Reversing course, many in GOP say Trump’s guilt is now irrelevant
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Reversing course, many in GOP say Trump’s guilt is now irrelevant
Several prominent Republicans seemed to collectively breathe a sigh of relief yesterday. After spending months kicking around a series of talking points intended to defend Donald Trump in his Ukraine scandal – some of which were contradictory, some of which were laughable, each of which was woeful – many in the party finally started to settle on the one assertion that can’t be discredited or debunked:
Republicans no longer think it matters whether the president is guilty.
For months, the president’s GOP allies fought a losing battle, challenging the available facts, insisting Trump did not do what the evidence said he did. But on Monday night, during the impeachment trial, Alan Dershowitz stood on the Senate floor and argued , in reference to the reported revelations from John Bolton’s book, “[N]othing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense.”
It was as if a lightbulb flickered on in the Republican cloakroom. The Washington Post reported overnight:
“Let’s say it’s true, okay? Dershowitz last night explained that if you’re looking at it from a constitutional point of view, that that is not something that is impeachable,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) told reporters Tuesday morning.
“Alan Dershowitz said it was not” impeachable, said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a top ally of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “And I don’t disagree with that.”
The ramifications are striking and could have long-term implications. The argument suggests senators believe a U.S. president can use taxpayer dollars to pressure an ally to investigate an American citizen who happens to be challenging him for president, without any repercussions.
A CNN report added, “A growing number of GOP senators are now acknowledging that President Donald Trump may have leveraged US military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an announcement of investigations that could help him politically – but they contend that even that conduct does not warrant removal from office or hearing from additional witnesses.”
It’d be an overstatement to suggest every congressional Republican has embraced this new posture, but the list of prominent GOP officials touting the new talking point isn’t short. It includes Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who argued , “[E]ven if the president said [to John Bolton that he was withholding military aid in exchange for investigations], it does not raise to the level of removal from office.”
The party’s indifference seemed liberating. If Trump’s culpability is no longer relevant to his GOP acolytes, then the answer to every question could be effectively the same: “It doesn’t matter.”
Even if every allegation is true, even if the president did exactly what he’s accused of doing, even if he abused the powers of his office in the precise way Democrats claim, much of the Republican Party has convinced itself, quite suddenly, that the presidential misdeeds simply don’t meet the arbitrary threshold for importance.
And if the allegations are no longer relevant, then the trial is no longer relevant, and the need for witness testimony is no longer relevant. Dershowitz effectively handed the GOP a key to get his client out of this mess, and several Senate Republicans rushed to use it.
As a substantive matter, the party’s new posture is indefensible. Trump’s abuse of power was staggering on a historic scale and, according to Congress’ independent watchdog, blatantly illegal . For lawmakers to say it’s perfectly permissible for a president to ignore the law, withhold congressionally approved aid to a vulnerable ally, as part of an extortion scheme the president hoped to use to cheat in an election, is madness.
But as of this morning, much of the Senate Republican conference has decided the smart move is to simply not care. The more Democrats point to evidence of Trump’s misconduct, the more GOP senators will reply, “So what?”
Republicans and conservatives have now reached the totally inevitable stage of , "he did it, so what?"
It was always going to come down to that and now it is out in the open.
This is why we say that Trumpism is a cult, and why some say that some Trump supporters are the worst people in America.
It's just not that hard to figure out.
Kinda painting with the broad brush of sweeping generalization there John, aren't ya? It really doesn't matter what Trump did or did not do, Trump will remain in office. Even some democrats are having second thoughts about the wisdom of this insanity.
We can always count on you to prove the point of the seeded articles.
We can always count on the left to miss their own hypocrisy.
Consider this payback for Bill Clinton.
Trump is the original Teflon Don. None of the shyt thrown at him for past three years has stuck. All the lies and false charges have lamely bounced off. His popularity numbers have remained unchanged. And once again, you cannot refute anything I write, but have to resort to making a negative personal remark.
All I said is that your comment proved the truth of the article. If that strikes you as "negative" then maybe you should reconsider your comment.
It's true though, to the GOP his guilt is irrelevant. They were going to acquit one way or another.
I already made it, didn't you read the comment you replied to?
To the GOP his guilt is irrelevant, they were going to acquit him guilty or not.
Most Trump fans logic works like this:
Trump didn't do it.
But if he did do it, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was bad, that's not a big deal.
And if it was a big deal, then it's not his fault.
And if it was his fault, he didn't mean it.
And if he did mean it, then they must have deserved it...
It's the same mentality that has allowed despots and vile worthless narcissists to gain power and destroy lives throughout history. The justification of the ignorant.
You left out their final excuse,
Yea, but even if he did shoot someone on 5th avenue,
it does not rise to an impeachable offense.
.
I actually agree and have to admit, i probably could forgive Trump for shooting someone on 5th Avenue, but,
i don't condone suicide.
If the damage was only to himself I'd have to agree and could almost forgive him. Sadly, it's going to take many years for America to recover from the damage this inept fool has done to our nation.
agreed
he has set US back, at minimum, a decade.
"Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who argued, “[E]ven if the president said [to John Bolton that he was withholding military aid in exchange for investigations ], it does not raise to the level of removal from office.”
Didn't see the name "Biden" in that comment.
Just Puts Trumps comment in the same realm of Joe "BIDENS" comments about firing someone.....OR ELSE !
What Joe "THREATENED"….. was Okay.
Even you ME,
know you cannot compare the two yet you do and others overdue as well, cause you HAVE NOTHING
Biden's was AN APPROVED and backed request. Backed by POTUS Obama, all of our Agencies, our NATO and European Allies, while Trump had ALL LIES, Lied about them at every turn, cause you can't get a straight away clear cut answer out of the LIAR in Chief, who's pathetic Party of partisan purveyors of purely pathetic puke, throw up
hands and shovels, as they keep digging up the foundation of the goal posts proving persistently, as they insist consistently, that what we see clear as day, is something different and can be explained in a different way, time after time hoping the truth gets lost in the fray, as they and he are afraid of the truth. Starts out with Lies about phone call, then explained as a 'perfect' phone call, then , get the whistleblower, his spokesman says prid pro qou happens all the time, then Trump examples it on live TV, all while he refuses to allow the witnesses that KNOW the damn truth, to testify.
What a disgrace these Republican Senators are to our once great Country
True !
Trump's was a " REQUEST " !
Biden's was a.... " Prid-Pro-Quo THREAT/DEMAND " !
If you imagine back 40 or 50 years ago and the allegation was made that Gerald Ford tried to arrange a foreign investigation of Jimmy Carter, or , later, Carter tried to arrange a foreign investigation of Ronald Reagan, what we know in our hearts and minds is that once that information became public, at the least Ford or Carter would have had to declare they were not going to run for re-election, out of shame, and/or they would have resigned from the presidency, out of shame. We all know this.
Today, lying , gaslighting, and constant buffoonery are the defining activities of the US presidency as expressed by Donald Trump. So much so that allegedly decent people who support him are reduced to saying "so what?" in his defense.
The United States of America has been brought low.
Who is we
and you can't possibly know who would have done what. If they resigned it would have been because they were exhausted by all the bullshit. Thankfully they did not.
Nobody thinks that because he's not guilty of anything except having a devastatingly handsome haircut. /s
Yeah, well, there's nothing wrong with that. Note the word "investigations" plural. We aren't just talking about investigating Joe Biden or his son. That's because the White House was concerned about Ukrainian corruption beyond just the Bidens. There is ample evidence of this. They were concerned about the general problem of corruption in Ukraine and they wanted Ukraine to deal with it before they released the aid. That is, in fact, what was communicated to President Zelensky. That is 100% legitimate.
buull ship
How come no investigation was ever implemented back when it happened ?
When it was looked into by the 'Proper Agencies' of the United States, AND the Ukraine, no violations of laws were found.
Y was corruption NEVER even mentioned in the calls ?
What ELSE and other Corruption examples were investigated ?
Prove it. The phone call only mentions Joe Biden and Burisma.
There is ample testimony in the House proceedings about how the White House and everyone associated with all-things-Ukraine was concerned about corruption generally in Ukraine. Zelensky ran on reforming the corruption and our VP told Zelensky that his aid was being held up because we wanted him to do more about the corruption. When you hear talk about trying to get Ukraine to launch investigations, that's what everyone was talking about. The Biden case is just one of many. Not that that matters anyway. If you are engaged in corruption, you don't get to escape investigation by running for office.
Prove that many cases of corruption were mentioned by Trump.
My understanding, which I think is correct, is that Trump never used the word corruption in either of his phone calls to Zelensky.
Your just saying something happened doesnt make it so.
The talking points given to trump before his phone call to Zelensky did suggest that he bring up corruption in the phone call, but never mentioned Biden in the talking points.
Trump brought up Biden, but not the corruption which he was encouraged to do by the NCS staff.
1) Who cares? 2) Prove they weren't
Even if true, so what?
Your just saying something happened doesnt make it so.
The NCS staff isn't the president. Their opinion doesn't mean anything relevant to impeachment. The president has full constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy and engage with foreign leaders.
So you have nothing. Got it.
So you have nothing. Got it.
Yet that argument never came up during the impeachment hearings? Funny how people like to spin and re write history when it suits them. Kind of reminds me of Christian apologetics that twist and contort the bible until it makes sense today, instead of just reading it how it was written in the context it was written for the time period it was written in.
It did. As I mention above, there is quite a bit of testimony about concern from Trump, White House staff, and diplomats about the general problem of corruption in Ukraine.
Where?
Marie Yovanovitch, Timothy Morrison, Ambassador Volker, and Fiona Hill all testified in the House that Trump or the people he was talking to in Washington were very concerned with the general problem of corruption in Ukraine. Yovanovitch acknowledged that Trump remarked on it as long ago as June 2017.
So they testified Trump was refusing aid until the corruption was fixed, because he was so concerned with it? Last I heard the term corruption was never mentioned in the conversation with the Ukraine at all.
Were they in on the phone conversation? or in the meetings he talked about how he was so concerned about the corruption?
Remarking about something can mean absolutely ANYTHING
One thing it definitely means is that someone is interested in the topic. Democratic House managers have been claiming that Trump had no interest in Ukrainian corruption at all and cared only about digging up dirt on Joe Biden. That much, at least, is clearly false.
Not remarking on something can mean something as well, as you stated, Trump NEVER mentioned Corruption in the calls.
It's rather interesting, the most corrupt Pol most have eve seen, going after corruption in another country, but only on his possible political opponent, too funny people actually attempting to defend the Corrutaraitor in chief
There is no question about the career diplomats who worked with Ukraine being concerned with corruption. The question is what was Trumps concern. There is zero evidence that Trump was concerned with corruption in Ukraine. It doesnt matter if he mentioned it one time in 2017.
He was advised to mention corruption to Zelensky and instead he mentioned the Bidens.
If he mentioned corruption like he was supposed to do he wouldnt be in this trouble now.
But the phone call with Zelensky was the day after Mueller had flopped in Congress. Trump thought he was in the clear and he got cocky. Back to cheating.
Do even you not see the contradiction in those two sentences? It can't be zero evidence if he mentioned it at least once. And that isn't even the only example I gave you.
You just want so badly for it to be true that all Trump ever cared about was getting Joe Biden. You would think that you should want to be wrong.