Andy Biggs’ defense of Trump is the real absurdity

Representative Andy Biggs (An Arizona Congressional District 5 original) penned an opinion piece for right-wing publication The Washington Examiner.You can read the piece here.

His arguments can be summed us as misrepresentations, misdirection, half-truths and in some cases, lies. We can go on for days pointing out the issues with his op-ed, but here are some top line problems:

Statement 1: The first bogus allegation by the radical media and carried forward by many Democrats is that Trump somehow participated with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

Pulitzer Prize winning publications like the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, etc can hardly be described as “radical.” Biggs moves to dismiss this information by attacking the source opposed to debating its veracity.

Additionally, this is a false flag argument. That isn’t what is being claimed, and it isn’t what the investigations are about. There are two areas of investigations right now 1. How Russia influenced our elections and 2. If and how the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials. This statement by Biggs misrepresents the investigations.


Statement two: “Obama-era Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified under oath that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

James Clapper’s actual statement that there was no evidence “to his knowledge.” Clapper’s tenure ended on January 20th as the Trump Administration began. His knowledge would not include anything that happened after January 20th.

After Clapper made this comment, questioning shifted to former Assistant General Sally Yates who replied,

“my answer to that question would require me to reveal classified information. And so, I can’t answer that.”

Yates went on to confirm that Clapper was not informed of the investigations.

Asking Clapper’s if there is collusion, then taking his answer as biblical truth isn’t much difference to asking someone who has not seen Star Wars if Princess Leia is a key figure in the rebellion and believing their answer. If they answer “not to my knowledge” you cannot use that as proof that Princess Leia wasn’t a rebel leader, just as proof that this pop culture recluse doesn’t know about Leia.

You can read the full transcripts here.

Additionally, Biggs chose to ignore Clapper’s interview with Jake Tapper on State of the Nation where he the following exchange happened:

Clapper: “I think in many ways our institutions are under assault both externally — and that’s the big news here is the Russian interference in our election system — and I think as well our institutions are under assault internally”


Jake Tapper: “Internally from the President?”


Clapper: “Exactly.”


Statement 3: No independent evidence to date corroborates the assertions [that classified information was shared with the Russians.]

Honestly Mr. Biggs, we don’t NEED independent evidence here because there’s enough official evidence that highly classified information was shared. First, you have McMaster’s statement: “at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed. The president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.” This is only a very narrow range of information that was not shared with the Russians. This is not the same as saying “no classified evidence was shared” only “this kind of classified information wasn’t shared.”

Shortly thereafter, Trump tweeted that he “had a right” to share the information.  Trump isn’t wrong, the President can declassify any information he wants. So why are we even still trying to argue that information wasn’t shared?


Statement 4: The real problem here is that there was a criminal leak by someone in attendance at the meeting 

No, Mr. Biggs, this is NOT the real story! Again, attacking sources and mediums to avoid the real issue. The real issue here is that Trump put our intelligence relationships, safety, sources and allies at risk in an “off script” moment of bragging.

Trump defended leakers of DNC information, saying that if the information is true, it doesn’t matter how the information was obtained. When the leaks were against him, he changed his tune to saying these people should be arrested and jailed for leaking information, and journalists should be treated the same for reporting leaks. Then when Trump himself was the one who leaked information, he said that he can say whatever he wants.


Statement 5: “Yet-unseen Comey memo”

Biggs tries to argue that because he hasn’t seen the Comey memo, it may not exist. This is a logical fallacy. You cannot prove something doesn’t exist.


Statement 6: Oddly enough, the unobservant media failed to acknowledge that an actual witness testified under oath before the Senate. In a recent hearing, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe said, “There has been no effort to impede our investigation today.” That’s right – the FBI testified under oath that there has been no obstruction of the investigation.

This is a partial truth. Here is the full context of the quote:

RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?


MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.

McCabe did NOT state that the White House has not attempted to impede the investigation, just that the investigation has not been impeded by the White Houses’ actions.


Statement 7: They [Democrats] do not care that the alleged Russian interference with our election occurred under Obama’s administration. 

Yes we do! It is a good thing that the Obama Administration started investigations in July of last year into the Russian interference with our election. Obama did not try to hide that this happened, so why is Trump trying to do so?

And honestly, Mr. Biggs do you want to start insinuating that everything that happened globally while Obama was president was Obama’s fault? Because we’ll be here to demand you treat Trump the same way.


Statement 8: The American people can clearly see there is an unprecedented, orchestrated effort to undermine Trump, in an attempt to subvert the will of the American people. 

The American people can clearly see that Trump is unfit to lead this country. His approval rating is currently 37%, according to Gallup polling. Reuters reports that 59% of adults, Republicans and Democrats, agree that “Congress should launch an independent investigation into communications between the Russian government and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.” And according to the Public Policy Polling, more Americans support impeaching Trump than are opposed to the idea.

According to the Public Policy Polling, more Americans support impeaching Trump than are opposed to the idea.

And if we are going to talk about the “will of the people” let’s talk about the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes. The will of the people is to have a president who is not Donald Trump. And hopefully soon, the will of the people will be realized.