I know quite a few lawyers. Seven, if my mind still serves me accurately, are family members. And I would have become one of them had I followed the advice of my father who was himself, a lawyer.
But I didn’t. The fascination for legal strategy, however, stayed.
The first week of the Impeachment trial of the Vice President (VP) has proven interesting. The legal teams seem to consist of brilliant minds, some more brilliant than others.
Naturally, both teams have diametrically opposite premises. The prosecution’s premise is glaring guilt backed up by hard evidence, the defense, trumped-up charges due to political persecution.
Impeachment is a political exercise but the defense of political persecution fails in the face of evidence that shows actual commission of crimes.
Senator-judges may be influenced by political alliances but they are also constrained by public opinion and compelled to arrive at a fair verdict or they risk loss of political capital.
The reality is that while impeachment proceedings are shaped by political strategy, any perception of a miscarriage of justice will backfire.
I don’t know the truth. But I know that I heard the VP threatening to have the President, the First Lady and the Speaker of the House, killed, should anything happen to her. You might have heard her, too.
Before this trial, the VP’s camp said the threats were uttered in jest. Now that the trial has begun, the reasons why the VP should not be penalized for her statements are ever-changing.
Her statements were uttered under great emotional distress. No hitman was ever hired. The threats were uttered in her personal capacity and not in her capacity as vice president. And then the defense brings out the last card. Was it even the VP in that video?
Desperation can drive people to make the most absurd statements.
A bar was penalized for nude shows. The defense lawyer claimed there was no nude show. The girls were clothed for their dance number. But they were so overjoyed by the response of the audience that they decided to take off their clothes.
Unbelievable.
I interrogate people on a daily basis. It’s just who I am. I like to get to the bottom of the truth. I have certain strengths. One of them is spotting inconsistencies in people’s narratives. Constantly changing statements are a red flag.
I know I should have listened to my father.
It does not matter why the VP made those threats. What matters is that she made them in a press conference live streamed for public consumption. And yes, it was her. Or are we going to allow the defense to gaslight us on this point, as well?
If the VP is innocent, why try to stop the trial and pass up on the opportunity to prove her detractors wrong? If she did no wrong, why skip the proceedings and pass up on the chance to defend herself?
If the defense is confident of an acquittal, why resort to dilatory tactics? Why focus on the procedural and technical to raise objections? Legal teams nitpick in the absence of substantive arguments.
To date, no actual defense has been mounted to directly rebut the charges leveled against the VP.
The impeachment proceedings have shown me the beauty of logic, the strength of facts, the frailty of desperation. For how low can one go when even spit is used to mock a brilliant opening.
Mindlessness — the tragedy of cult following.
Decent human beings in the company of lesser mortals, acting as a herd, shed their skins and commit acts so deplorable, they become unrecognizable.
I walked away from Law. I have no regrets. But I confess, sometimes, I wonder what might have been.