To: Brumar89 who wrote (1165982 ) 9/24/2019 9:49:23 AM From: Brumar89 1 RecommendationRecommended By
Read Replies (3) | Respond to The complaint focused on Trump himself and in short order both Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani essentially admitted Y eah, we did it.. and so what? TrumpWorld has scrambled to justify the president's actions by trying to turn the focus onto the "corruption" of Joe Biden... but so far there is no there there. But even if there was impropriety, the fact remains that the president attempted to collude with a foreign power to destroy a domestic political opponent. Wait, where have we heard that before? Jonah Goldberg commented on the irony . For two years, Trump defenders had an infinite supply of indignation over the mere suggestion that the president would collude with Russia. But now that indignation is reserved for anyone who suggests the president shouldn’t have tried to collude with the Ukrainians? Come on.Here's a quick thought experiment: what if Bob Mueller had discovered a tape of a conversation between Trump and Vladimir Putin in which Trump had asked Putin eight times to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton? What if Trump himself had asked Putin for the information? Armageddon? End game? But that's what we have here ... Trump attempted to collude with a foreign power to damage a political opponent. Trump's open admissions don't change that one bit. And so we get the Trumpian spin ... which is a cross between Hitchcock's Gaslight and George Orwell at his most cynical and paranoid. Make sure you read Tim Miller's piece on this . And yet Trump is poised to replay the crooked playbook. In 2016 the grifting accusations against Hillary Clinton had merit, but paled in comparison to the naked money-grubbing graft of the Trump family. And now Hunter Biden has made this water-muddying easy for team Trump. Hunter has indeed colored outside the lines: His rap sheet of personal and professional crises paint quite the picture. But if having a boob for a son was disqualification for the presidency, we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. the media’s traditional attempt to present balance in its political coverage meant that he could do just about anything, and reporters would feel compelled to contact some source to explain how, if you squint, it might be normal and bookers would put someone on air to defend him. The idea of “balance” required the media to always present a dissenting view of Trump, no matter how egregiously wrong his actions might be.
