Attorney Scott Pilutik wrestles with the news of the day, from a lawyerly perspective…
[Regarding this story: Republicans Ask For Whistleblower, Hunter Biden To Testify In Impeachment Inquiry]
Let’s say you’re on trial for robbery and your defense is that the guy you robbed was also a thief. You call the guy you robbed as a witness at your trial, thinking that once everyone learns that he’s also a thief, the court will surely view your robbery as perfectly justified. But the court won’t let you call him as a witness, mentioning something about relevancy and how it’s “not the way that works.” Unfair! you squeal.
As for the anonymous whistleblower, the initial response from Trump supporters was that his testimony would be considered hearsay (which was accurate in some respects) so we should all pay no attention to it.
Now that the whistleblower’s testimony has been entirely corroborated by witnesses with direct knowledge, the phone call summary, Kurt Volker’s text messages, all rendering his testimony redundant and unnecessary, Trump supporters are attacking the whistleblower. Taylor, Hill, Vindman, Sondland, Volker, et al are all being attacked as well, but attacking the whistleblower allows Trump supporters to maintain the delusion that the process is unfair. The transcripts from direct witnesses are available, but they’ve practically no response to those.
