4 Comments

Sauer’s argument is a moral hazard. The logical absurdity of Trump’s legal defense exists only in a world where up is down and down is up. Lewis Carroll could have been describing Trump’s World in “Through the Looking Glass”:

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”

Expand full comment

I too view Trump and his legal defense team as following a false strategy. I respect his use of our legal system to postpone an eventual guilty verdict, but I reject frivolous motions and delaying tactics. In my opinion Trump should attempt his best plea bargain and use the legal proceedings as an ‘excuse’ to drop out of politics.

Expand full comment

The nonsense flows freely from the Trump camp. In D. C. the former president argues that any act by a president (especially when he is that president) is official and therefore immune to judgment as a crime. At the same time, his backers argue that Trump must be on the Republican Party primary ballot in Colorado because the presidency is not an "office" in the sense intended by the 14th Amendment, section 3. Both ways?

Expand full comment

My question is, how can inciting a mob to stop the election process be considered an "official act"? It was not within the scope of his official duties as President. It was a political move by a political candidate. Same in Georgia. You are so right that we cannot take this bizarre argument lightly. But there is more than one way for this decision to come out right. Thanks for all you do!

Expand full comment