Those Goalposts Won’t Move Themselves!

Dara Lind has an amusing rundown of Donald Trump’s ever-shifting explanations for his collusion with Russia, in which he admits to whatever has just been revealed while denying what is about to be revealed. (I’m sure his most recent version of events will prove to be the whole truth, though!) As a_paul_in_mtl observes, there is a related movement among the anti-anti-Trump left:

Moving the goalposts: an ongoing saga:

1) Don’t be silly. There’s no evidence that the Russians did anything untoward or that anyone involved with the Trump campaign even met with the Russians, let alone colluded with them for electoral gain. While in principle I support an investigation, in practice we should not waste our time on such distractions from the real issues.

2) Don’t be silly. There’s no evidence that the Russians did anything untoward that I personally find convincing. And while one or two people with the Trump campaign did have undisclosed meetings with Russian officials that they later forgot to remember when denying having them under oath, there is no reason to see that as being particularly suspicious. While in principle I support an investigation, in practice we should not waste our time on such distractions from the real issues.

3) Don’t be silly. The evidence that the Russians messed with the election comes from intelligence sources. ‘Nuff said. And while a myriad of people with the Trump campaign did have undisclosed meetings with Russian officials which kept slipping their minds when they were questioned about such meetings, there is no reason to see that as being particularly suspicious. While in principle I support an investigation, in practice we should not waste our time on such distractions from the real issues.

4) Don’t be silly. Remember: U.S. intelligence, a contradiction in terms. That, or the Deep State apparatus. One of those things. Sure, people involved with the Trump campaign met people connected to the Russian government to discuss colluding with them for electoral gain, but nothing actually come of it in this particular meeting so no harm done, amirite? And if any harm was done, it was to Hillary Clinton because of the bad things she did that, had she not done them, would have meant there could have been no collusion so her evildoing is the real story. Which is why, while in principle I support an investigation, in practice we should not waste our time on such distractions from the real issue, which is Hillary’s evildoing..

Reminder that – as disappointing as it is for some – US is not at war with Russia, so "treason" can't apply https://t.co/O5I1rFfpgK pic.twitter.com/K1a1ycmj2T

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 12, 2017

See, most people would just stick to the “people using the term ‘treason’ colloquially must actually be making a formal legal accusation, and they are wrong” routine. But the assumption that if you’re concerned about the Russian state ratfucking a presidential election on behalf of a white nationalist buffoon collaborating with a far-right legislators it’s probably because you want to go to war with Russia is special. Still, one must certainly support a full investigation.