Thread by @SethAbramson

(THREAD) THE 10 WORST DEFENSES OF TRUMP HIS SUPPORTERS SPREAD ON TWITTER. Are you sick of hearing defenses that wouldn't pass muster in an eighth-grade Social Studies class? Here are replies to the 10 worst ones. I hope you'll read and RETWEET so we can finally end these canards.

1/ COLLUSION ISN'T A CRIME. Federal courts and statutes explicitly say that collusion can be charged under the "Bribery" and "Conspiracy to Defraud the U.S." statutes. More broadly, collusion is a lay umbrella term for the more than two dozen crimes collusive conduct can lead to.

2/ THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. Evidence of the 20+ crimes collusive conduct can lead to is everywhere in the Trump-Russia case—in fact what's lacking is *exculpatory* evidence. What Trumpists mean is that they believe there's no public proof *beyond a reasonable doubt* yet.

3/ THERE'S NO PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OF COLLUSION. There's proof beyond a reasonable doubt of many crimes collusion leads to—e.g., obstruction, witness tampering, false statements—but as with all cases, prosecutors don't reveal their evidence until the end of their work.

4/ IF THERE WERE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WE'D HAVE HEARD IT ALREADY. Mueller has run such an exemplary, leak-free probe that Trumpists try to use it against him—arguing that no prosecutor could be so honorable and respected by his agents to avoid leaks. Well, Mueller is.

5/ I DON'T CARE IF THERE'S PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Every voter has the right to say they think politicians—of their own party only, of course!—can betray America to hostile foreign nations at will. That's not a defense to Trump's conduct—it's *anti-American realpolitik*.

6/ WHATEVER PROOF THERE IS, WHAT ABOUT WHAT HILLARY DID? Unlike the probe into Trump-Russia collusion, the FBI/DOJ investigation into Clinton's conduct has been closed—after a *long* investigative process. Even if it hadn't been, how would that be a *defense* to Trump's conduct?

7/ TRUMP'S CRITICS ARE MOTIVATED BY HATE OR SOUR GRAPES. Evidence exists or doesn't. If anti-Trump feds find weak evidence, it's weak; if anti-Trump feds find strong evidence, it's strong. Our rule of law runs on evidence—plus anyone with a possible Trump bias was long ago fired.

8/ LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE IN 2020. The GOP would never apply this standard to—say—Clinton, but also a fact remains: our rule of law isn't up for a vote. Our laws hold the guilty accountable, whatever voters feel in their hearts. Sentiment can be taken into account at *sentencing*.

9/ WE ALREADY KNEW WHAT TRUMP WAS IN 2016. No—you didn't. You didn't know he had a bought-and-paid-for foreign policy, lied to you daily, was doing secret deals with Russia, was surrounded by aides who lied scores of times about Russia. We knew he was a shitheel—that's different.

10/ DO YOU WANT WAR WITH RUSSIA? This "defense" holds that we can't investigate acts of cyberwar against America—or treachery by our government—as our enemies might be angry if we do. If you argue this, rethink what you think America is. We're a nation—not a Russian vassal state.

BONUS/ [TROLLING]. Maybe the most popular response the right has given us to the biggest political scandal in U.S. history is "owning the libs"—which simply means knowing nothing about the case, not being able to discuss or argue its merits, and acting like a 10 year-old instead.