It happens even in very serious criminal trials, where the defense argument is basically: "The prosecution clearly hasn't met its burden of proof." And they make a closing argument without ever presenting a case.

IIRC, the defense for Michael Lee King in the murder of Denise Amber Lee (a death penalty case, no less!) didn't present a defense, but during the penalty phase they did call character witnesses in mitigation. Of course it is their right not to mount a defense, but it always blows my mind when it happens, especially in a capital case. And the jury is not allowed to draw any negative inference from it.

Of course this is different because it's an impeachment trial in front of the senate and the legal parameters are different.

Art Bell used to use this song as bumper music for his all-night talk show, and it's just irresistible!

Your post reminds me about the Holly Bobo murder case. Only in that case they told the dumbest of the four suspects to "get rid of her clothes" (and purse and other items), believing that was one simple task he might be capable of, and he drove to where one of the other suspects lived and scattered her things on the road in front of his trailer, leading investigators right to one of the scenes of the crime.

When I see a lone shoe on the road I sometimes think about a vechicular abduction, with someone who was walking being dragged into a vehicle. I guess I've listened to too many episodes of "Forensic Files"

Your post and Turbineguy's below reminded me of this passage on page 197 from The Death of Democracy by Benjamin Carter Hett



Making their own reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_clearance

That episode of Archer aired on February 19, 2015, not long before Pizzagate and then QAnon. I wonder if the phony behind QAnon got the idea from this series?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_(2009_TV_series)

That clearance has to do with nuclear materials. Q never put (I'm using the past tense because he's gone) himself in a position where people could actually ask him questions, so he never had to prove he knew anything about the DoE or nuclear materials. His areas of expertise seemed to be pedophilia and cannibalism.

1. Most of the discussion of the Nazis is in reference to the authoritarian playbook, which didn't even originate with Hitler, and has been used for the last 100 years. The enablers are a key facilitator of the rise of the dictator, so it's quite sensible to compare Trump's enablers to Hitler's enablers (or Mussolini's, Stalin's, Pinochet's, Franco's enablers)

2. The second important analogy is how Hitler acquired power, turning a functioning democracy into a dictatorship. You may not think it is a good analogy, but great thinkers do. Timothy Snyder does. Ruth Ben-Ghiat does. Benjamin Carter Hett wrote an entire book just about this. Richard J. Evans, the greatest Third Reich scholar of all time, thinks it is.

(I've already wasted too much time)

3. Lastly, the psychiatrists... And I don't have time to look them all up but it only takes Google. The crucial thing is that Hitler and Trump were both malignant narcissists. For that reason, they do believe in making this comparison. One of the psychiatrists interviewed for #UNFIT (the documentary) said, to paraphrase: People get upset with me for comparing Trump to Hitler, but I do do it, and I'm going to keep doing it. Why? Because their diagnosis is the same.

Trump is more dangerous than Hitler, says a forensic psychiatrist
https://www.geo.tv/latest/316907-trump-is-more-dangerous-than-adolf-hitler

Anybody who will listen, I tell them the same thing:

If you want to understand the politics of what is happening as authoritarians attempt to overthrow democracies from Hungary and Poland to India, Brazil and the United States, there is no better template to study than the ascent of the Third Reich (starting with the conclusion of WWI). The details may differ, the regime may be left or right, but the entire thing is right there. I would go even further and say, "You only have to study the ascent of the Third Reich" to understand the appeal of authoritarianism and the danger to democracy it poses. It is IMO one of the most well spent uses of time I can think of: Study WW2 in general and the ascent of The Third Reich particularly.

That's my two cents on this.

Yale psychiatrist Bandy Lee says Trump worse than Hitler: 'At least Hitler ... had discipline'
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/2/bandy-lee-yale-psychiatrist-says-trump-worse-than-/

Some Books:

The Death of Democracy by Benjamin Carter Hett is a good place to start.
Strongmen by Ruth Ben-Ghiat is a good place to start.
The Road to Unfreedom by Timothy Snyder is a good second place to go.
Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning, by Timothy Snyder

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/histrionic-personality-disorder

Possibly?

mass shooting who met with her began to say something about Taylor-Greene divulging something that happened to her in her childhood but cut herself off because she was uncomfortable revealing too much about the conversation. Of course, that could have been some kind of cheap excuse or justification by Taylor-Greene, but maybe there is something to it.

And that video of her stroking Trump's crotch is so bizarre.

I do wish some of the psychiatrists who have studied Trump would weigh on on both Taylor-Greene and Hawley. I am guessing Hawley and Trump would have the same diagnosis with Taylor-Greene being something different. She does display some hallmark features of Histrionic Personality Disorder. And this new video with the cardboard Trump only adds to my suspicions. But she has unrelated symptoms as well. Better if I leave this to the professionals.

I was accompanying a friend and we were scouting locations for a documentary about homelessness he was making. He was driving and he took us to some dangerous places in downtown Los Angeles at the foolish hours between around 11PM and 1AM. It was a little scary. We almost got into a scrape with some gang types. I guess he was feeling brave that night. On the drive over he put this tape into his player and said, "You have to hear this song." I don't remember if he even played any more of the album. Just this song, maybe more than once. Looking back, I can see how well it fit.

In any event, the next day I had to learn more about this musician and go find this album.

It's the path of least resistance, and also the fact that: from their point of view, there is nothing to be gained by doing the ethical thing, and so much to lose by doing the courageous thing.

Politics in the United States has teetered into being a zero-sum game.

It is a sad state of affairs, but it is almost a relief to finally understand it, so I can just move on and deal with the hand we've been dealt.