S1: The following podcast may be a little dirty, but forget about that, going to tell you to go to our Twitter feed at Slate, just dotcom and.
S2: It’s Thursday, February 11th, 2001, from Slate’s The Gist, I’m Mike Pesca. If you asked the lawyer what he or she would rather have favorable facts, a sympathetic client, an easygoing judge or a jury clearly predisposed to believe you? Well, you wouldn’t even have to ask the lawyer. Of course, it’s the jury.
S1: If you have a criminal trial where the jury is on the record as having supported the defendant, indeed, of still having their professional fortunes inextricably tied to the guilt lessness of the defendant, it stops even being a question of law. It’s a question more like how did this corruption of fairness come to stand? Well, that is actually what’s going on in the Senate. And it is fair and it is unfair. The Senate are the constitutionally designated jurors. And also think about this. They are unlike a criminal or civil jury, actually accountable to voters directly for their verdicts. This, of course, colors everything about the outcome. But there are other colourings shadings in this procedure that I would like to ponder for just a moment. One is that the site of the trial is the crime scene that sometimes does happen in a criminal case. A couple of years ago, a defendant in a courthouse near Kansas City grabbed a hold of a gun and shot and killed two officers. The trial took place in the same Wyandotte County courthouse, which couldn’t have been good for the defendant.
S3: 15 years ago, there was an infamous case in Atlanta. Here’s an AP report from the time you could see how personal it was to the lead prosecutor, Kelly Hill. She tried the case in the Fulton County Courthouse, the very courthouse where the convicted man, Brian Nichols, killed a judge, a court officer, a sheriff’s deputy and a federal agent.
S4: We fought for justice for four wonderful people, four innocent people.
S2: Many family members of the victims were not satisfied with the sentence, like the daughter of a slain court reporter.
S4: My family and I watched in horror and disgust while Nichols entire defense team stomped all over the justice system. The wife of a deputy sheriff who never once showed to me any remorse, constantly sitting in his chair at the defense table with a smirk on his face.
S3: A smirk, you say markings of a monster. Now, imagine if the frightened victims of that day, if they were the jury, you’d guess they would be outraged. They might be vindictive. They’d certainly be more motivated than a randomly selected citizen to find the defendant guilty. And some of the jurors, some of the senators in the Trump trial have this motivation and maybe this anger. But, man, there are so many who will be voting for acquittal, who are impassive, who are defiant, who are not responding in normal human ways to what happened all around them. It would be one thing if they were pillars of rationality, if the evidence of the case didn’t add up to the perpetrator’s culpability. But, you know, that’s not what’s happening here. You know, that’s the opposite in this case. No, I don’t say this to vilify the Republicans who will be voting to acquit. I really just want to get into their mindset and I want to do so through doors like there are cynics there, feckless, some other pejorative. I’ve been thinking about this. Let’s really think about the mindset of the Republican who will be voting for acquittal. So they are popularly elected officials. And it is quite true that it’s not overwhelmingly popular to convict and disqualify Trump. There’s no huge overwhelming. There’s slight but no overwhelming public outcry for this result. National support is in the low 50s, and that does not convince Mike Crapo or John Barrasso or Dan Sullivan or John Thune. I purposefully and naming the kind of senator who doesn’t yearn to get on the TV news all the time. It doesn’t convince them that among their particular constituents there is a real desire to convict Trump, those largely anonymous senators who are typical of most senators. Right. Most aren’t Cruz and Holly and the like. Most are senators who just want to Senate and keep getting re-elected and keep pleasing their constituents and keep staying in the good graces of their party. Most of them might be swayed on an emotional or intellectual level that Trump does deserve disqualification. But it is just clearly not in their political interest to be a breakaway Republican who draws attention to himself or herself. Politicians make hard choices all the time, and to them, a vote to disqualify Trump is probably and by them I mean, you know, the Republicans who won’t be voting to disqualify him, but to them it might be in the category of things. Yeah, it would feel good to do it. But it would be a bad decision from their point of view, and not guilty vote is disciplined. It’s the adult thing to do. It’s the kind of decision that reflects well on their judgment, because to them and their participants and their party and their political realities, making as few waves as possible is the right thing to do, even if that lets the Trump ship keep sailing along, sail on, no fear to breast the sea. Our hearts, our hopes are all with the what Anvil’s rang, what hammers beat in what a forge and what a heat shaped the anchors of. I hope. I’m sorry. I always get choked up at Longfellow.
S5: And it’s not just me, Fearnot each sudden sound in shock of the wave excuse me, because of the wave and not the rock, but the flapping of the sail and not a rent made by the Gaelle.
S3: Yeah, that reading there by Trump lawyer David Shewn really does say it all. And by it all, I mean Trump’s lawyers can read 170 year old poem about boats and still win this case. Salino Union great and strong on the show today we take one of Lindsey Graham’s favorite arguments defending Trump, once made by Trump himself and subjected to just a little light scrutiny crumbles like decades old parchment paper stored in a dry storm cellar. But first, when the Trump administration walked out the door, Mike Pompeo looked over his shoulder and tossed off. Oh, by the way, China, you’re guilty of genocide. This is a problem not because the Chinese aren’t guilty of mistreatment of the wigger people up to and including genocide, but because it’s now the Biden administration’s problem, which means all of our problems. To Jonah Blank is back to talk about China wiggers and America’s eroded status as moral beacon.
S6: One of the last acts of the Trump administration was for then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to designate China’s treatment of the wigger population a genocide. This came very late. Was it a case of too little, too late, or was it a case of finally getting it right?
S7: Joining me now is Jonah Blank, senior political scientist at RAND, member of the Council on Foreign Relations for many years. He was the director of policy for South and Southeast Asia on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Hi, Jonah. How are you? Hi, Mike. Thanks for having me on. And Jonah, now our new secretary of state is Anthony Blinken, and he has this last decision of the Trump administration in his lap. Can you just walk me through his considerations? What choices does the State Department have to make based on the fact that the last administration designated what was happening to the wiggers a genocide?
S8: Right. Well, the first thing is all to talk about the politics of it more than the legality. Since I’m not a lawyer and there are various things that are triggered by certain designations. So I’m going to talk about politics rather than about what is automatically trigger about fall. And also the politics are more interesting. The big picture here is that China is, in my view, at least in the view of a lot of other observers, is committing genocide against its weaker population, has been doing this for years. Now, why did the Trump administration refuse to designate this years ago when it was going on and everybody knew about it? My take on it is that as Trump’s own national security adviser, John Bolton, revealed, he actually supported that. Bolton says that he told Xi Jinping that he approved of this as well as of the crackdown in Hong Kong, which he actually went on record about. So this this outdoor designation was really, in my view, a rather rather cynical that could have happened should have happened years earlier. But when Donald Trump was looking for a trade deal with Xi Jinping, he didn’t want to upset that and he had appealed to his authoritarian side. So he certainly did have a personal stake in it. What options then would that have presented the incoming administration? Well, it would be politically very difficult to reverse a designation of genocide when a genocide is pretty clearly going on. So as a matter of politics, rather than as a matter of law, it’s sort of put the incoming administration in a position where they had very little choice but to maintain this designation. And they have done so. That’s kind of old to the good, because genocide is something we all should be very firmly against, and it’s something that the government of China has been engaged in against its weaker population. So I think it’s good that we all say so. I would have rather that the Trump administration had come right out and said it when it was first going on and and when the designation actually could have changed some of the atrocities that were going on.
S7: OK, let’s talk about the politics of it. You said it was cynical to get a trade deal, but was anything actually gained from the perspective of U.S. interests by being cautious about labeling or just flat out not labeling what was going on, a genocide? I mean, it could have been cynical, but cynicism sometimes is leverage to the advantage of one party. Was anything gained?
S8: I don’t think so, because the the trade deal that Trump got with China, I just don’t see how that was in any way beneficial to the US. I, I think the entire strategy, if you can call it that, was simply to create an artificial trade dispute by putting tariffs on Chinese products, convincing a fair portion of the American public that China would be paying these tariffs, which is absolutely false. It’s not even a partisan issue. It’s not a Democratic position or Republican position. It’s just false tariffs are paid by consumers and companies. They’re not it’s not as if this is a transfer from the government of China to the government of the US and then paying compensation to farmers for a part of the money that they lose by not being able to sell their products in China with that compensation coming from other American taxpayers and then somehow claiming that this trade war has been a benefit to any factor of the American public.
S7: Yes, that’s the clear thing. We didn’t do this politically and morally correct. Thing in order to get a concession, but the concession that we, the United States got actually probably hurt the United States. Amazing to think about. I think most economists would, in fact, agree with that, that the tariffs that were imposed were a net negative for the American people.
S8: Yes. I don’t think you could find any one even in the Trump administration if you put them on sodium pentothal, who would say, yeah, this was this is a smart way of going about doing it. And we really we we’re really glad for how this turned out, OK?
S7: So why was it in the administration’s interest, the old administration’s interest to label what was going on with the wiggers, the genocide? Why not just leave it alone? It’s not as if Mike Pompeo and the Trump administration cover themselves in moral glory. The previous, I don’t know. Fourteen hundred some odd days in office.
S8: Well, my my personal view is that Mike Pompeo is interested in running for president and he and that a lot of his actions, particularly in the past year, make most sense when read in that light rather than an actual foreign policy.
S7: Do you have any idea if he did that without the input of Donald Trump, if Pompeo just did it?
S8: Do you think it’s likely that Donald Trump has ever heard of a weaker.
S7: I don’t know, but that would be interesting. I would like to hear him try to pronounce the word not that I am great at it, but still. OK, good answer. So now that the United States has endorsed the designation, first of all, what friction is caused by the haphazard way that it came about?
S8: The government of China would have been very, very intrigued by this designation, even if it had been done with all of the due deliberation that these things sometimes come with. It did not want this to happen. The fact that it happened out the door, I’m not sure they really particularly care about the timing of it and doesn’t change anything.
S9: What’s the practical effect or one practical effect is that it makes the decision a lot easier for Joe Biden, that if Mike Pompeo had not done this, then Joe Biden would have had to decide whether to do it or not. And now they don’t have to make that decision that’s already been made for them. So even though Mike Pompeo made this decision, I believe, for his own reasons rather than for reasons of the greater national good, I think it actually ended up serving the greater national good.
S7: OK, but what about the idea that if you, as a negotiator, take away the stick, the threat of labeling it a genocide, that you’re putting yourself in a position with one less chip to be able to play, could we look at it as taking away one diplomatic option?
S9: Yes, it does take away a potential diplomatic tool, but at least in my view, that’s a tool that wouldn’t have actually been able to be played in a very effective way. It’s not as if China was going to radically change its program in Xinjiang. It’s a stick that would not have been used to Beijing. And if it had been used to be Beijing, Beijing would have simply taken the beating and not been particularly hurt by it.
S7: This is a really big question, but does this have any chance of actually changing Chinese policy?
S9: So I don’t. Yeah, exactly.
S7: Why do it? Why why labeled this a genocide?
S9: So why do it? That’s a very good question, Mike, because in the end and we look at the same question about Myanmar or about the sanctions that are likely to be reimposed by as a result of the coup, the argument against sanctions or even harsh language is that they seldom actually change the behavior of the country in question, at least in the short term. And they frequently have an adverse impact on the people in that country. The argument I would make in response is that they often will have an impact in the long term. So it is possible that this will have some impact on China’s long term policy, whether against the wiggers or perhaps in Tibet or or in Hong Kong or somewhere else, because they’d rather not be international pariahs. So it’s possible we’ll have a longer term impact. I probably should have said no with a tiny, tiny asterisk. But more to the point, because I am willing to accept the validity of the entire sanction argument, we shouldn’t really expect too much from sanctions. However, I would say that sanctions are important for showing where we stand, showing that we actually do have some sort of foreign policy that is at least in some degree, based on values. The alternative would be simply saying we do not care one bit about values in any way, shape or form. If you want to commit genocide, go to it. We will not. Is any penalty on you whatsoever, so I would much rather that we impose an ineffective penalty than we impose no penalty at all.
S1: So the United States has tried to use its moral suasion, its labeling of adversarial countries, maybe even sometimes friendly countries, as committing moral wrongs. And they try to make these countries commit moral rights. But China is in a totally different category, its giant trading partner of the United States.
S7: We’re not talking about Chad. We’re not talking about even South Africa, which during apartheid was a fairly large trading partner and know significant military presence. This is China, it seems, without precedent. And it also seems to me that this puts such a designation on a really different playing field than anything that’s ever come before.
S9: China has engaged in this type of action before, particularly in Tibet, in a non ethnic sense, you know, so genocide wouldn’t be the right designation. But in terms of mass killing of its own citizens during the Cultural Revolution, and if you extend it to unnecessary deaths during the Great Leap Forward, you know, how do you deal with that fact? This is something I’ve dealt with in the Tibetan issue. You know, one does have to accept the fact that calling something what it is does not always mean. All right, then we have to fix it. It would be nice if we could, but we frequently don’t want to take an example that it was a lot, at least smaller in scale than China, the Khmer Rouge genocide. No one could deny that the Khmer Rouge were engaged in genocide. One quarter of the population of the country was exterminated and yet the rest of the world did. Nothing could have done it. But because we had fought a war right next door and had lost, there was no appetite whatsoever for stopping the genocide in the same neighborhood. As a result, one quarter of the population of Cambodia was killed. We didn’t even stop the genocide in Rwanda. And I think a lot of observers very quickly concluded that failing to stop genocide in Rwanda was was a failure of our foreign policy leadership. However, when we get to a country like China, that’s it’s not even an option. It’s not as if there is a way of preventing it. But that doesn’t mean that we have to pretend it’s not occurring.
S7: Can you prove either to yourself or an outside observer that the United States occasionally doing the right thing in terms of labeling wrongdoers on the international stage as such as wrongdoers, that the United States mostly being on the right side of human rights in the last 30 years can make the case it’s changed anything?
S9: Yes, in Indonesia, Indonesia had been a military dictatorship from nineteen sixty five until 1998, committed a whole raft of human rights abuses. The US had cut off military cooperation with the units in the Indonesian military that were responsible for these human rights violations. And I was involved when I was in government in the process of trying to trying to get Indonesia to first stop committing more human rights abuses, but also to remediate the ones that had occurred before. That is to get the officers and the troops that were responsible for these, to not be serving in the Indonesian military and preferably be prosecuted. And it it worked. It was a slow process. But right now, Indonesia’s military is far more professional, is not in any way involved in this kind of rampant human rights abuses that it was involved in just a couple of decades ago. And that was due, I would say, at least in significant part, to the pressure of the US. Obviously, not only but it was it was a very significant issue.
S1: I don’t want to go on Noam Chomsky here, but I mean, in Indonesia. Yes, that’s true. But then again, you know, in nineteen sixty five, the United States backed Suharto because he’s an anti-communist and it gives oxygen to mass murdering in the name of anticommunism.
S9: Riyaz Thum, I’m talking about in the post Suharto era, nineteen sixty five, the US probably was not involved in any way in the mass killings that were perpetrated by Suharto in the military and those were around that have still never really been adequately investigated. We still don’t know whether the casualty count is in the hundreds of thousands or the millions. But in any case, there’s no real evidence that I’m aware of that the US was complicit with that. However, that’s not the case for various other abuses by the military of Indonesia, particularly in Timor Leste and. In the what was then, you know, as a province of Indonesia and Henry Kissinger is essentially greenlighting the rampant abuses by the Indonesian military in retaking that area from Portugal. Yes, definitely so. In the 1970s, yes. Nineteen sixty five. I’m not aware of evidence to support it, but the US definitely supported Suharto afterwards.
S7: But I think we could do is only nudge the aircraft carrier a few degrees like Barack Obama says. But then you have a president like Trump and he just explicitly comes out and says, I don’t care for human rights. And not only does it undo the progress that we’ve made, it does call into question our entire policy. I mean, our entire policy has been at best, two steps forward, one step back. Maybe it’s now two steps forward, two and a quarter steps back. You know, I don’t know how much the United States where the North Star on these issues. I don’t know if it’s anything that even shows up in the night sky anymore.
S1: How much of a net positive the United States is and can be going forward in terms of human rights?
S9: It is true that the damage has been immense and it just highlights the need to rebuild, because if we were to go from that and say, OK, let’s take a so-called realist position and human rights are kind of off the table, then we would be basically buying into Donald Trump’s argument. We would be saying, yes, torture, whoever you want to kill, whoever you want, it doesn’t matter. You know, all that matters is the bottom line. All that matters is the dollar already to too many people think that that’s the the truth behind our policy. So if it isn’t, we’ve got to we’ve really got to show it.
S7: Yeah. And all my life, our enemies, our countries that we wished would reform have always engaged in. What about as China does too. But I do have to say, when the USSR engagement, what about ism they would point to homeless people on the streets or racism. And yeah, most Americans were actually appalled by that. And those were fair critiques if even if they were coming from an unfair place. But it didn’t discredit all of the United States in the experiment of the United States. But now when China accuses the United States of things like unlawful killings and arbitrary disappearances, and I’ll read to you from one of their briefs, quote, shocking gender discrimination, unceasing immigration, tragedy, discrimination against children, women and immigrants and human rights violations related to America. First, policy has more credibility than the what about ism of the past that has more credibility than it ever did, I think.
S9: Well, yeah, but we don’t need China. Tell us this.
S7: Almost half of us need China to tell us this or aren’t listening. Aren’t aren’t telling it to ourselves. Almost half of us do.
S9: Yeah, exactly. The flip side of this is that in the US we can have a Black Lives Matter movement that is able to say this is unacceptable. This the police should not be killing a man simply because he’s black. And this shouldn’t be something that happens every single day. It’s shameful that we have waited so long to have these protests. So how does that bring in the issue of China, Russia? What about it? Well, I would say that, you know, you can’t have Black Lives Matter protest movement in Russia and China. You know that we are far from perfect. We are extremely flawed. And it’s it is unacceptable. But at least we do have the the mechanism within our system to improve. Now, will we take it? I certainly hope we will. And fortunately, a majority of the American public believes we must. But one thing the past four years have shown us is that we can’t take any of this for granted. It’s a constant fight.
S7: You know what? You are my soothsayer. You are my counsel on this one. Your wise you are wise rabbi to me.
S2: Jonah Blank is a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation. He would like you to know he is an actual an anthropologist by training, but Rand designates him as a political scientist. For twelve years, he was policy director for South and Southeast Asia on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Jonah, thank you so much. Thank you, Mike.
S10: Happy on any time and.
S3: And now the spiel, the problem with trying to convict Trump of the act of speaking before an angry crowd that’s believing in lies, that’s ready to do violence and telling them to march on the capital and lying that you’ll be right there with them and then half acidly urging them to go home with the words your special people. The problem with trying to convict Trump of those actions is everybody does that. You’re doubtful. OK, this is sort of the argumentum very much the argument that Republicans are making that the actions that I just described that Trump engaged in oh, this happens very, very close versions, if not identical versions happen all the time. And Democrats are doing it left and right, like the time Maxine Waters called on people to harass Trump officials. And in fact, some Trump officials after that could not eat their meals in peace. I mean, maybe this has disappeared down the liberal media’s memory hole. But you could argue that Maxine Waters, her call to harass Trump officials directly led to Sarah Huckabee. Sanders being denied service that the little red hen. You can argue that, but the time frame is off. The Sarah Huckabee Sanders thing happened first and it was shocking. And it threatened democracy that this woman was refused service of Shenandoah Valley inspired cuisine. And you remember how bad that was, right. When the Little Red Hens police force were overrun and almost crushed to death by a hockey stick wielding provocateurs and people chanting Take back Shenandoah Valley inspired cuisine. This is the people’s twenty six seat restaurant. We’re taking back our bistro.
S1: So that’s a that’s a key item that Trump’s defenders point to that Maxine Waters said harassed Trump officials, just like Trump said. Well, you heard today the hours and hours and hours and hours of things that Trump said. Well, here’s another one that Trump’s defenders are saying could spend all your days just rolling your eyes, desperate talking points, or you could really dive in. So let’s do it. Yesterday on Hannity, Lindsey Graham mentioned another favorite of the they do it to variety.
S11: If this is a problem for a politician to give the space to President Trump did well, then Kamala Harris has a real problem because she actively engaged in bailing out rioters. And here’s what I would suggest. If you’re a politician trying to raise bail for people accused of rioting, you’re inciting more riots.
S1: That is such a good argument that Donald Trump himself made it.
S12: But with his flair for pronunciation, 13 members of Biden’s campaign staff donated to bail and rioters, they getting him out of jail, looters. They got him out of jail. And his running mate, Kamala, urged their supporters to do the same thing. It’s outrageous that they’re now seeking to shift the blame for the mayhem.
S1: So I’ve decided to investigate this. I will cut to the chase. It’s not a similar offense. No, it’s not. Sorry to spoil the ending, but here’s what happened.
S7: Besides Senator Harris’s name, what Trump said was, I’m going to call it mostly correct, because the fact is that after the Minnesota protests, Harris and some Biden staffers, like twenty six out of two thousand, tweeted a link to a Minnesota nonprofit called the Minnesota Freedom Fund with the Minnesota Freedom Fund, who is ballout detainees who can’t afford cash bail. Now, Kamala Harris is against cash bail. She has campaigned against cash bail. She has advocated for California ending cash bail. California actually put it on the ballot as a ballot issue. It didn’t work, but she’s always said cash bail is unfair in the general. Now she’s saying it in the specific as relates to protests after the death of George Floyd.
S1: Personally, I’m not convinced that ending cash bail is the best system. But if Harris is being consistent and applying her principles to a specific case, then she would, in fact say, let us contribute to a fund like the Minnesota Freedom Fund. Steve Carell, Janelle Monae, Seth Rogen also donated to the Minnesota Freedom Fund. Furthermore, and there’s an important point paying the bail of someone, which is what a bail bondsman does, or a non-profit organization intervening to pay the bail of people who can’t pay bail. It’s legal. It’s all legal. It’s how bail bondsmen make their money. So she’s advocating for acting legally within a system, a legal action that lets people out of jail, a process sanctioned by the courts. The courts would refuse bail to dangerous people. And when they don’t, the rich ones buy their way out. Detainees with some resources can purchase the services of a bail bondsman and the truly destitute just rot. So it turns out after the arrests, by the way, the vast majority of people arrested were let out actually without being charged or without any bail. And the bail amounts went like ninety two dollars. And the Minnesota Freedom Fund took in 35 million dollars, which they can’t possibly spend, that’s all beside the point. It is true that many protesters were released, a few of them benefited from the Minnesota Freedom Fund. And a few of those protesters could be described as looters and some were charged with rioting one. One man charged with rioting was Thomas Moseley, and he has been rearrested on drug and gun charges. Seems to be the only person who was rearrested after getting out because of bail bell posted by the Minnesota Freedom Fund. The D.A. of Hennepin County has argued that the Freedom Fund should not have bailed him out. This D.A., it should be noted, does not criticize bail bondsmen who bail out detainees for profit. This is a nonprofit version of a for profit industry. It’s like criticizing a library, but not a bookstore. The Freedom Fund says what we don’t do is get into the guilt or innocence of the accused. We just think that people deserve to be out on bail and no one should rot in jail because they can’t afford the bail out. As of the last reporting about this specific guy, Mosley, he was bailed out twice by the Freedom Fund for 60000 dollars. New bail has been set at one hundred eighty five thousand dollars as of last report. It’s unclear if they’re going to post it.
S3: The Freedom Fund, how are the circumstances similar? I ask you in one, a president with a crowd directly before him urged the crowd to fight and march and fight some more. And it led to death in an insurrection and another a presidential candidate. That’s what Harris was at the time, tweeted her support of a charity that offered relief to hundreds of destitute people consistent with the law. In keeping with her stated beliefs and going through the proper channels of criminal procedure, one urge people to act based on lies. The other sought to relieve the suffering of a large class of people who’d already been detained. Look, let’s say a Republican wanted to make the claim to show that Democrats have poor judgment or a soft on crime. They shouldn’t donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund. They’d be a fair point, I don’t think would be a compelling point. But that be fair in the course of politics to criticize Kamala Harris, to helping bail some of these people out of jail. But it’s incomparable to use it as a justification for what Trump did on January 6th. I can prove it.
S1: I know you probably don’t need any more convincing, but think about this, those Trump remarks that we played. What if he said, imagine if I did this and he does say this a lot. He’s he gets all self pitying and he says, oh, they’d kill me for this. But what if he said Biden’s campaign staff donated to Bell and rioters? They’re getting them out of jail, looters. They got him out of jail. And his running mate, Comilla, I’m going to pronounce it right, urged his supporters to do the same thing. Imagine if I did this. Imagine if I gave a speech to a crowd and told them to march on the Capitol because of a lie. And they did. And destroyed things and people were killed and there was chaos and bloodshed. I would say if that’s his example of the imagine I did this, even Trump enablers would think, what? How is that? You’re doing the same thing. Those aren’t remotely similar.
S3: Yes, that is my point exactly. I suppose if you’re motivated to do so, you can see a parallel there, but you have to be pretty, pretty motivated if this is the best counter argument. Doesn’t seem like they have very good arguments. One side with the poor arguments, it doesn’t make them wrong, but it does make me suspicious. If this is what they’re throwing out there on Hannity, I suspect they don’t truly think it’s a great argument. I don’t know how many have really examined it. I just think it’s a thing to say to stop the other side from talking so much hours and hours and hours of testimony, plausibly accusing Donald Trump of allowing domestic terrorism to run amuck.
S13: And that’s it for today’s show, Shane Roth produces the gist she donated to a fund that bails out Seth Rogen if he’s ever pinched for Holden. Margaret Kelly, just producer, has donated to a fund that bails out senators who make really bad analogies. No takers yet. Alicia Montgomery, executive producer of the Gist podcast, has donated to a fund that bails out poets and poems about ships. The bling is done with grammatical buckets, rhetorical panels. The gist. Tomorrow, we will bring you more tape of today’s testimony, including Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado. But today, you don’t get to get you don’t get upset when desperate to Peru. And thanks for listening.