OK, let’s think this through. Let’s say my name is John Smith, Esquire, and I have the misfortune to be Donald Trump’s defense counsel. Let’s say that my particular job is to refute the Democrats’ factual narrative. Or at least to provide some legitimate doubt about it. Or, failing that, to gin up an explanation that, on cursory examination, looks like it might create something bearing some family resemblance to doubt about the Democrats’ account of what went down. All to the end that Senator Jubilation T. Cornpone the Fourth and his colleagues can emerge from the Capital, grab the microphone, and say that the Democrats haven’t made their case.
On the above assumptions, what would I, the hypothetical John Smith, Esquire, do?
I shall answer for the hypothetical defense attorney.
I would come up with a rationale to explain WHY Trump released the money WHEN Trump released the money. That is to say, an alternative to the explanation that Trump released the money, and released it when he did, because he had just been caught red-handed.
Did the defense team proclaim, adumbrate, or foreshadow any such argument this morning?
No, they did not?
Is their failure to proclaim, adumbrate, or foreshadow, any such alternative explanation evidence of their stupidity?
Probably not. It is probably evidence that there is no scintilla of evidence that he released the money for any reason other than that he got caught with his pants down.