.
- Sekulow is speaking at a pace that is the aural equivalent of a college freshman's 2-page paper quadruple-spaced with 1.5-inch margins so that it takes up 4-1/2 pages, just so he can get to the page that can have a "5" typed on the bottom of it before he turns it in.
- That Ukraine argument is sh*t. Ukraine interfered because three Democratic senators wrote to their prosecutor's office asking them to cooperate with Mueller?
- He couldn't get away from that crappy argument fast enough. All he could say about it was that he was trying to offer "perspective." He couldn't even FINISH the second sentence he started before he did a Chevy Chase pratfall into his next point, which was an attempt to say it didn't matter where the Trump/Zelensky meeting took place.
Even that point was a humongous fail. He read Dr. Fiona Hill's testimony that Pres. Zelensky just wanted a meeting with Trump, it didn't matter where. He claimed triumphantly that such a meeting DID indeed take place — at the U.N. General Assembly. When, though? On Sept. 25, 2019. After aid had been released. After there was outrage about it being withheld. After the public learned Bill Barr held back the whistleblower's complaint, which had been deemed credible and important. So, how, exactly does this approach from Sekulow help his client, Donald John Trump?
Only the best people, amirite?