The election-fraud trial of political consultant Julius Henson — who is in trouble over a robocall that went out on Election Day in 2010 apparently designed to keep black voters from going to the polls — is underway. And his attorney is planning to argue that Henson would not have been indicted had he not begun working for a Republican, namely Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
It’s kind of a difficult hypothetical, since it seems much more certain that he would not have authorized fraudulent robocalls intended to suppress the black vote had he not been working for a Republican.
Either way, the judge has decided to allow the it’s-a-conspiracy! defense to play out, so it ought to be a pretty interesting trial (I’m predicting a couple “No, you’re out of order!” moments).
Now, I have never been accused of possessing a prodigious legal mind, but it seems to me like a losing argument from the start. Will Henson’s attorney really be able to portray a vindictive Democratic conspiracy vast enough and insidious enough to overshadow — even nullify — what appears to be a clear-cut case of voter suppression?