The Trump cult seems to have settled on the “so what” defense (or, as I call it the “go to hell” defense.)
Parker Molloy at Media Matters has the story:
This “so what?” defense is an argument that even if Trump did everything he was accused of, something he and his supporters have regularly disputed from the start, it still wouldn’t reach the standard for removing a president from office. Why, if everything was perfectly innocent, did the administration’s defenders go to such lengths to claim that Trump didn’t do what he was accused of? In The New York Times, Charlie Savage breaks down this circular line of argument, citing the shoddy constitutional basis for such a defense, especially around any claim that a criminal offense is required to meet the standard for impeachment, as the president’s defenders now insist.
It’s not a surprise that a number of Fox guests and hosts are finally vocalizing their belief that Trump is essentially above the law, nor will it be a surprise when the Republican-controlled Senate inevitably acquits him.
On the January 16 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus stated it plainly.
Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy, January 16:
MCCARTHY: We used to have, and up until very recently, this has been the history of the United States, the expectation — which was the framers’ expectation — that from time to time, the chief executive would abuse his power, in the sense of either doing something that the Constitution didn’t permit, or somehow overdoing the powers that the Constitution gives to the president. And the expectation was not that you were going to jump every time that happened to impeachment. There are other ways that the Congress, either by political pressure or by using the power of the purse, would be able to rein in presidential excess. The idea was that, you know, there is a lot of area between something that is wrong and something that is impeachable. And I think that’s what we have lost in this equation.
Yeah. Trying to rig the election in your favor is just business as usual. No biggie.
Fox News contributor Geraldo Rivera, January 17:
I look at this whole Ukrainegate. I say everything the Democrats have charged is true. I concede each and every allegation about trying to muscle the Ukrainian government into investigating the Bidens. I concede that. I concede that the call with Zelensky and President Trump was not appropriate. It was tacky and inappropriate. I concede all of that, and I come to “so what?” This does not state a case as demanded by Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. This is not bribery. This is not treason. This is not a high crime or misdemeanor. This entire impeachment fails because it does not state what the Constitution requires.
Molloy’s piece goes on to take this argument apart and it’s worth reading because the president’s henchmen are obviously relying on it. She concludes:
In October, Trump’s lawyers made an extraordinary claim for presidential immunity from legal consequences, arguing that even if he actually stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot someone — as he said during the 2016 campaign — he couldn’t be charged with a crime while serving as president.
Lawyers often adopt questionable positions that ultimately amount to a belief that their client is above the law. When a media outlet does this — especially one that called for the impeachment of Obama at seemingly every opportunity — it’s an insult to the general public. Should Trump’s own legal team want to argue the “so what?” defense, that’s their prerogative, but news outlets have a responsibility not to play along. By defending Trump at all costs, Fox News is embracing its role as the president’s personal propaganda outlet.
We don’t call it Trump TV for nothing. They are indoctrinating their viewers into believing that Donald Trump is infallible. And their viewers are happy to believe it.