THE BEST DEFENSE

[NanceGreggs]

THE BEST DEFENSE
By Nancy Greggs

I sometimes ponder the prospect that the investigations currently underway, along with those that might be potentially launched, could eventually expose the crimes of Bush and the gang to the point where they could wind up facing charges of treason, war crimes, bribe-taking, extortion – well, the list is virtually endless.

I should add that I truly delight in such ponderings, as do most Americans these days.

But if it came to that, one can’t help but wonder what standard defenses – or wholly new, creative ones – would be proferred by their respective attorneys.

Here is my list of possible contenders …

The People v George W. Bush - It’s a slam-dunk they’d go with the Diminished Mental Capacity defense. His lawyers can simply trot out the all-too-obvious fact that this idiot never had the mental capacity to be president in the first place – and who could argue with that?

The People v Donald Rumsfeld - The “Unknowable Unknowns” defense. The Defendant knew what he knew, but didn’t know what he didn’t know, all the while not knowing what should have been known, which all leads to the fact that the defendant never knew anything at all.

The People v Condi Rice - The “What, am I supposed to be Jean Dixon now?” defense. The Defendant could not possibly have foreseen that airplanes would be used as missiles, could not possibly have foreseen that the intelligence advisors who warned her about an imminent attack on the US were serious, and could not possibly have foreseen that her married boss would never leave his wife for her. The Defense proffers Exhibits 1 through 611, being pairs of designer shoes – not as relevant to the case, but simply because the Defendant would like everyone to see them.

The People v Karl Rove - The “Boy Genius” defense. The Defendant cannot possibly be guilty of the alleged crimes because he’s way too smart to have been caught, being a genius and all. Alternatively, the Defendant cannot be judged by a jury of his peers, being as he has no intellectual equals.

The People v Dick Cheney - The “Go F*ck Yourself” defense. The Defendant refuses to appear, and is currently in an undisclosed location – duck hunting with the jury pool.

The People v Alberto Gonzales - The “I’ll Be the Judge of That” defense. The Defendant has reviewed the charges against him, and has determined that as the Constitution does not expressly state that he can be tried and convicted of anything, this court has no jurisdiction. The Defendant further submits that he has the necessary signing statement to support his position.

The People v Halliburton, KBR, et al - The “Supply & Demand” defense. The Defendants supplied necessary services to the US government during wartime; their greed demanded that they charge exorbitant fees for said services. The defense rests – but requests the court award costs to the Defendants for today’s appearance to the tune of $6,000,000,000,000 per hour, plus reimbursement of all legal fees expended.

The People v FOX-NEWS et al - The “Fair & Balanced” defense. The Defendants submit that due to the mis-allocation of (D)s and (R)s by their on-screen graphics department, they verily believed they were fairly balancing new stories about both political parties.

The People v CNN et al - The “Most Trusted Name in News” defense. The Defendants, at all material times, delivered trusted (and, for the most part, accurate) facts in its reportage of news items concerning Natalie Holloway, Anna Nicole Smith, Terri Schiavo, and that Runaway Bride (whatever her name was). All omissions of coverage of lesser stories (e.g. post-election discrepancies after the 2004 election) were purely inadvertent.

In the above case, the Defendants plead guilty of the lesser charge of false advertising, by virtue of not having advertised their complete on-air slogan: “The Most Trusted Name in News for People Not Really Interested in the News”. The defense will call one Anderson Cooper to explain the non-impordance of this omission.

The People v Michael Chertoff - The “Dead Men Tell No Tales” defense. The Defense asks the court to mark one Michael Chertoff as Exhibit D-1, and submits that under current jurisprudence, a corpse cannot be held responsible for its actions while under the influence of the Grim Reaper.

The People v John Ashcroft - The “Oy Vey, My Enemies Should Only Have this Headache” defense. The Defendant will demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that he is not guilty of any wrongdoing on the basis that he was subject to migraines caused by the glare of sunlight being bounced off of the breasts of bronze statues during his tenure in office.

In the alternative, the Defense respectfully requests that His Honor recuse himself from this matter, and be voluntarily replaced by Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson and Paula Abdul, who are in a better position to judge the Defendant’s rendition of “Let The Eagle Soar”. In addition, the Defense reminds the triers of fact that Mr. Ashcroft’s innocence can be voted for via a 1-800 number or a text message.

The People v Diebold et al - The “Margin of Error” defense. The Defendants submit that any discrepancies in vote calculations are the responsibility of voters who chose to cast their ballots for candidates who had not been pre-determined as winners in their respective political races.

The People v The Bush Administration - The “Sergeant Schultz” defense. The Defendants submit that throughout the conduct of the War in Iraq, and all circumstances leading thereto, they “saw nothing and knew nothing” about a single thing that was going on. The Defense submits into evidence the transcripts of press conferences conducted by Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan and Tony Snow in furtherance of such evidence of complete ignorance.

The writer humbly submits that all of the aforementioned defenses should be summarily dismissed, and all Defendants should be found guilty of their crimes.

That being said, the writer also humbly submits that she delights in the prospect of the aforesaid charges ever being brought.

[JeffR]

1. K & R

In the autumn of the Bush misAdministration, this rings as true as the sound of bells heard over harvest fields.

:kick:

[Rusty MacHenry]

2. K and R

Couldn't of said it better, love to see those court cases come to life.

[JeffR]

6. Welcome to DU

it's a great place to be during these "interesting" times.

[JeffR]

3. Kick!

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[emanymton]

4. Thought Is Dangerous. Keep This Up And It Is Off To Guantanamo

for all of us. shrub and Co are scared. This is when they are the most dangerous.

[blondie58]

5. yes, that is so true

Just like a cornered animal. That is when they will attack, when feeling threatened. This would be the time for them to bring out their nuclear arsenal.

Great rant, Nance. Oh, what a pleasure it would be to see every one of these criminals brought before the Hague.

[Parisle]

7. Their "real defense" is an unwritten rule of US politics

--- That rule sort of parallels the thinking of people who feel they have to whisper when they say diarrhea,... or the rationale for bailing Chrysler out of bankruptcy during the 80's. Can't air one's dirty laundry in public,... and can't have anything but heroes at the head of the American Experiment.

--- Personally, I think the treason and impeachment cases have been more than sufficiently made already. But propriety and decorum will, unfortunately, play a large role in how we choose to handle these matters in the world spotlight.

[JeffR]

8. Good point, Parisle

It's intriguing as well how this "propriety and decorum" constraint was cheerfully tossed aside when the GOP pressed the Clinton impeachment, under the banner of "the rule of law". Not surprisingly, the GOP's fierce dedication to the law evaporated once they got their phony little good ol' boy into the White House.

[Parisle]

9. I thought about that "inconsistency" a lot, Jeff

--- The Clinton impeachment attempt was a nasty joke. It concerned "naughtiness," ... not official executive malfeasance. It was "theater." But in Bush's case, if we impeach and truly get to the bottom of the things he's done, then we would find ourselves having to go the next step, as well,..... meaning punishment of some sort.

[JeffR]

10. You have to wonder

if the Clinton impeachment, which the public mostly opposed, was a proactive move to ensure that a really impeachable (and Republican) president would be able to get away with whatever. I can imagine David Gergen and David Brooks and a host of other pseudo-pundits clucking about the public "having no stomach" for the impeachment of two consecutive presidents, if things get really sticky for Shrub. It's an all-too-convenient meme, somehow.

[texpatriot2004]

11. Well done Nance nm

[Prophet 451]

12. The "Boy Genius" defence...

That reminds me a lot of Charles the First's defence to charges of tyranny. His arguement was that, as king, no jury of his peers could be found and further, that he was beyond the court's jurisdiction (under the British Constitution, he was actually right about that one). It didn't work. Cromwell cut his head off anyway.

[NanceGreggs]

13. "... cut his head off anyway."

That has a nice sound to it ...

[Prophet 451]

14. I thought so

Hopefully, it won't take a psychopathic religious fanatic to do it in the US.

What am I talking about? They're already in power!