Republicans have two choices about how to respond to the ambassador’s devastating testimony.
How a Bad Advocate Responds to Devastating Testimony
He consults the thesaurus to find a bunch of words to hurl at the problem. I will help them out.
Synonyms for “sham”:
pretense, fake, fiction, imposture, fraud, pretended. false
How a Good Advocate Responds to Devastating Testimony
She advances a plausible counternarrative.
Here, the plausible counternarrative would provide
- “evidence” that Ambassador Yovanovitch is generally a bad and ineffective ambassador—in other words, back up Trump’s alternative reality
- “evidence” that Ambassador Yovanovitch actually gave the former prosecutor a “no prosecute” list, contrary to her denials,
- “evidence” that Rudy Giuliani’s good bud Yuriy Lutssenko was in fact a good prosecutor, as distinguished from a detestable piece of shit.
What Happens When You Don’t Respond with a Plausible Couternarrative?
Any remotely clear thinking listener assumes the unrequited narrative is accurate.
And what’s left after that? The only possible defense is that the real narrative somehow doesn’t matter..