🥨

He’s gonna OD on commas in his deranged rants today. pic.twitter.com/LQuzVHyf3G

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) July 23, 2023

And this is what the Republicans do about it?

“And in your view, has Trump done anything wrong in either the classified documents case or his attempts to overturn the 2020 election?" Acosta asked. 

Burchette said he wasn't a lawyer but that all of what was revealed is "circumstantial evidence." 

"It's clearly politically motivated, and it was proven, and now we have informants coming forward telling us that these things that they accuse Trump of are things that the Biden family was obviously guilty of —" he rambled until Acosta cut him off, asking specifically about the claim of "circumstantial evidence" that Trump had documents. 

"In the documents case, it isn't circumstantial evidence that he had the documents and he was asked to give the documents back, and he refused to do so," said Acosta. 

"Oh, no, no, no," said Burchette. "I'm sorry. No. Yeah, you're correct there, Jim. I apologize."

"And he did try to overturn the election on Jan. 6," Acosta continued. "And absolutely, yeah, and, you know, actually, I had discussions with leadership and others. I've called for a different scenario for those type of documents (sic)," said Burchette. "I don't think they should ever leave the hands of the bureaucrats. I think they've got to be assigned to somebody." 

"Shouldn't he be punished for that?" Acosta asked. "He did bad things. Shouldn't he be punished like everybody else?" 

Burchette said he doesn't have a problem saying Trump should be punished, "but at what level? Is he doing it to disseminate secret documents to our enemies, or what was the intent there? The intent was I'm not going turn them back. You should have been returned from the beginning." 

For over a year, Trump was asked to return them, and refused. He then lied about where they were and what he had. His lawyers then lied about the documents. But Burchette said that classified documents, even the ones concerning nuclear weapons, weren't all that important. 

"If he disseminated the information to some of our enemies, throw the book at him," said Burchette. "Put him in jail, cuff him and stuff him. But if he just kept them there at his place and we don't have any evidence that anybody else could do us harm saw them, the reality is, Jim, once those documents are printed, and they're out there, it's not very long — I've been in the SCIF, and I've walked out and heard your colleagues from CNN within 15 minutes talking about what was secret and what was discussed because I watched it, and I see that."

Because that argument might sway a voter or two even after Trump is convicted (and he will be). But it won’t sway large numbers of voters to support a convicted felon.

I do love the part where baseless accusations that Biden is as crooked as Trump prove Trump is an innocent man. That’s logic so twisted the pretzel’s gonna break. It’s also an argument that’ll never darken the door of a courtroom. Sort of like this one made by Trump’s new lawyer in the D.C. case that’s coming:

In a Fox interview, Lauro embraced the reframing of Trump's attempt to overthrow the 2020 election as nothing more than questioning the possible outcome.

Not a bad argument on FoxNews, but a worthless one in court. Trump’s legitimate challenges to the 2020 election ended with his last failed lawsuit. Disrupting a government function with a riot, and conspiring to use fake electors, are not legitimate ways of “questioning the possible outcome” of an election.

More arguments that don’t mean squat in a courtroom. And we’re back to the arguments that can be made when the GOP candidate is a convicted felon.