“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool,” the old saying goes, “than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” People should perhaps be mindful of this before publicly defending the indefensible — such as New York’s kangaroo-court conviction of President Trump.
One person who might’ve learned this the hard way is “journalist” and stand-up comedienne Francesca Fiorentini. Appearing recently on an episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, funny-lady Fiorentini did get the fellow guests laughing — at her own expense — when she claimed Trump was convicted because he committed an actual crime but then could not, for the life of her, explain what that crime might be.
American Thinker sets the story up, writing that since “the D.A., Alvin Bragg, and the judge in the case, Judge Merchan, failed to articulate a crime in the case, [fellow guest] Michael Knowles challenged her [Fiorentini] to articulate the ‘crime’ of which President Trump was ‘convicted.’”
“Hilarity ensues as she ends up rambling around in circles, desperately trying to come up with a cogent answer,” the site continues.
“Then it gets even better, when Mark Geragos, famed defense attorney and admitted lifelong Democrat, who is no fan of Trump, who says he never voted for him and never will, systematically demolishes her answer,” American Thinker adds.
It’s even worse than that, though, as Geragos had to treat Fiorentini like a child, despite his sympathies. That is, after saying he likes her “a lot” and that they “probably agree on 80 percent” of their world views, he kindly stated to her, “The way you just described it — call me afterwards and I’ll educate you — because that’s not what happened.”
Ouch!
Below is the video of what transpired; it’s a display that, depending on your mindset, is either painful to watch or schadenfreude-inducing.
Viewing the above, you could get the feeling they should have cued Jeopardy music. Fiorentini did everything but start stammering “homina, homina, homina!” (For those too young to get the reference, watch the five-second video below.)
For the record, Geragos’s education of Fiorentini was worthwhile enough to transcribe. As he put it:
There was no theory that was given to the to the jurors; the jurors were told it could have been campaign finance, it could have been tax, it could have been false books. They were told they didn’t have to specify and specifically told they did not have to agree unanimously.
That’s what irks me, lifelong Democrat, no fan of Trump — never voted for Trump, never will. But I will tell you as somebody who has spent his entire career … taking on unpopular causes and holding the government accountable, um, I have to tell you, I do that for a reason. And the reason is this kind of shenanigans, and that’s the best light I can spin it on.
… The criminal courts has [sic] no place in a federal election. The campaign finance laws were federal, not state, and the state laws had nothing [under which Trump could be charged].
The last point was made, by Geragos and Knowles, because Fiorentini suggested that Trump had been convicted under N.Y.S. campaign-finance laws. Perhaps the only true statement the comedienne made, after thoroughly embarrassing herself, was “Look, I’m no expert.” This evoked some more chuckles and mockery, being a gross understatement.
Of course, it would hardly be worth devoting ink to Fiorentini were it not for the fact that she represents many and reflects a very dangerous phenomenon.
You don’t have to be an “expert,” or a rocket scientist, to have a basic grasp of the Trump trial — or of most other political issues (string theory this ain’t). But there is one important prerequisite:
You must care about Truth.
Really, there are only two kinds of people: Those who seek Truth and those who don’t.
Those who do will subordinate all other things to it — ideological attachments, cherished sacred cows, deeply held passions — even when it’s painful (which it can sometimes be). Those who don’t will worship their (usually emotion-derived) agenda and then, when the Truth contradicts it, simply rationalize the Truth away.
This epitomizes leftists today and is why, generally, they don’t debate: Their views are the result of rationalization — lying to oneself. So when in a situation in which they can’t effectively lie to others, because those people know the Truth and can refute the lies substantively, they look ridiculous. This was Fiorentini’s fate.
Speaking of which, show host Piers Morgan made a good point on the program as well. “Why is Bill Clinton able to have sex with an intern in the Oval Office when he’s president,” he said, [and] “lie to the American people about it on national television? And why is he able to pay off Paula Jones, $850,000 — four times as much, five times as much as the Trump payment to Stormy Daniels — to get rid of a sexual-harassment claim, again, while he’s president, and he has no criminal [consequence] for that? Why is that deemed to be better than what happened with Trump and Stormy?” (Video below.)
It’s a good question, one for which Fiorentini also didn’t have a good answer; instead, she dodged it with a joke that, unfortunately for her, was not nearly as funny as her legal analysis.
But, hey, judging from the social media responses, she’ll make it on her looks. In fact, she already has.
