It sure is. Clinton's defense is "there is no proof of a quid pro quo," demanding that dots be explicitly connected with "hard evidence." Everybody knows that is impossible, the case for pay-for-play is a circumstantial one, and darn solid. Rebutting with "you didn't catch me red-handed" may work for Gergen and the rest of the Democrats (who, if caught, would say pay-for-play was for the greater good and is okay), but not everybody will tolerate the government occupants openly running a criminal enterprise.
Plus there is that whole nationalist vs. globalist thing going on. I'd rather have a crooked nationalist than an honest globalist. Not saying that's what the pick is, just that I put more weight on the political direction.
I agree, but it's even worse when you have crooked globalists, which is what we have.
I think the concept of being a sanctuary of freedom and the place where those who are truly persecuted can turn to, should be emphasized by Trump - sort of like Reagan's comment: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.” He can use this to point out that when we don't have individual sovereign nations, and are governed by global interests without specific loyalties and ethos, we have nowhere to escape to. He can also use this to point out that he is ‘pro-immigrant’, for those who embrace the dream of America, who see America as that last great place, and who want to come here to strengthen and grow that dream of America for themselves, for those who are already here, and for those who will come (something like that). This neutralizes the anti-immigrant bs, but also reiterates the point about wanting people who love America, and reemphasizes the need to protect what America is and represents to the world.