Yesterday, I posted an explanation of Step One in the Republican strategy for defending Donald Trump — LIE.
Lie through your teeth, boldly. Spread falsehoods and misinformation 
whenever possible. Twist the words of your opponent. Or, better yet, put words never spoken into his mouth.
After all, who will know the difference? The majority of viewers don’t pay close enough attention to spot the lies when they occur. Many are so highly partisan that they will believe anything spouted by a member of their “team” and never bother to investigate it for themselves.
To illustrate this point, yesterday’s post focused on one of Trump’s defense attorneys, self-professed evangelical, Jay Sekulow.
Unfortunately, Sekulow shows himself to be far too comfortable with lying
for anyone claiming to follow Jesus of Nazareth, as illustrated by only one of the many possible video clips available online.
But lying is only step one.
The Second Step is distraction.
Distraction is easily accomplished by changing the subject or going on a tangent (often an emotional tangent) about seemingly related, but materially irrelevant, information.
Since this is the Republican’s only “defense” option, you will see this step on display any time a Trump defender speaks about the case against the president.
So, let’s return to Sekulow and watch his mastery, not only of the art of deception, but also of distraction.
Pay attention to Sekulow’s arguments. Let’s review. He insists that:
- The aid to Ukraine was eventually released
- Trump’s aid to Ukraine was superior to President Obama’s
- Ukraine defensive capabilities were not affected by the delay
- Obama temporarily withheld aid to Egypt
- Trump also withheld aid from other countries
- He concludes by asking for the whistle-blower
The obvious question is: What bearing does ANY of this have on rebutting the impeachment charge accusing Trump of offering a quid pro quo for his own personal benefit?
The answer is — NONE. But Sekulow is trusting we won’t notice.
However, a careful listener will observe:
- No one has denied that the aid was eventually released. The accusation is that it was only released after Trump’s scheme had been revealed publicly. So, what’s the point?
- Obama’s aid packages have nothing to with anything in this conversation. This is mere deflection. He is hoping we are like the dog suddenly distracted by the squirrel.
- Ukraine’s defensive ability is irrelevant to the point at issue. (Personally, I don’t buy the Democrats’ emphasis on how the aid delay posed a threat to US “national security.” This is political establishment balderdash.)
- So what if Obama once withheld aid from Egypt? Foreign aid is regularly conditional, with government sanctioned conditions built in. Trump’s aid delay was not approved by anyone outside the Oval Office. Again, what’s the point?
- So, Trump also withheld aid from other countries. And…?? Notice that Sekulow has nothing to say about whether those delays were matters of official US policy or more instances of Trump’s personal quid pro quos. Perhaps more investigations should begin…
- Concluding with an off-handed remark about the whistle-blower is an instance of throwing red meat to the masses. After the extensive testimony presented by multiple witnesses to the House committees, and the Democrats many requests for witnesses to appear before the Senate, the whistle-blower has become almost irrelevant.
Notice what Sekulow has accomplished with this speech.
He speaks forcefully with confidence, like a good attorney should. He gives the appearance of having command of contrary evidence, demonstrating the president’s innocence. The image is compelling.
BUT when you listen closely at what Sekulow says and think about it, you see that it has all been a grand parlor trick. Nothing he talks about has direct bearing on the facts in evidence. Sekulow’s “facts” fail to undermine the Democrats’ presentation of the evidence because his facts (which may well be entirely true!) are not relevant to the actual charges brought against the president.
The goal of such distraction is to confuse the audience, just as magicians do with their dramatic antics.
Sekulow, like every other Trump defender, is tossing dust into our eyes and hoping we won’t notice as he picks our pockets.
A meaningful defense would be able to take the same body of evidence gathered by the House committees, now being presented to the Senate, and provide a superior, more cogent, comprehensive explanation of the behavior demonstrated by that evidence to have actually taken place.
And THAT, my friends, is the one thing I have yet to hear a single Republican be able to do.
Instead, all we hear are more lies and distraction.
