0
0
Donald Trump gets his hand in the cookie jar a lot. First, we had the I-didn’t-pay-off that-woman-I-had-sex-with cookie jar, followed by the I-didn’t-collude-with-Russia cookie jar, and now the I-didn’t-shake-down-Ukraine cookie jar.
A simple pattern has emerged from these episodes, known as the two-part defense. Part 1 is pure denial, a simple statement suggesting that he did no such thing or that it simply wasn’t bad or wrong. “I might have done it, but I don’t see what everybody is getting so worked up about.” It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George Costanza is caught having sex on his desk with one of the cleaning staff. When called in to account for his behavior, he responds casually by saying something to the effect of, “Oh, I didn’t realize that that wasn’t allowed around here.”
But even George Costanza would not have had the chutzpah to say, “Oh, that call with President Zelensky. I don’t see the problem. It was perfect.”
But denying the act or denying its significance isn’t enough. Part 2 must accompany it, the part that is tinged with attack, with a desire to berate and then crush the bastards who made the claim. “Fake news,” a term that only Donald Trump or George Orwell could love, has become the generic phrase for denying anything negative. All reports and people that praise me are true; anything else is a lie, phony, not to be believed. The NY Times. CNN. The Washington Post. Fake. Fake. Fake.
Whoever accuses me is unpatriotic, part of a left wing conspiracy (i.e., a Democrat), jealous of me, or a traitor. Not only am I totally innocent, but my accuser is guilty: Lock her up. Send her back. And now we’ve escalated to labeling those who dare stand up to Il Duce as “human scum.”
While I have heard this repulsive strategy used many times, recently I’ve come to a realization that troubles me even more terribly. It’s not that his actions go against the Constitution, are inappropriate, illegal, or compromise US security. It’s that after all is said and done, I think that Trump just doesn’t get it. He honestly doesn’t understand why everyone is up in arms. Not only does the man lack an understanding of the principles that define a democracy, but he does not have a sense of self-awareness nor a moral compass that allow him to distinguish between right and wrong.
Nixon was a crook, and a smart one. He knew that his actions were illegal and he plotted with his advisors to cover them up. But I have begun to suspect that the sick puppy who lives in the White House thinks that his actions are nothing more than business as usual, even perfect. Trump was not the person who sought to hide his actions in that Zelensky phone call. Others, even low level others, were sharp enough to recognize wrong-doing when they saw it and ordered the recording to be stashed on a secret server. John Bolton, dangerous but smart, saw this whole affair as a “drug deal.” And Fiona Hill, a savvy foreign affairs specialist, knew this would eventually blow up in everyone’s face. Even that dolt Gordon Sondland knew that something was amiss.
As this new “witch hunt” intensifies and issues of guilt focus on both cover-up and crime, Trump can, and likely will, profess his innocence and attack his accusers. But the denials will be issued by the only person in town who truly believes he is innocent, the result of being too self-centered and too simple-minded to even understand the nature of the crimes that he has committed.
In trying to remember what the criteria are for impeachment, I recall the term “high crimes and misdemeanors.” So help me out, please. Does pure stupidity constitute the former or the latter?
