Can I have a shot?

On defense I’ve taken on well more than my share of superficially hopeless causes, so on little to nothing more than a gut feeling – though whenever that gets requited I find on reflection it was more in the nature of a line of reasoning that was more easy in hypothesis than to articulate [For the non-lawyers out there, this is far from an uncommon occurence – oh, the stories we could tell.].

This impeachment report gives off quite the opposite impression – tho Ed Genson’s such a resilient old warhorse, he knows the potential from staying patient – and also silent [sometimes: I return to this below] and that showing a kindly, charitable demeanor toward an embattled client is, in private far more preferable [for a wide range of reasons, some of which might seem crass to the uninitiated but are definitely not – for example, the dimensions of the fee and arrangements to secure its payment], and in public, quite simply good marketing practice for a criminal defense attorney.

There’s such a lot of hackery in this bad old world – yesterday’s homework presented four stirling examples – that it’s a pleasure to read something prepared for submission in a context so characterized by political hackery that’s such an elegantly drafted, self-aware [but not self-conscious – if that makes sense], well-constructed road map. From time to time when on a run, particularly in the later stages of my stints in prosecution, it felt as if the job became easier the more transparent my efforts were – and years later I know that feeling was accurate and true. The point of connection to this report is that there comes a point where everything is laid out with just the right degree of prudence and balance that the side ‘prosecuting’ the cause has the right to feel, despite all modesty false or not, its a fair, circumspect, responsible, and frankly damn good piece of work, something not just to be proud of but something that’s going to require an extraordinary response to overcome – & good luck to them –

conversely, as a defending attorney, precisely what I do not wish to see.

For MacBlago and team to deal with this impeachment strategy is going to seem like wrestling a python – while you’re concentrating so hard on neutralizing one section from cutting off your breathing, another is encircling your lower vital organs and preparing to squeeze so hard they pop like balloons, and still another is disabling you from moving to safety, etc etc etc. It’s as difficult to see which point of attack will be responsible for bringing down MacBlago as it is to predict which vital function will be the most proximate cause of death from a python attack.

So: what does the defending attorney do? Well, I know what I’d do: tell him he’s smart; tell him he’s good-looking; and tell him dog-gone-it his wife and his kids and his dog like him – then tell him the unvarnished truth about how it looks, suggest he trust in prayer, quote him a mighty fee, and end with saying: sorry Rod: you need it secured, and now.

All of which is not exactly the same thing as saying it’s hopeless, or that the roller coaster ride definitely won’t have its share of thrills and spills for all concerned.