Defending the Indefensible

“If Bill Taylor says it happened, it happened.” My story on the diplomatic — and military — veteran behind today’s dramatic testimony:https://t.co/SIkudY8mG7

— Michael Crowley (@michaelcrowley) October 23, 2019

The "defense" of Trump is down to this:

“President Trump has done nothing wrong — this is a coordinated smear campaign from far-left lawmakers and radical unelected bureaucrats waging war on the Constitution,” White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement, insisting once more that “there was no quid pro quo.”

“Today was just more triple hearsay and selective leaks from the Democrats’ politically-motivated, closed door, secretive hearings,” Grisham added.

"Triple hearsay" is apparently like "double super secret probation," only worse.  I've never heard of "triple hearsay," actually, and all accounts of the statement Amb. Taylor read into the Congressional record indicate he spoke from his own personal knowledge, so I guess the "triple hearsay" is from people reporting on the statement Taylor gave that was released to the press.  The "radical unelected bureaucrats" language only hints at the Deep State conspiracy behind all this.  For that information, you have to go deeper into the White House:

“This is a mortal threat to the American system of government,” said Stephen Miller, the senior adviser for policy.

“It is best understood as career federal employees that believe they are under no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the results of a democratic election. Their view is, ‘If I agree with what voters choose, then I’ll do what they choose. If I disagree with what voters choose, then I won’t, and I’ll continue doing my own thing. So basically it’s heads I win, tails you lose.

“‘If you elect Hillary Clinton, then I’ll implement all of her policies very faithfully, and if I see massive evidence of corruption on Hillary Clinton’s part, then I’ll keep it all a secret. If you elect a candidate I disagree with, then I’ll lie, I’ll leak, I’ll cheat, I’ll smear, I’ll attack, I’ll persecute, and I will refuse to implement, and I will obstruct at every single step of the way.’”

Everyone in government is an enemy of state, because l'etat c'est Trump.  It's understandable this interview isn't getting more attention in light of Taylor's testimony, but frankly, it proves the insanity doesn't run only from the Oval Office.

“We’ve made clear that your leaks will backfire and your sabotage will fail, and we’ll simply implement the policy doubly,” he said. “Not only will you not change the outcome, but the more that you try to leak and disrupt, the more determined the president will be in his course to accomplish that which he was sent here to do,” said Miller.

“The same people who made wrong judgment calls in Iraq, with respect to strategy in Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, too ... the people who made all these decisions now are so utterly convinced that they alone know what the right policy is,” Miller said.

Gee, that doesn't describe Trump at all, does it?  But Miller thinks this does:

“Never has someone occupied the Oval Office who is more undeterred and undaunted in executing the task that he was brought here and has pledged to execute,” he said.

I'm guessing that task didn't include giving Erdogan whatever he wanted in an act of moral cowardice almost impossible to understand, and then furthering that cowardice by abandoning the Kurds and the rest of Syria to Putin.  I'm also leaving out the part where Miller calls Trump's "accomplishments" "a miracle to behold."  That would just be piling on, at this point.

So the Deep State, i.e., anyone who disagrees with Stephen Miller or Donald Trump and has a government job, must be opposed and then extirpated, root and branch.  Stephen Miller thinks we elected a king.  The madness is coming from inside the White House, and not just from the Madman-in-Chief.

And let's be clear:  the White House really believes this shit:

"Senate Republicans don't have to defend Trump on everything, they just have to do their jobs,” said one senior Trump operative. “Part of that is holding hearings, calling witnesses, and forcing testimony on the misdeeds we already know about—Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 election against Trump, the Clinton campaign paying foreign sources to fabricate a dossier against Trump, the politically driven Kavanaugh smear campaign, the son of the former vice president influence-trading overseas, Adam Schiff trying to obtain dirt on Trump from the Ukrainian embassy, and more. What good is controlling half of Congress if Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff get to run the whole show anyway?"

All of this is utter bullshit the pursuit of which may end with Bill Barr disbarred and impeached for pursuing a criminal investigation with no grounds for such investigation (the true "witch hunt!").  That result has already driven Rudy Giuliani into hiding from cameras (which has got to be like gnawing off his own arm, to Rudy).

Taylor’s statement is a completely devastating document. I know they will find a way but it’s just impossible to imagine how Republicans in Congress will be able to defend this. It is well beyond what most assumed was the worst case scenario.

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) October 22, 2019

Republicans in Congress still haven't, except around the barest edges.  Trump is forced to fall back on this:

Neither he (Taylor) or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo.” Congressman John Ratcliffe @foxandfriends Where is the Whistleblower? The Do Nothing Dems case is DEAD!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 23, 2019

So here's a thought experiment, with the holidays bearing down on us.  Anytime between now and the end of the year, go to a crowded store, slip some item in your coat pocket, and continue to walk around the store.  If someone challenges you, you can say you meant to pay for it, and you haven't left the store, so it's not shoplifting, right?

Wrong.  Concealing the item is evidence of intent to steal, and that's all that's needed to prove shoplifting.  Did the store know you were going to leave without paying?  It didn't need to.  Did Ukraine know Trump was withholding funds until they stated they would investigate Biden?  They didn't need to; evidence of the conspiracy (at a minimum) is present in Trump agreeing with others (Sondland, for one) to commit the crime.  When lawyers argue the minutiae of law ('no quid pro quo!'), they are accused of relying on "technicalities."  When non-lawyers do it, and don't even understand what the "technicality" would be, who dare calls it justification?

These conspiracy arguments may reassure QAnon followers, but the rest of us have to sleep less comfortably than ever knowing who's running things in the White House.