The hypocrisy of the left is truly astounding!

Trump’s Legal Arguments Are Getting Increasingly Embarrassing

On Tuesday, former President Donald Trump’s attorneys tried to convince a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that their client is entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for the actions he took while in office related to Jan. 6 and his efforts to steal the 2020 election. Their argument? That Trump was president, so it doesn’t matter. The three judges did not seem impressed. They are poised to rule against Trump, which could free special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump from a temporary hold. The effort is the most important legal challenge to Smith’s case.

Amazing that when looking the embarrassment of legal arguments that someone would actually suggest that is is Donald Trump who should be embarrassed, not the other way around. Just look at what we are currently looking at when we take stock of the arguments made "against" Trump.

• In New York, Trump faces 34 counts of paying an attorney for a bill that his attorney provided. The argument is that the attorney bill was structured to covered up a crime, but the prosecutor has not yet told us what crime it is covering up or how it covered up the unknown crime. Not to mention that the attorney (not Trump) created the bill.

• A financial fraud case in New York suggesting Trump defrauded banks by overstating values of property such as Mar-a-Lago. In spite of the banks claiming they did not use his values and were not defrauded, the judge demanded that the Trump organization was guilty prior to the trial starting and is basically looking to put them out of business. The judge accepted as fact the prosecutors claims that the property is worth about 10% of what some realtors believe it is worth.

• A racketeering case in Georgia where the prosecutor claimed that challenging the election through legal channels was a criminal conspiracy and is hoping to put people like Trump's Chief of Staff in jail for 20 years for simply setting up a meeting.

• Trump being charged for mishandling classified documents, even though these were part of his Presidential records and every other President (including Barrack Obama) had also taken classified documents as part of their Presidential records.

• Trump is being charged for obstruction based on a riot that he not only didn't call for but actually explicitly asked that the crowd be peaceful.

• Trump is also being charged in Federal court for "conspiracy against rights". The argument is similar to the racketeering charge where using legal channels to challenge an election is designed to be criminalized by proving that Donald Trump had "corrupt" intentions when he made his legal arguments.

Now I am not hear to defend the idea that a President should have absolute immunity from prosecution for things he did as President. However, I think he should have immunity from hopped up politicized charges that have never been brought against anyone ever, President or not.

I also believe that the underlying concepts are not embarrassing if they serve the purpose of delaying these trials till after the election. By nearly all objective legal accounts, these charges have been artificially timed to do the most interference with the 2024 election as they could possibly bring. They had three years to look at these things, and then decide in a matter of weeks to months to toss together a bunch of complicated unprecedented charges that have never before been attempted, much less legally vetted. All so they could set up multiple criminal trials while Trump is campaigning for President.

If Trump can file motions and appeals for whatever reasons and get these trials pushed off till after the election, then those motions and appeals were strategically effective. The idea that attorneys bury the other side with half assed motions and other techniques to bog up the process is a long standing legal maneuver that has been used by lawyers ever since there was such a thing as lawyers. It is not considered embarrassing or anything other than sound well established legal strategy.