My deceased step-son was a high powered contract attorney in Hollywood. Once in a conversation prior to his death we discussed the nature of law. He was a very upstanding, ethical individual, but at the time he insisted that the practice of law had little to do with justice.

He insisted that law was more about wordsmithing and not about finding out truth or justice. It's about who can manipulate words better.

I see what he meant watching the Senate almost trial. So many nuances and so much double speak. Its fascinating, but on occasion, confusing. It's amazing how many diffrent ways the same thing can be argued and defended, and rationalized. Repetition is the rule of the day.

I lean in the favor of the House argument, as the President's defense at times seems disingenuous. On top of this, given the intentions and activities engaged in over the last four years by the primary defendent, their defense team's arguments seem disingenuous and fall flat. And yes it is possible to get in the President's mind and ascertain his exact intentions. Patterns of practice make this quite possible, plus the Presidrnt is not very subtle in his thoughts and actions.