I think the point is, they’re not defending him because they can’t, because Trump’s guilt is just that obvious.
His meaning seemed pretty clear to me. I think the issue is on your end, not his.
That’s his point. And with due respect, it was a very obvious and clearly made one.
It’s interesting that for Trump and his fans it was all lies, lies, lies. Well, except Cohen said there was no collusion so YES, Trump is vindicated! :smack:
I understood exactly what he said, so… ¯_(ツ)_/¯
ETA: Didn’t mean to pile on. Didn’t see the other responses. Oh well.
I’m surprised that no one(Hello, Colbert?) has written a parody children’s book titled “The Emperor’s New Brain”.
It implies that Republicans would have defended Trump if they could, but didn’t even try. At least that’s how I understood it.
Today’s earworm: “How Could You Believe Me When I Said I Love You When You Know I’ve Been a Liar All My Life?”
One can make a different interpretation than I did if one knows that Walsh turned anti-Trump after having voted for him, which I did not know. I only knew of Walsh as a tea party lunatic. I don’t follow the guy. It’s the sort of tweet whose meaning depends on context, knowing the guy’s current views. Knowing the above, one can see it as a condemnation of Republicans who were implicitly supporting Trump by attacking Cohen’s credibility.
But… one can also interpret it to mean the same thing that Chris Christie said yesterday: “there hasn’t been one Republican yet who’s tried to defend the president on the substance. I think that’s something that should be concerning to the White House.”
You gentlemen may have seen it as completely clear, but it seems to me it’s sufficiently ambiguous that even with context, it could reasonably be understood to mean either of those completely different things.
Actually, I think Trump considers anything that’s not pro-Trump to be Fake.
I first became aware of Trump in the '80s when he owned the USFL’s NJ Generals and found him pretty pompous, but I was just a high school football player and didn’t give him much thought back then beyond that.
During the campaign, anti-liberal friends would tell me what a successful businessman Trump was and how he is always the smartest guy in the room. By then, I had seen him enough wonder how anyone could possibly believe that. I mean, Trump now can barely hold a coherent thought in that hamster-wheel powered piece of grey matter that passes for his brain nowadays. The supporters would get all offended when I would suggest trump is in the early stages of dementia, in addition to the obvious narcissism.
This. It also serves as a comment that the best “argument” the Republicans could come up with is “Cohen is a sleazeball who did dirty deeds for Donald Trump”. Apparently they’re using the same logic the Penguin used when he ran for mayor against Batman in the 1960s Adam West series, arguing that he was more trustworthy because Batman was often surrounded by criminals while he himself was often surrounded by police.
How do you read “There hasn’t been one Republican yet who’s tried to defend the president on the substance. I think that’s something that should be concerning to the White House” other than “Trump should be running scared because even his defenders can’t think of anything nice to say about him?”
Now Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows, probably the two biggest douches from yesterday and in general, want Cohen to be investigated for perjury.
I guess that might be the last card to play, since they can’t defend Trump himself.
Republican lawmakers ask Justice Department to investigate Michael Cohen for perjury
When I watched the testimony, I mentioned there’s a difference between expecting a White House job and wanting one. We’ll see if that distinction shakes out.
As a bonus, there’s now reports of footage of Mark “I am not a racist and neither is Trump because here’s a black woman who worked for him” Meadows saying something a few years ago that Obama ~“needed to go back to Kenya”.
I think you misread my post. Christie’s statement was clear. My “ambiguous” comment was about the Walsh tweet.
Wow, those two! Yes, they were among the more outstanding douches of the bunch, but there were a couple more slithering around yesterday. And yes, Meadows was the one who told voters that “2012 is the time we’re going to take back our country. We’re going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is. We’re gonna do it.”
:smack:
They reminded me of Crabbe and Goyle, Draco Malfoy’s sycophants in the Harry Potter books. “You just better not say that about my hero, you get what I’m saying?”
Yeah. It was clear to me too. I didn’t know that he had turned anti-Trump and it was still clear to me.
Wow, this stupid Walsh digression has really taken on a life of its own. Frankly I don’t really give a shit what this douchebag meant, but OK, in the interests of a lesson for me in the English language, a language in which I’m apparently deficient, let’s be charitable and contribute to my education. Here is what Walsh said:
*No Republican today defended the character of Donald Trump. No Republican today defended the veracity of Donald Trump. No Republican today refuted the potential crimes committed by Donald Trump.
Every Republican today attacked Michael Cohen. That’s all. *
Here are the two possible interpretations that I suggested, now that we know that Walsh is anti-Trump (which, again, I did not know at the time I made the original comment):
-
a condemnation of Republicans who were implicitly supporting Trump by attacking Cohen’s credibility
-
a condemnation of Trump on the basis that his support is fading: “there hasn’t been one Republican yet who’s tried to defend the president on the substance. I think that’s something that should be concerning to the White House.”
Interpretation #1 is supported by the views of dozens of media pundits, along the general lines of “what the hell would it take for Republicans to EVER stop defending Trump?”
Interpretation #2 is supported by some on the right like Chris Christie, along the general lines of “Republicans now refuse to defend Trump, and he’d better start worrying about it”.
Maybe I’m missing something obvious. Sometimes that happens, because I’m apparently not very bright. So would any of you highly literate fuckers kindly explain to me why one of those conflicting interpretations of Walsh’s tweet is obviously the correct one, and the other one obviously wrong? Because they are not at all the same.
Thanks. I look forward to being a better and more literate and better-behaved Bernese Mountain Dog in the future. I might even stop digging up your flower beds.
Think that’s going to fly with the Florida State Bar, Matt?