We all knew it would come to this. Backed into a corner, President Donald Trump’s legal advisers, both official and informal, took to Fox News to reveal a defense they’d long hinted at: So what if he did it?

“It,” in this instance, refers to allegations that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine unless the country’s leaders would announce an investigation into Burisma, an energy company linked to Hunter Biden. “It” could have been any number of administration scandals, however. The truth is that for many of Trump’s loudest cheerleaders on Fox News, it’s unlikely that there’s anything he could do that would convince them he must be removed from office.

This “so what?” defense is an argument that even if Trump did everything he was accused of, something he and his supporters have regularly disputed from the start, it still wouldn’t reach the standard for removing a president from office. Why, if everything was perfectly innocent, did the administration’s defenders go to such lengths to claim that Trump didn’t do what he was accused of? In The New York Times, Charlie Savage breaks down this circular line of argument, citing the shoddy constitutional basis for such a defense, especially around any claim that a criminal offense is required to meet the standard for impeachment, as the president’s defenders now insist.

It’s not a surprise that a number of Fox guests and hosts are finally vocalizing their belief that Trump is essentially above the law, nor will it be a surprise when the Republican-controlled Senate inevitably acquits him.

For months, Fox News has been moving the goal posts on impeachment. The “so what?” defense was the only logical conclusion.

On the January 16 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus stated it plainly, saying that “sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what?’ defense.”