Aspirational

• : having or showing a desire to achieve a high level of success or social status.
• : associated with or suggestive of a high level of success and social status and therefore appealing to people who aspire to such status.
• : asking an underling or other person to do something repeatedly but not necessarily telling them to.

(e.g. During an interview with Meet the Press, John Lauro, attorney for Trump, says the former president asking Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger to find 11,780 votes during the 2020 election was an "aspirational" ask.)

Trump's Lawyer, John Lauro, has used this word twice already today, by my count, in Georgia and in terms of getting Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election results.

John Lauro, one of former President Trump’s defense attorneys in a case involving attempts to overturn the 2020 election, said Trump “asked” former Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election results in an “aspirational” way, giving a glimpse into possible defenses by his team.

In an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Lauro argued that Trump was exercising his First Amendment right by asking Pence to throw out Electoral College votes from certain states, seeking to draw a distinction between “asking” and “directing” Pence to take actions on that day.

This defense ought to play really well. And I think that we will be hearing the word aspirational a lot in the coming months. Sort of like, "It was a perfectly good phone call, there were a bunch of lawyers on the phone and nobody said no. Purely  aspirational. Now let's sue the lawyers."

I walked into the bank and handed the note asking the teller to put all the money in a bag. But I never told her she had to. I just showed her the bulge in my jacket. It was merely "aspirational."

*

As you know, I am largely an apolitical centrist, who takes ultimate pride in calling balls and strikes from both sides of the plate, regardless of party or clan. A fair referee, if you will.

So I was a bit taken aback when ex President Donald Trump called for the recusal of the judge, Tanya S. Chutkin, in the January 6, indictment. And he wants the trial moved, preferably to a nice safe red state, like West Virginia.

“THERE IS NO WAY I CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL WITH THE JUDGE ‘ASSIGNED’ TO THE RIDICULOUS FREEDOM OF SPEECH/FAIR ELECTIONS CASE,” he screamed online. “EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS, AND SO DOES SHE!”

“WE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ASKING FOR RECUSAL OF THIS JUDGE ON VERY POWERFUL GROUNDS, AND LIKEWISE FOR VENUE CHANGE, OUT IF D.C.,” he concluded. 

“IMPOSSIBLE to get a fair trial in Washington, D.C., which is over 95% anti-Trump, & for which I have called for a Federal TAKEOVER in order to bring our Capital back to Greatness,” he wrote.

This is a bit rich, considering. Just a few months ago, a Trump appointed judge in the Mar a lago case charted the trial for Ft. Pierce, Florida, one of the reddest bastions in red Florida. I didn't hear one Democrat or liberal ask for a change of venue. You live with it, you live with the judge, it is an imperfect system of justice but no one has found one that operates any better.

Honestly the chance of a Cuban or Venezuelan jury convicting Trump is about the same as my chances of walking on water. Ain't going to happen, even if I know where all the rocks are. But you give it your best shot.

Trump toady Senator Lindsey Graham parroted the same line in a recent Hannity interview:

"Well, Sean, any conviction in D.C. against Donald Trump is not legitimate," Graham responded, adding that "they're charging him with a crime of taking bad legal advice. That's what this is about. They're trying to criminalize the attorney-client relationship. They're trying to criminalize exercising the First Amendment."

"The judge in this case hates Trump," Graham said. "You can convict Trump of kidnapping Lindbergh's baby in D.C. You need to have a change of venue. We need a new judge. And we need to win in 2024 to stop this crazy crap."

After thinking about this, I believe that Trump and Graham are right. We must move all of Trump's trials and administer some stipulations and ground rules for juries.

• He can only be tried in a red state. However southern Virginia will be acceptable.
• No college educated people on the jury. High school grads are fine if it was a vocational school. Three tattoo minimum.
• No woke, blacks, non cuban latinos, jews, gays, commies, socialists, atheists, unitarians, vegans, democrats, independents, tories, whigs, yankees, bi-coastal elites, intellectuals, people with an i.q. above the mean average of 100, people with a full set of teeth or who have ever been vaccinated shall sit in the President's judgement. In addition, no jury members who have read more than two books in their adult life, with flouride in their water supply or who own low pressure shower heads will be seated on the panel.
• All judges must have been appointed by Trump and only Trump, no establishment Republicans or Bush appointees shall judge him.

Sounds fair to me. But please understand that I am not exactly demanding these terms, they are purely aspirational. Capiche?

Doug Mills - New York Times