This is a classical example of moving the goalposts. If this were what ardent Trumpers understood as "draining the swamp", the first complaint that Trump did not accomplish that promise would have been met with this argument. Instead you guys first made excuses, the Mueller investigation, impeachments, etcetera. And fair enough. That was an impediment to Trump fulfilling his agenda. But it was indeed a campaign promise undelivered according to what you must have believed draining the swamp was. You've only just now started to say, "Hey, wait a minute! Draining the swamp only means exposing it! See? Trump delivered afterall!"
Okay. Let's pretend for a moment that you didn't just change the goalposts, that you believed all along that the campaign promise was so shallow so as to mean exposing the swamp. The only part Trump played in revealing the corruption was that he was the bait. It was other people who actually exposed the swamp, and that didn't happen to any great extent until after Trump left office. And it was key people in congress, new media, government auditors, X (formerly known as twitter). Trump didn't do that. They did.
So yeah, this is a major goal shift. Why? Why is it necessary to either make facile excuses or switch semantics. And for what? So that you can maintain a pristine perception of Trump? Admitting Trump didn't fulfill a campaign promise is really a hill to die on?
What's wrong with just saying, yeah, so what? No one's perfect. At least his presidency served as bait to lead others to expose the depth of corruption after he left office. That's absolutely true. If Hillary had won, we'd never have known the depths of the swamp. We'd just have suspected it. Why is that not your argument? I mean it's a good one. Instead your argument is first an excuse, and when that doesn't work, a denial. I think that does not serve you guys. Saying "so what" is a much better argument.
