Please Advise! Will Trump Actually Get Away with It?

[Editor’s note: Steve Burgess is an accredited spin doctor with a PhD in Centrifugal Rhetoric from the University of SASE, situated on the lovely campus of PO Box 7650, Cayman Islands. In this space he dispenses PR advice to politicians, the rich and famous, the troubled and well-heeled, the wealthy and gullible.]

Dear Dr. Steve,

The Senate impeachment trial has been riveting. Donald Trump’s leadership role in the attack on the Capitol seems frighteningly apparent. How can it be that Republican senators might ignore his complicity?

Signed,

Morbidly Fascinated

Dear MF,

Yes, it does seem bizarre that Republicans are so adept at ignoring the elephant in the room. But the relevant quote here comes from the great Upton Sinclair, who wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

The House impeachment managers have indeed made one hell of a case. Using video and Trump’s own incendiary exhortations, they painted a moment-by-moment picture of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol that terrible winter day when a collection of flakes coalesced and became a blizzard. Watching them whine after the election was funny for a while. Then we were reminded that clowns can be truly terrifying.

The Democrats’ compelling impeachment case might even have mattered if the true jury consisted of the senators sitting in that room, who, after all, were themselves menaced by the murderous mob. But close to half of those senators were placed in that chamber by voters who are themselves members of the mob, in spirit if not in fact. As long as rabid nutjobs control the GOP rank and file, their elected senators will remain docilely in the Q.

Some elected Republicans are genuine barking loons, and at least those people are staying true to the messages they receive via crude tinfoil antennae. But most Republicans are just run-of-the-mill Lindsey Grahams. Type “integrity” into a Republican browser, and you get “Page not found.” You’d think the fact that a loyal Republican vice-president was being hunted by the troglodyte army would sway the GOP senators. Hardly. When the moment of truth comes, Republicans can always be trusted to stand up and say, “He’s Spartacus. Over there, with the chin dimple.”

(One might also reimagine another Kubrick movie — “The GOP Shining” with Jack Nicholson chopping a hole in the door, sticking his face through and saying to a terrified Shelley Duvall, “Let’s not make a big deal out of this. It’s time for unity.”)

The possibility of getting Republican senators to convict Trump was so miniscule that his defence lawyers might just as well have spent their allotted time making armpit noises. As it turns out, that might have been more convincing. Trump lawyer Bruce Castor, in a suit possibly acquired secondhand from David Byrne, proved himself a worthy addition to The Donald’s legal team. After all, Trump’s lawyers have a habit of getting tangled up in unfortunate suits.

It’s true that Castor does not offer the pop-eyed, dye-dripping stoogery of Rudy Giuliani, nor the demented, paranoid rhetorical corkscrew of a Lin Wood or Sidney Powell. Lawyers must specialize, and what Castor provides is a soothing, vanilla incompetence, expressed in rambling tangents and profuse non-sequiturs, a tumbling torrent of tedium delivered from somewhere inside a pin-striped yurt. His arguments are intended to gently remind you of your responsibilities — for example that you have a sink full of dirty dishes. Go wash them and, if he’s still talking, vacuum and do the laundry. “I worked in this building 40 years ago,” Castor said at one point. “I got lost then, and I still do.”

That much, finally, was indisputably true. He probably needs a GPS just to get himself undressed.

During this trial the Democrats have also argued the question of precedent. If the Senate decides it is permissible for that rancid-talking mandarin Trump to lead a mob attack on American democracy, it will be permissible for the next one — or perhaps the same one — to do so again.

There may be some truth to that. But this is one argument we probably don’t have to think about, because the question of precedent is moot. Precedent requires consistency and adherence to principle. As Sen. Mitch McConnell has proved repeatedly, the only principle that matters in Washington, the only precedent to be respected, is naked partisanship. For example, “A president cannot be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court justice in the final year of a presidency,” was one potential precedent. It lasted about as long as a porcelain puppy in a daycare.

So no, precedent is not something to waste time worrying about. As long as tens of millions of Americans continue to support slimy, flag-molesting tyrants, Republican toadies will be there for them. Their salaries depend upon it.