WaPo Lawyer Mocks Trump Attorney, Ignores Fact He's Won 8 SCOTUS Cases to Her 0
In the throes of today’s brutally polarized political media climate, an establishment reporter or pundit’s snide, condescending remarks at the expense of President Donald Trump is hardly newsworthy.
In fact, in left-wing media, such remarks have rapidly become currency. What better way to score points with your partisan readers, viewers and colleagues?
Of course, the widespread transition to such a currency has side effects — namely, an influx of hackery, with countless reporters selling out and going broke in round-the-clock attempts to dunk on Trump for the apparent jackpot that is 15 minutes of fame.
And that just so happens to be exactly what happened this week when Washington Post legal expert and so-called “conservative opinion writer” Jennifer Rubin went all-in on White House counsel Jay Sekulow, attempting to discount the litigator’s years experience with a cheap dig on social media.
can you imagine if Sekulow and Cipollone had to try a case in front of a real judge? bhahaahhahahahaha
— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) January 28, 2020
“Can you imagine if Sekulow and [fellow White House counsel Pat] Cipollone had to try a case in front of a real judge?” Rubin tweeted Tuesday afternoon, apparently consumed with laughter.
Having already lauded House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff as “brilliant” in his opening remarks just days prior, according to PJ Media, Rubin was not similarly “in awe” as the White House counsel presented its arguments before the Senate.
The White House’s argument that the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives had brought forward irrelevant, conjecture-fueled and entirely unprecedented non-criminal allegations against the president was, for Rubin, less moving.
So much so, in fact, that the 57-year-old former lawyer would have her roughly 361,000 followers believe men like Cipollone and Sekulow would be entirely incapable of successfully trying a case before a judge.
Now, discount for a moment the fact that this impeachment trial was being argued, as they all are, before America’s highest deliberative body and the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts.
Seriously. Entirely forget about all that for just a second.
Guess what? Rubin is still wrong.
Jay Sekulow: Democrats didn’t do their job, a “very dangerous precedent”https://t.co/Cvzoj3iqHO pic.twitter.com/UJ0gP3HcfM
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 30, 2020
Watch Jay Sekulow totally dismantle Adam Schiff’s argument
“Open for business”? You know who was “open for business”?
The Bidens! pic.twitter.com/Xe3aUZZSyc
— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) January 30, 2020
In fact, Sekulow isn’t just capable of trying a case before true judges.
Sekulow has argued a grand total of 12 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, most of which saw the highest court in the land ruling in favor of his clients, according to the lawyer’s official website.
Opposition lawyer Adam Schiff, an admittedly talented trial lawyer, had just recently gotten out of law school when the first of those cases was argued in 1987, and a 30-year-old Sekulow saw the Supreme Court ruling in his favor by unanimous consent in defense of the First Amendment.
Graduating in the top 5 percent of his Mercer Law School class, securing a Ph.D. from Regent University with a dissertation on American Legal History and arguing cases on behalf of the Office of the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service, Sekulow is a legal giant.
As a litigator, he has accomplished more than Schiff or Rubin, a 20-year Hollywood labor and employment lawyer, could ever dream of.
And sure, that may because those two dream small. This grandiose and farcical impeachment is, of course, all Schiff and Rubin have seen fit to dream of while camped out on the couches of left-wing establishment media greenrooms for more than three years.
But that’s beside the point.
The point is that while swinging down may be perceived as classless, swinging up is a risky bet — and these two should just stop swinging altogether.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
