that s really not what the important point is. the important point is that a number of lawyers unlike the great tradition of making even pretty bold arguments in court, in open court. just an adversary and a judge to weigh things. a number of lawyers and secret or waiting openings, twisting law with nobody on the other side. it s a lot like what alan dershowitz did. although, that was in, you know, in the wide open. there was really nobody who was going to make a judgment except for the senate, which had already decided that it would acquit trump. so he could just, you know, to make up all the arguments you want, likewise, jesper and john eastman and giuliani and sidney powell and bush epstein, these people could just tell trump what he wanted to hear, and then he would then bring them into the fold. they would devise elaborate strategies for doing things that were absolutely fake, counterfeit electors. forged certificates. no, you know, it s not legal
writing confidential memos, twisting the law, with nobody on the other side. it s a lot like what alan dershowitz did. in the senate, although, that was in, you know, in the wide open. there was really nobody who was going to make a judgment except for the senate, which had already decided that it would acquit trump. so he could just, you know, to make up all the arguments you want, likewise, chesebro and john eastman and giuliani and sidney powell and bush epstein, these people could just tell trump what he wanted to hear, and then he would then bring them into the fold. they would devise elaborate strategies for doing things that were absolutely fake, counterfeit electors, forged certificates. no, you know, it s not legal advice. this is using the tools of law to dismantle the country. that s what s important.
people. i want to remind everyone, matthew, that after the second impeachment trial, minority leader mitch mcconnell justified his vote to acquit trump by saying the ex-president could still be held accountable by the courts. here it is. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation, and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one. he said trump didn t get away with anything yet. but i wonder how much of the country, and i m talking about republicans in particular, will look at this jury, look at these prosecutors and believe that whatever comes out of it is the truth. that s the problem because the information sources going into many of the republican households in this country aren t telling the voters the truth, as we saw in the fox lawsuit and all the stuff related to the election denialism and all that stuff,
like the january 6th committee hearings is made through trump loyalists makes it that much stronger. it avoids the issue of saying this is just cooked up by a bunch of democrats who want to see a certain political outcome. this case is made from, as people have said, inside the house, people who were loyal to donald trump but not more loyal to donald trump than the constitution of the united states. and the quote that you gave is just one, as you note, chris, of many people who stood up and acted out of principle. for a jury which is going to be tethered to the facts and the law, i don t think this is much of an issue. i think that the issue here is for the american people, how much they are going to be tethered to the facts and the law in judging what happened as opposed to closing their eyes to
there are other aspects related to the department of justice and to mike pence as well laid out in the indictment. pretty clearly suggests that raffensperger has the wrong person in terms of who committed a crime here. i want to ask about the michigan house speaker because he pushed back consistently about the repeated claims of voter fraud in his state. he said, quote, i fought hard for president trump. nobody wanted him to win more than me. i can t fathom risking our norms, traditions and institutions to pass a resolution retroactively changing the electors for trump. that s unprecedented for a good reason. to a jury, how beneficial is it to hear statements like this from, in fact, many republican officials who supported the former president in the election, wanted him to continue leading the country but in the end said, you didn t win. the fact that this case, just