#DimensionTrump | #WhatTheyVotedFor
Oh, come on:
In a recent interview with HuffPost, Giuliani initially disputed the notion that Trump’s daily citing, in the final month of his campaign, of Russian-aligned WikiLeaks and its release of Russian-stolen emails constituted “colluding” with Russia.
“It is not,” Giuliani said.
Then he switched tacks.
“OK, and if it is, it isn’t illegal… It was sort of like a gift,” he said. “And you’re not involved in the illegality of getting it.”
This is a test of a principle. The analogy here is the idea that for a generation, at least, Americans pretended our supremacist heritage wasn’t, and that it was unfair to let a proverbial few bad seeds have any defining influence about the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. And toward that end, we must also admit the observable fact that supremacism is one of about two things President Trump’s voters actually get in return for electing him; the other, of course, is a living mortal demonstration of the Republican thesis that government does not and simply cannot work. For our purposes, though, we might consider a period before Mr. Trump won the presidency, nested sometime in the forty-eight years ‘twixt the Democrats losing the South and the 2016 election, and the idea that you just don’t talk about people that way, unless.
Unless what? Unless you have proof. But what does proof of supremacism mean to a roomful of supremacists? In the end, the abiding standard is that you just don’t say that about people. It is also true that if we ask around, we will find a lot of that in society, and the common aspect is the stake perceived by by those who would posture themselves as well-intended and upright, except.
Except what? Well, therein lies the hook. Except nothing. They are upright, well-intended people, and that is all there is to that, and, besides, it is all everybody else’s fault, anyway; if only black people would; if only women would; if only hellbound infidels would.
Which, in turn, reminds that any given analogy only goes so far. At some point, #DimensionTrump seems to proscribe certain aspects and vectors of inquiry, yet it seems only to the president’s peril.
But what are we not saying about Rudy Giuliani? Or Donald Trump? Or his eldest son? Or his other lawyer? Or ... or ... or ....
One point reiterating itself to piledriving has to do with sincerely held beliefs in alternative facts, and the proposition about how at some point someone in the #trumpswindle will throw down arguing explicitly that of course they said this and did this other thing but it’s not illegal because they say so. And as Mr. Giuliani, once hailed as America’s Mayor, and having won that office in part on the merit of his time as a U.S. Attorney, verges closer to this strange threshold, it is easy enough to wonder again at what point it might occur to someone that, yes, they really do have exposure. Something about ifs and buts goes here, but that only leads to jokes about Giuliani’s stockings and someone muttering, “That ain’t coal, ya rudy-poot!”
And in the moment it seems somehow the better part of wisdom to note that the President’s attorney seems to have tumbled from arguing a dearth of collusion to acknowledging the potential, and then arguing that “it isn’t illegal” because any benefit is “sort of like a gift”, and his client would not be “involved in the illegality” that apparently doesn’t exist about receiving such gifts.
Candy and nuts, indeed; we appear to have achieved a threshold.
To the other, what, precisely have we achieved? It is within this mystery that we find the threshold. To the one: They aren’t really this ... er ... ah ... ¿stupid? No, really, what goes there? They aren’t really this incompetent? Fanatical? Delusional? Because at what point is Donald Trump going to blame his lawyers? And it is true, we are not really supposed to accuse attorneys of such turpitude; at least, not on a whim, for a lark, or whatever. That is, no, they’re not really proclaiming their guilt and standing on sincerely held beliefs in alternative facts ... are they? And they aren’t really setting up for appeals on the grounds of insufficient counsel ... right?
If the mere effort of acknowledging the possibility feels like dangerous torsion of mind, that is because it is. This really shouldn’t be happening. To the other, this is #DimensionTrump, and thus actually, really happening.
Image note: Composite image: Donald Trump speaks to the National Rifle Association convention, in Dallas, Texas, 4 May 2018 (Photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters); Rudy Giuliani speaks at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C., 5 May 2018 (Photo: Andrew Harnik/AP Photo); uncredited protest image of Vladimir Putin.
Date, S. V. “Giuliani’s New Stance On Russian Collusion: So What? It’s Not Illegal.” The Huffington Post. 22 May 2018