And he’s not a government official, even though he’s impersonating one, and that the administration tells the public he’s in charge of a government agency but tells the courts he’s not.

While all of these things are true, I find it disingenuous to imply that his not having been elected is somehow less accurate than any other criticism levelled against him.

I doubt he could pass a captcha.

I think it’s just to point out another layer of legitimacy he doesn’t have to do what he’s doing.

Ideally I want him to have not made something out of his control into a campaign promise that his supporters believed, but since he did, he should own it.

Or do we give him a pass because a reasonable adult wouldn’t believe anything he says is true?