In the Nov. 19 edition of The Washington Times, a front-page news article described the problems and pitfalls facing and being encountered by Rudolph W. Giuliani, ‘America’s mayor,’ in leading President Trump’s election challenge in court (“Giuliani takes up Trump’s cause, but doesn’t help in court”).
While the mainstream media brands the effort pretty much as a lost cause, President Trump’s legal team has had several lawyers bow out because they were “harassed and threatened” They’ve also said they are “not going to go into court and embarrass themselves.”
Be that as it may, the most troubling aspect of what was brought to light in this article is the statement by a “(p)rominent Republican election law” specialist, Benjamin Ginsberg. He “criticized the Trump lawsuits” for “failing to demonstrate the extent of any fraud or misconduct was enough to change the outcome.”
If we carry this fractured chain of thought across the legal spectrum, a murder suspect with bad aim should be freed because he could not have hit his mark; therefore, the misconduct was not sufficient to injure or kill someone.
The sentiment against anything not pro-Biden, whether direct or tangential, has seeped into every aspect of today’s thinking — by people who really should know better.
President Trump was elected over 16 otherwise supremely qualified primary candidates in 2016. He spoke directly to the public and tried his very best, against all adversarial efforts of the primary losers and the Democratic Party, to execute his campaign promises.
Now he is being reduced to a lost legal case (cause) by lawyers without the innate ability to stand up for a client’s rights.
Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC.