Liberal Trump Logic

So let's review some of our favorite liberal arguments, see if we cannot find a pattern:

• Trump is guilty of a crime for firing the FBI director. To be clear, there is nothing illegal about firing the FBI director. But a hypothesis exists where his "intent" could have been different than was publicly stated, and logically carried out, and because there exists any sort of probability (no matter how small), the entire firing must be treated as if it is a potential crime.
• Michael Cohen must be guilty of a crime because he was under contract by certain businesses that were looking for his insider edge into the President. As with the firing of the FBI, there is not an actual crime associated with contracting and paying a consulting fee to someone who can provide information about or even access to the President, but we don't know for sure that there isn't more to it, so it we should consider it a crime. Oh, and also there is a Russian person involved, so it must be collusion..
• Michael Flynn was charged with providing the FBI with misleading statements during an interview. It has been reported in the legal documents that he told the Russians not to do anything rash in response to new sanctions that were being put in place by the outgoing Obama administration. There was nothing illegal, unethical, or even wrong with Flynn talking to the Russian Ambassador. But let's argue that he must have been negotiating for Russian interests, selling us all out, for repayment for the Russian help in the Election. In spite of what we know, we should assume the worst.

Meanwhile...

• A judge in open court tells us that Rosenstein and Special Counsel mislead the American people by setting the parameters of the probe, and then going off on investigations that were not part of the scope provided to the public. The attorneys openly admitted that there was other "secret authority" and that the Manafort case was "inherited" at the beginning.. Lawyers for special counsel, in court documents, also argue that the regulations that they may have broken, are not legally enforceable. In spite of the fact that Special Counsel's own attorneys admit that Manafort's was inherited and a federal judge stated that it did not arise from the investigation, liberals will still argue that the case did "arise" from the investigation, because that was what was originally argued. The semantic possibility exists to make such a claim, therefor we must embrace if, in spite of a federal judge disagreeing.
• Andrew McCabe is declared to have lied to federal investigators within an Inspector General's report. He was fired, as recommended by the IG, and the IG made a criminal referral for possible charges being brought for lying to federal investigators. Liberals argue that McCabe was fired for political reasons by the Trump administration in spite of an actual report stating the opposite. They will make the argument that it was possible that the independent IG was possibly in on it, but that either way, the motivation to fire McCabe was political, and any talk about charges are fake news.
• Most recently, Stormy Daniels Attorney Michael Avenatti has been releasing information to the general public about bank transactions and Suspicious Activity Reports. Again, a Government Inspector General is investigating the situation, as the release of this information (whether it came from the Government or the bank is criminal). Liberals are arguing that Avenatti could have conceivably found this information through legal channels, without actually providing any legitimate possibilities.  

So that pattern seems to be simple. Regardless of the facts presented, the new liberal Trump logic declares that you never, ever take anything at face value if those facts do not shed poorly on Trump and anyone associated with him.

Rather, the logic is to look for alternative possibilities, even if the plausibility of that argument is suspect. Liberal Trump logic demands that legal actions become illegal, while illegal actions become legal. Honest actions become nefarious. Suspect actions are perfectly reasonable.  All because such an argument "can be made".