The “Three’s Company Defense” is no longer credible.

If you aren’t familiar with the show Three’s Company, let me give you a quick synopsis: It was a 1970s sitcom where every episode revolved around some misunderstanding; often suggestively sexual in nature, that existed largely as a vehicle to put Don Knott’s supernatural facial reactions on your TeeVee. Literally the only thing I remember about that show was Don Knott’s face.

Let me now propose that any time someone is defending the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia and the repeated lies about contact with Russia and the 37 people indicted and the five people who have plead guilty about lying to investigators and suggests that this is all a hoax, a big ol’ misunderstanding; that’s the Three’s Company defense. I know it sounds like someone was doing you know what but in reality Janet was just about to sew a button on Jack’s pants.

And at this point it is no longer credible.

As examples:

  • Why did Trump deny having deals in Russia when saying something to the effect “I do business all over the world and likely have deals or could have deals in Russia. Why would anyone think that any one deal anywhere would be so important when I have so many deals everywhere?” would have had everyone shrug off the Trump Tower Moscow deal as a nothing burger?
  • Why deny the Trump Tower meeting rather than say something like “We had many meetings with many others and this is done by campaigns all the time and has never been a big deal”
  • Why deny wanting to get dirt on Hillary if it were no big deal and everyone does it?
  • Why not say something like “we had no reason to think the information they would give us would have been have come from illegal actions, why would we?”
  • Why change the story of that meeting multiple times if were no big deal?
  • If this is all a rigged Witch Hunt, why paint Cohen as a rat rather than a victim of an investigation gone bad? Why not say something like “Mr. Cohen is now lying because the investigation will attempt to use those lies against me” rather than suggest Cohen is credible because the “Witch Hunt” caught him?

If Trump and his campaign had made statements such were given in the above example, wouldn’t it sound much more like just a big misunderstanding? So that is in fact possible. So with that in mind, a person offering “Three’s Company Defense” of Trump owes you that explanation: why the lies, why the changing stories and why the pattern of behavior that has gotten people tossed in jail? What’s the credible explanation that makes this all just Janet needing to sew a button on Jack’s pants?

If they can not provide that alternate explanation they should at least give you a full on Don Knotts level bug-eyed WTF expression.

By Stable Genius

I am the very model of a Stable Genius Liberal.