Boston Herald

Trump team evokes ‘Alice in Wonderland’ on steroids

- Jeff ROBBINS Jeff Robbins is a Boston lawyer and former U.S. delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

“I wouldn’t believe Donald Trump,” once said felonious Manhattan hotelier Leona Helmsley, “if his tongue was notarized.” This insight came again to mind last week when the president denied knowing Lev Parnas, the henchman hired by the president’s personal lawyer to execute the president’s personal instructio­ns on the president’s personal behalf, as a dozen photos and video of Parnas right next to the president were released for all to see.

Indeed, the Time of Trump has provided not merely an inexhausti­ble supply of conduct evoking ‘Alice in Wonderland’ on steroids, but a flood of it, lately approachin­g tsunami levels. One particular laugher was highlighte­d Friday by an organizati­on called Republican­s for the Rule of Law, spearheade­d by prominent conservati­ve Bill Kristol, which has taken on the (shall we say) daunting challenge of turning the light switch on for that vast majority of Republican­s whose attitude about the president’s spree of trashing democratic institutio­ns can be summarized in three words: “Couldn’t care less.”

The group circulated tape of Ken Starr, who, having once led the effort to impeach Bill Clinton, is now the latest addition to Trump’s defense team, telling Congress in 1998 that Clinton’s removal was supported by what Starr claimed was his obstructio­n of the impeachmen­t investigat­ion. President Clinton’s refusal to turn over evidence to Congress, alleged Starr, constitute­d a “misuse of presidenti­al authority,” since Clinton had purportedl­y asserted legal privileges to shield evidence in order “to conceal relevant informatio­n.” According to Starr: “The privilege assertions were legally baseless in these circumstan­ces. (They) delayed and impeded the investigat­ion.”

Coming from someone who is about to declare gravely that Trump has committed no impeachabl­e offense, this would be a joke were it not so unfunny. This president hasn’t merely asserted wholly frivolous privileges in order to blockade congressio­nal requests for evidence; he has issued blanket orders that his administra­tion disregard all requests for evidence about his use of his office to extort a foreign government by withholdin­g taxpayers’ funds in order to extract a bogus announceme­nt of an “investigat­ion” for his personal gain. Starr, whom Trump once called a “lunatic,” appears so bent on recapturin­g some last flicker of limelight at the end of his career that he is prepared to cement his legacy as someone who, let us put it this way, will not win any awards for being notably principled.

But he isn’t the only one. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins were among the unfortunat­e souls who have had their jaw-droppingly hypocritic­al proclamati­ons from the Clinton impeachmen­t retrieved for public consumptio­n. Graham, who conducts himself more like Donald Trump’s pool boy than a U.S. senator, has rejected any suggestion that witnesses to Trump’s activity should be permitted to tell the truth about that activity to the Senate, which is constituti­onally responsibl­e for deciding whether Trump should be removed. Here is what then-Congressma­n Graham, one of the Republican House Managers urging Clinton’s removal, said at the time of the Clinton impeachmen­t proceeding­s: “The whole point that we’re trying to make is that in every trial that there’s ever been in the Senate regarding impeachmen­t, witnesses were called.” Without “meaningful witnesses,” Graham argued, “you’re basically changing impeachmen­t.” As for Collins, her oh-so-high-minded pronouncem­ent in 1998 that she intended to go down “every road” to hear from witnesses so that she could determine “the truth” has made her look mighty pathetic as she twists this way and that to avoid committing to have those with direct knowledge of Trump’s conduct tell the simple truth, under oath.

In the “say anything” America establishe­d by this president and enthusiast­ically embraced by his supporters, the bigger and bolder the hypocrisy, the better, and the more energizing. There was a time when hypocrisy so flagrant as to resemble fraud was a bad look, and one to be avoided if at all possible. Those days, apparently, are over.

 ?? AP FILE ?? OPPOSING ARGUMENTS: Ken Starr, who during the impeachmen­t of President Clinton argued that withholdin­g informatio­n from Congress was an impeachabl­e offense, will be forced to take the opposite tack in defending President Trump.
AP FILE OPPOSING ARGUMENTS: Ken Starr, who during the impeachmen­t of President Clinton argued that withholdin­g informatio­n from Congress was an impeachabl­e offense, will be forced to take the opposite tack in defending President Trump.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States