A Huge Mystery
Trump continually acts like an asshole and then calls his conduct “strong” and “smart.” He acted like an asshole with the Ukraine military aid, but instead of calling it “strong” and “smart,” he spent months covering it up. He’s still trying to cover it up, viz., the ongoing efforts to block Bolton from telling his story.
The logical explanation is that he knows he’s guilty as sin, or that he fears that too many others will think he’s guilty as sin. That’s generally why criminals cover up their crimes. But that explanation doesn’t seem to fit how Lizard Brain thinks. Especially since he would have been a hell of a lot better off just owning up to what he did and saying “So what.”
And, by the way, the “so what” defense would also have been one hell of a lot better for his lickspittles in Congress. With the “So what” defense, they wouldn’t have had to deny the undeniable. Sure, they would come off as knaves, but they could escape making themselves fools as well.
So why didn’t he do it? I think it’s still a mystery.
A Second Mystery
A related mystery is why he didn’t develop an effective legal defense. Here, however, the explanation is easier to find: he has the mind of a four-year-old, his thinking is magical in nature, and he cannot take competent professional advice.
The Republicans’ Dilemma—and Lamar Alexander’s Resolution of the Republicans’ Dilemma
The dilemma is that you really can’t say
- he didn’t do it, or
- the House didn’t prove he did it, because there was no direct evidence,
and then stop your ears to the direct evidence when it becomes available.
Or, rather, you can do those things, but only if you are prepared to come off as both an utter knave and a consummate fool.
It follows that if you are bound and determined not to hear from the direct witness, then you must agree with the premise that he did it (and then take the position it’s not impeachable).
In his statement, Lamar Alexander rightly saw he had to bite this bullet, not just nibble at it.
Every senator who now votes to acquit will have to answer—or brazenly dodge—the question, do you agree with Lamar Alexander that the House proved its case on the facts, and had a mountain of evidence?
If the answer is yes, then the next question becomes, Well, that’s interesting, so why did you spend several months blathering about “lack of proof” and “no direct evidence”?
If the answer is no, then the next question becomes, Well, then, why don’t you want to hear from the goddamn witnesses?
“Inappropriate But Not Impeachable”
Having grasped that he will have to rely on the fallback argument “wrong but not impeachable,” Alexander then punts:
- first by substituting the hilariously inappropriate word “inappropriate” for the word “wrong,” and
- second by dodging any coherent account of why he thinks the conduct is not impeachable.
Senator Alexander thus eschews the knavery of denying the undeniable, but beclouws himself as a fool, by asserting an indefensible abstract proposition but failing even to try to defend the indefensible.