Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Republicans Have Rolled Out at Least 22 Trump-Ukraine Defenses, Many of Which Contradict Each Other
Link to tweet
Charles Pierce:
We are headed towards that thrilling final page of the Republican Ukraine Defense Playbook: When the president does it, it's not illegal. Actually, it was smart and good.
This is not the first defense, obviously. Many of the previous defenses involved denying it happened. Republicans rejected the notion that the president extorted a foreign government in order to force them to meddle in the 2020 election for his personal political gain—an abuse of power and a betrayal of his oath of office. The Whistleblower was a shadowy, biased source providing hearsay, you see. It never happened. Then more direct witnesses came forward, on the record, to confirm The Whistleblower's account—at which point they were attacked as NeverTrump Deep State bureaucrats. One consistent theme, however, is that the impeachment witnesses are speaking under oath, under penalty of perjury. The president and his defenders are not.
It will make no difference that this inevitable last defense contradicts many of the previous. Many of the previous contradicted each other, too. In fact, as the Washington Post illustrated in a brilliant video posted Monday night, the Republicans have rolled out at least 22 different defenses for Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine. No consistency of fact or logic is required here—you just need to protect Dear Leader at all costs. You can contradict yourself from one day to the next, so long as Fox News never points out the discrepancies, which they won't.
...
It's supposed to be confusing and overwhelming and absurd. The point is not to convince a majority of Americans that what the president did was defensible. It is to wear the public down until they stop caring either way—until they drop out. It is an authoritarian approach to political rhetoric, where words are not a vehicle for persuasion, but a cudgel to be wielded against those outside The Movement. Defend the leader with a constant stream of angry nonsense until everybody gets tired of resisting and lets him run rampant. It has not worked so far—70 percent of Americans believe the president's Ukraine conduct was improper, and 51 percent want him impeached and removed from office. But the Senate is almost impervious to public opinion, and you've got to give Donald Trump, American president one thing: he is so far undefeated.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29842979/republicans-22-trump-ukraine-defenses/
This is not the first defense, obviously. Many of the previous defenses involved denying it happened. Republicans rejected the notion that the president extorted a foreign government in order to force them to meddle in the 2020 election for his personal political gain—an abuse of power and a betrayal of his oath of office. The Whistleblower was a shadowy, biased source providing hearsay, you see. It never happened. Then more direct witnesses came forward, on the record, to confirm The Whistleblower's account—at which point they were attacked as NeverTrump Deep State bureaucrats. One consistent theme, however, is that the impeachment witnesses are speaking under oath, under penalty of perjury. The president and his defenders are not.
It will make no difference that this inevitable last defense contradicts many of the previous. Many of the previous contradicted each other, too. In fact, as the Washington Post illustrated in a brilliant video posted Monday night, the Republicans have rolled out at least 22 different defenses for Trump's actions with respect to Ukraine. No consistency of fact or logic is required here—you just need to protect Dear Leader at all costs. You can contradict yourself from one day to the next, so long as Fox News never points out the discrepancies, which they won't.
...
It's supposed to be confusing and overwhelming and absurd. The point is not to convince a majority of Americans that what the president did was defensible. It is to wear the public down until they stop caring either way—until they drop out. It is an authoritarian approach to political rhetoric, where words are not a vehicle for persuasion, but a cudgel to be wielded against those outside The Movement. Defend the leader with a constant stream of angry nonsense until everybody gets tired of resisting and lets him run rampant. It has not worked so far—70 percent of Americans believe the president's Ukraine conduct was improper, and 51 percent want him impeached and removed from office. But the Senate is almost impervious to public opinion, and you've got to give Donald Trump, American president one thing: he is so far undefeated.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29842979/republicans-22-trump-ukraine-defenses/
Because a worn-out public isn't angry enough to throw out Republican senators in 2020, and so they could get away with keeping the criminal in power. We mustn't let people shy away from this. They have to feel there's no way they can have senators who supported a criminal re-elected, as well as getting rid of the criminal himself.
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
