What we are seeing across conservative governments in Australia and the USA is a meeting of minds – feeble minds perhaps but a meeting nonetheless. It is a situation where governments are viewed as above the law and people who see no problem are the ones believing their “solution” is the correct one.

In America, Donald Trump’s lawyers are currently arguing in the Senate impeachment trial that if the president does it then it is not illegal, and indeed if the president determines that something is in the national interest then he should do it. And given Trump regards his re-election as in the national interest, that means he is therefore able to do whatever he wishes to ensure that happens.

It is a circular logicbut is also one that we have seen take root here in Australia.

There has been a bit of a mad scramble to explain Scott Morrison’s actions over the summer. Surely a man who must be a political genius – or at least very good at winning elections – would be able to see the damage of his response to the bushfires and the sports rort.

The adventures of Bridget McKenzie have left Scott Morrison with a ghastly choice | Sarah Martin Read more

But why should we expect there to be a response to a problem from one who sees no error in the first place?

If you are someone who views climate change not as an actual issue that threatens our way of life but just as a political issue to be used come election time to scare voters about electricity prices, why would you respond to the bushfires any differently from how he has?

And if you are someone who views government grants not as an actual means to address community concerns but merely as an exercise of the power of incumbency, wherein governments are free to use the funds as they see fit for the good of the country, then if you view your re-election as for the good for the country, that is how you will use those grants.

The argument being forwarded by the government that there was nothing wrong with the process undertaken by Bridget McKenzie because all the grants were given to eligible projects is of course a very Trumpian excuse.

It sounds sort of fine but is actually nonsense.

As an Australian I am eligible to be selected to represent us at the Tokyo Olympics, but I suspect there might be some eyebrows raised were I to be selected to run in the 1,500m given my times have been on a bit of a decline for the past 30 years and, to be honest, I am a few packets of chips this side of my best condition.

Indeed the guidelines about entry times would see me fall well below that considered appropriate for selection.

The “eligibility” line is a con. A rather less-than-slick attempt to convince Australians that the LNP did not view taxpayers’ funds as their own re-election war chest.

Stephen Colbert breaks down Alan Dershowitz's 'crazy, corrupt argument' Read more

And you might wonder why Scott Morrison continues to defend this scheme given “as dodgy as a Bridget McKenzie grant” will soon enter the Australian lexicon, but again, if your view is that it is up to governments to determine what is right and you also believe that if you deny wrongdoing for long enough the public will soon lose interest, then his approach is more than to be expected.

This approach is also what you do when, as ABC’s Laura Tingle noted in her question this week to the prime minister at the National Press Club, the entire cabinet was complicit in the funding arrangement.

As Tingle noted, given the timing of the election, cabinet in March last year approved a further $42.5m of funds to be distributed under the scheme despite, as the ANAO points out, the guidelines stated the money was for projects that had yet to commence work but which “were expected to be completed by 30 June 2019”.

Add in that the timing of the election meant the government only had five weeks to distribute this money and you see very much the whole of cabinet up to its neck in this rort.

Scott Morrison responded to this excellent question by answering, “Well, as the auditor general found, the rules were followed. Guidelines are separate issues.”

Ah yes, guidelines are not rules, they were just the entire basis by which sports clubs around the nation made their application and were then assessed. Totally irrelevant.

And this leads to the next line of attack – one again fully patented by Donald Trump. Rather than admit impropriety you argue, as the Nationals’ leader, the attorney general and now the prime minister have all done, that public servants’ recommendations for funding can be ignored because politicians know better.

The prime minister’s argument that the funding was about providing change rooms for girls has been found to be utterly disingenuous – given at least 12 applications for the building or upgrading of female change rooms were rejected despite receiving excellent scores from Sport Australia.

At this stage, given the evidence of colour coding of applications by the minister’s office to denote the party which held the seat from where the application came, the complaints from Sports Australia about the politicisation of the process, the approval given to projects deemed unworthy, and the rejection of applications deemed superior, it is clear that this was political grift on a major scale.

And what is the prime minister’s response? He suggests there may be more funding to come to those clubs that missed out. In effect, if you missed out on the electoral bribe last time, don’t worry, your turn will come.

A perfectly Trumpian conclusion.