by Shelton Bumgarner
I still have no idea what’s going to happen to Trump politically. We haven’t gotten to the point where the politics of impeachment really make it existential for Trump. He’s flipping out, yes, but that’s more a matter of him NOT being a political genius, but a man-child with poor impulse control.
But here are some Trump defenses I’ve seen lately and some of my hot takes on addressing them.
The Putin Defense
Trump may have done something wrong, but, really, politicians in general do bad stuff all the time and this is just a matter of degree. MAGA, MAGA, MAGA. Trump 2020.
Trump’s specific crimes in this instance are so brazen, so egregious that if you hide behind this Putinesque defense, then there’s not much to say. You’re showing yourself to be so absolutely unwilling to consider the facts of the case that what’s the point?
The ‘Bad For The Country’ Defense
Trump’s impeachment is too divisive. We can’t impeach him because he won’t be convicted and he’ll only grow stronger. This is usually stated in the same breath as “Let the people decide.”
This is a bullshit defense because what you’re really saying is it hurts your side too much politically. You secretly are a partisan hack and you have but a thin-veneer of objectivity to hide behind. You’re probably either too wealthy, too blinded by your love of young hack MAGA judges or too otherwise invested in the status quo to ever seriously think about the issues that impeachment would address. Bonus: “Let the people decide” is bullshit because the very thing Trump is accused of — fucking with the election — is something he’s going to do again anyway if he’s a free man and at least he should suffer some political consequences for doing it.
The Whistleblower Is A Partisan Hack
We’re likely to see this more very soon. This defense is that essentially, only a completely objective person can get you in trouble. If anyone with ANY sort of disagreement with you on a political level has evidence you committed a crime, lulz.
This is something that is so passionately stated and yet so poorly thought out that it can take you aback. This is a strained attempt to muddy the waters between the rule of law and the laws of politics. Also, Bill Clinton was impeached in large part because of a partisan political trap sprung by Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg and Matt Drudge. This is sort of the, “I’m not going to defend Trump, but attack the person who caught him” defense. I can only suggest you stay calm and somehow get the person to agree with you before hand that the rule of law is meant for everyone. They are likely to say Hillary Clinton should have been indicted. You have to remind them that not only did the Justice Department find she did nothing wrong with her emails, but that she’s not the issue at the moment, Trump is. This can lead to you going in circles because, well, you’re probably not talking to someone discussing this issue in good faith.
The Brit Hume Defense
Hume — and the editors of The Wall Street Journal — believe something along the lines of since Trump didn’t actually get the dirt on Biden, lulz.
That otherwise cognizant, cogent and intelligent people would prostrate themselves in front of the Orange Caff of Trump in such a brazenly bad argument is pretty spectacular. This defense is a desperation-is-setting in defense. This is the defense of people who have gotten a little cocky after the “bad optics” of Mueller’s testimony to Congress got their man off politically….only so he could turn around and do it all over again. It’s a bad defense because the ask, itself, is a crime. It doesn’t matter if he got what he wanted. And, really, do you want a person like Trump as president if he does such a thing? (Of course they do, they are getting tax breaks and young hack judges on the Federal bench for life. Lulz!)
The Nancy Pelosi Should Not Be President Defense
I struggle to figure out what’s going on with this one. The argument is that Nancy Pelosi has too much of a vested interest in Trump being forced out of office and so, lulz, the whole thing is invalid, why are we talking about it.
Mike Pence has a lot more on the line with impeachment than Nancy Pelosi. Why would people assume that simply because impeachment would make her one heartbeat closer to the presidency that, in real terms, she has a vested interest in Trump leaving office? Pence isn’t going anywhere and it would be he — not Pelosi — who named his veep successor. This one is pretty textbook misogyny in my book.