The Trump "So What" Defense.

[Lakhota]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

 

[theHawk]

He sure is correct. You have to actually identify a crime first.

 

[miketx]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...s-trumps-final-defense-so-what-if-hes-guilty/

How you can never say what he has done specifically?

 

[kyzr]

I'm not going there and say so what if Trump's guilty. The Articles are total partisan bullshit. So why even give Nancy a talking point?
Article-2 is dead, the USSC killed it. Trump does have the right of due process, and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House"
Article-1 is dead, hearsay evidence is NOT allowed in the senate.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

Trump supporters who say it's not impeachable apparently haven't seen the news, nor do they understand how impeachment works.

Someone brings suspected crimes by the president to the House. The House investigates and holds hearings to see if it really happened. If the investigation determines a crime was committed, the House votes to impeach or not. If the House votes to not impeach, the case stops. If they vote to impeach, then the president is impeached, and the articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate.

The Senate takes the articles and then holds a trial. During that trial, the senators are both judge and jury. If they vote to keep the president in office, he is still impeached, just allowed to remain in office. If they vote to remove, then the VP becomes president.

The Senate cannot vote to rescind the impeachment, they can only vote to kick him out or keep him. Clinton was impeached, yet allowed to remain in office, and that is the best that Trump can hope for.

No, that is not a reasonable defense, as that is not how impeachment works.

 

[Lakhota]

From the OP:

Trump is corrupt, and Joe Biden is not

Meanwhile, Parnas has now claimed that Giuliani, taking direction from Trump, directly ordered the message conveyed to Ukraine that the military aid was conditioned on doing Trump’s bidding.

Priebus says that even if what Parnas claims is true: “So what? Because the Bidens were corrupt!"

In fact, nothing the Bidens did or did not do can render Trump’s conduct defensible. A nonpartisan government watchdog has concluded that withholding the aid was illegal. It may amount to a criminal conspiracy to solicit a bribe from Ukraine.

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Lakhota]

The "So What" defense may work in the Republican Senate - but I doubt it will work in the 2020 election.

 

[Lakhota]

So what? Does that mean any future president can also do the same? Just imagine if President Obama had done what Trump* has done.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

Over three years later and obstructing Hillary from the White House is still not a crime

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So what? Does that mean any future president can also do the same? Just imagine if President Obama had done what Trump* has done.

Imagine when Trump has the FBI spy on Quid Pro Joe like Obama spied on Trump

 

[White 6]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

So What? Has been one of his favorite fall back positions.

 

[Yarddog]

So what? Does that mean any future president can also do the same? Just imagine if President Obama had done what Trump* has done.

done what? try to illegally alter the outcome of an election? Dont forget when Obama learned that the Russians were tampering before 2016, Hillary was sent an FBI agent to warn and advise her..... Trump was sent an FBI agent to spy on him. The rest is history.... but who was it that gave the order? in Obama's own words, "YES WE CAN" imagine.

 

[White 6]

So what? Does that mean any future president can also do the same? Just imagine if President Obama had done what Trump* has done.

done what? try to illegally alter the outcome of an election? Dont forget when Obama learned that the Russians were tampering before 2016, Hillary was sent an FBI agent to warn and advise her..... Trump was sent an FBI agent to spy on him. The rest is history.... but who was it that gave the order? in Obama's own words, "YES WE CAN" imagine.

Don't be bitter. He could have acted with integrity and set an example of American Values, if he thought he should differentiate his administration from your evaluation of the past, but no. He just says, so What.

 

[Jitss617]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

Psst Joe Biden is corrupt.. trump had every right to expose it .. he’s a whistleblower

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

That was from the start.

Where have you been.

 

[Yarddog]

So what? Does that mean any future president can also do the same? Just imagine if President Obama had done what Trump* has done.

done what? try to illegally alter the outcome of an election? Dont forget when Obama learned that the Russians were tampering before 2016, Hillary was sent an FBI agent to warn and advise her..... Trump was sent an FBI agent to spy on him. The rest is history.... but who was it that gave the order? in Obama's own words, "YES WE CAN" imagine.

Don't be bitter. He could have acted with integrity and set an example of American Values, if he thought he should differentiate his administration from your evaluation of the past, but no. He just says, so What.

i have not an ounce of bitterness in my soul... in the end we all face the same fate and our time is short i just am sitting back marveling at what the Democrats are trying to pull. But as for what you say, maybe, maybe so but then again if You had been unjustly attacked for three years, been labeled as everything evil under the sun, had your kids attacked by people you know to be wrong, knowing that you are innocent... you might just say 'So what' as well. especially if you are from New York

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So what was the cry of the Clinton defenders back in the 90's.

And they were right.

He should have admitted he lied under oath, gotten spanked (Monica would have volunteered), and moved on.

 

[tyroneweaver]

So what? Does that mean any future president can also do the same? Just imagine if President Obama had done what Trump* has done.

obviously that ain't tobacco in that pipe you've been smokin

 

[Lakhota]

So what? Does that mean any future president can also do the same? Just imagine if President Obama had done what Trump* has done.

done what? try to illegally alter the outcome of an election? Dont forget when Obama learned that the Russians were tampering before 2016, Hillary was sent an FBI agent to warn and advise her..... Trump was sent an FBI agent to spy on him. The rest is history.... but who was it that gave the order? in Obama's own words, "YES WE CAN" imagine.

The GAO has also said that Trump* has broken the law.

The GAO just said Trump broke the law