No actual crime has been committed claims Trump lawyer egghead

Lawyers acting for Donald Trump in his impeachment trial are doing a fine job arguing the toss over whether an actual crime has been committed and whether the president abused his power as chief executive. The highly paid legal experts obviously take exactly the opposite view of those legal colleagues who are claiming that all the evidence points to a clear case of impeachable crimes. For the senators, Republican and Democrat, I doubt any of these sophisticated arguments and counter-arguments will make any difference. They have aleady made up their minds, based on their political allegiance, not on their view of constitutional niceties. So in a sense all this trial back and forth is a waste of time. Unless there is a dramatic revelation, such as a piece of unbelievably damaging intelligence not previously made public, the trial will come to an end and Trump will be acquitted. I don't believe that even if John Bolton is allowed to appear as a witness he will make such a huge difference that Republican waverers such as Mitt Romney will stand up and be counted and vote with the Democrats. Bolton's position has already been sullied by having bits of his forthcoming book leaked to The New York Times. Lawyers for Trump will just say Bolton did it - leaked the damaging bits about what he says Trump told him about Ukraine and the military aid quid pro quo - as a publicity stunt to boost sales. It doesn't matter whether Bolton and his publishers had nothing to do with the leak. The lawyers will make the accusation anyway, just like lawyers do in criminal court cases. "I put it to you that you were so angry you went to your friend's house, broke down the door and killed him with a samurai sword." "But I was in Australia at the time and don't possess a samurai sword." And so on. The most blantant lawyer for Trump so far is the super-distinguished Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus. With such a job title he surely knows what he is talking about? He's a constitutional expert. He rather sweetly told the trial that he wasn't doing what he was doing to protect the president and to engage in political matters. He was there solely to protect the constitution and see that the founding fathers' wishes were duly carried out. And just for good measure he said he loved his country AND the constitution. If you were a Democrat listening to such elegant words you might have thought that, wow what drama, Professor Dershowitz was about to say something like, "As a result I believe that the constitution under President Trump has been abused and misused and seriously damaged." But no, the wise professor said exactly the opposite. Trump had acted in accordance with the noble constitution. What he had done in phoning up the new president of Ukraine re the Bidens and arranging separately for nearly $400 million in military aid to be suspended did not breach the founding fathers' requirements. All was absolutely fine. No crime had been committed, and under the constitution a crime HAD to be committed by the president for him to be found guilty of impeachment and abuse of power. No crime, so no case. To emphasise his total political neutrality vis a vis Trump and the Republicans, he revealed he had voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. So there we are. Professor Dershowitz has spoken. I add only one more thing but without making any comment or judgment: the illustrious professor defended O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein.