Pleading in the Alternative

There is an old story from the shtetl, in which one neighbor takes another to court, claiming "his goat ate my cabbages." 

Replied the defendant:

He had no cabbages;

But if he did, they were not eaten;

But if they were eaten, it was not by a goat;

But if they were eaten by a goat, it was not my goat;

But if it was my goat, that goat is insane.

Five levels of defense in only 154 characters. Modern version after the jump.

Two days ago, spread over two tweets:

So now the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution ....which it was not (but even if it was, it is only a CIVIL CASE, like Obama’s - but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine.

 

Comments

[Rick Bales]

I would add a 6th level -- "How dare my neighbor accuse my goat of such a heinous crime!"

[anon]

Man accuses his neighbor of conspiring with his wife to poison him.

He conspired with my wife to poison me;

If he didn't, then his friends did;

If they didn't, then someone did;

If no one is guilty of conspiring with my wife to poison me, then let's move on: there must be some other offense my neighbor committed;

I now accuse my neighbor of committing adultery with my wife and bribing her to stay quiet,

Given my excellent record of always being right, if I so accuse my neighbor, then not only is the accusation established beyond a reasonable doubt (after all, if I say it every night at about 6 pm, it must be true!) but, so too it is proven that my neighbor conspired with my wife to poison me.

Oh, and btw, my neighbor is guilty of making false accusations against other people, and that makes my neighbor a really, really bad person. Further proof my neighbor conspired with my wife to poison me.

On to the punishment phase, please.

[anon]

A professor of law is accused of using his tenured perch to deliver "credible legal analysis" in public fora that is always one-sided and biased, and only intended to persecute his political enemies, while he ignores and totally fails to analyze equally if not even more credible claims of wrongdoing by those politicians he supports.

The professor defends:

If I am biased, it is because, objectively, morality compels a law professor posing in public venues as an expert in the law to excoriate only the Republicans and excuse or ignore all putative wrongdoing by "progressives" and "Democrats" because only the Republicans do wrong;

If it isn't true that only Republicans do wrong, it is nevertheless my moral duty to ignore the wrongs of "progressives" and "Democrats" because to point out those faults might help the Republicans do wrong;

If it isn't true that pointing to the wrongs of "progressives" and "Democrats" would help the Republicans do wrong, it is still my moral duty to ignore such wrongs, because I am a "progressive" and I can't betray my comrades.

Convincing defense? Or, is it simply this:

I will never admit wrongdoing by politicians I support because intellectual honesty doesn't require it and I choose to ignore the copious wrongdoing by those I support.

[[M][@][c][K]]

I remember the one about the relationship between the junkyard owner and the junkyard dog:

"He's not my dog, but he'll bite you if I say so...."

Regularly ascribed to the relationship between certain politicians and certain thugs.

[r]

I did not have sex with that woman.

If I did have sex with that woman, I did not lie about it.

If I did lie about it, I didn't lie about under oath.

If I did lie about it under oath, it's not perjury for some other reason.

If it is perjury, then perjury is not a "high crime or misdemeanor."

If perjury is a high crime or misdemeanor, I should still not be impeached because politics.

[r]

At the same time, General Flynn lies to FBI agents (not under oath and after being advised to not have a lawyer present), and not only is he prosecuted, but of course, the President (the head of the entire executive branch) obviously obstructed justice by suggesting that the FBI go easy on him.

[[M][a][c][K]]

An story I have heard from various sources as to how to respond to either Parliamentary Questions (PQs or DQs - submitted by members to ministries) or interrogatories in US litigation:

Two men are drifting in a balloon, lost - and as the drift they pass over a hill where they see a solitary man, sitting on a rock, thinking - and shout to him:

"where are we?"

"what? he shouts back

"where ARE WE?"

After a few minutes, just as they drift out of earshot he yells back:

"you're in a balloon"

One passenger observes to another "he must be a [lawyer/law professor/philosopher/economist], that answer was totally right, but totally useless...."