I can’t resist. I’m still talking about Blago, or as I learned last night, more properly known as G-Rod.

What in the world is going on inside of that courtroom? All indicators strongly suggest that the charade should have been on Court T.V.—at the very least. If the Court T.V. people can broadcast multiple trials of Phil Spector, certainly the alien-governor should be worthy of some roasting on the airwaves. How could Judge Zagel really deny us the guilty pleasure of seeing G-Rod’s hair, Sam Adams Jr.'s sweating bullets, the jurors laughing at stories of goats and oh yes, Blago’s daughters. Yes, that’s right, in his infinite wisdom, the disgraced bobble-head brought his two little girls to hear the prosecution’s closing arguments—in other words, hear forceful, intimidating lawyers rip apart the shinning image they have of their father. If that’s not going to call for therapy, I don’t know what is…though I’m sure it might clue them into why their father will have to disappear for a few years.

As a lawyer, I tend to think that those in the profession should at least pretend to follow the ideal standard of zealously advocating for their clients—no matter what. From the lion’s den of this courtroom though, all those tenants of good lawyers seem to be temporarily suspended. It appears that in an effort to defend your client, you can now attack him. In the span of a few hours, Blago’s own lawyers accused him of having an “absolutely horrible judgment in people,” being “misled and preyed on by top advisers,” being “silly,” and “insecure” and my personal favorite, “not the sharpest knife in the drawer.” Gee, aren’t all Illinoisans glad we elected this dull butter knife as our governor. To be sure, his only job was to LEAD THE STATE. That job didn’t involve the need for any good judgment, being shrewd enough to determine if his advisers were manipulating him, being secure and having an intelligence level above that of a raisin. No, none of that’s required of a governor now—at least not an Illinois one.

What are Blago’s lawyers thinking? Are these accusations and sardonic, deprecating humor truly convincing as a defense? Hardly. If I was a juror, I’d think twice about the entire case based on these critical words of his own defense team. I’d think that if he’s such schmuck, then he certainly must be guilty of something.

Then, I can’t help but squirm in disgust when I hear about the apparently inept closing arguments that were spewed to the jurors by Blago’s lawyers. When you talk to the jury—a group of people who aren’t only supposed to like you and to believe you, but they’re supposed to rule in your favor and find your idiotic client not guilty—you are at the very least supposed to be a likeable, relatable person. Not so here. In this madhouse, Sam Adams apologized to the jurors for being “all over the place” in his arguments. He apparently just doesn’t “think like normal people.” Well Sammy, dear, you have presumably normal people on your jury. Shouldn’t you at least try to talk to them in a way that they can understand? Maybe that’s why he asked the jurors to forgive him for reneging on his promises including the one about having Blago testify. I’m sure glad I’m not on the jury and I’m sure glad I don’t have to feel guilty or liable for ineffective assistance of counsel.