» What’s behind Perdue’s word dance this weekend,

First, he couldn’t remember what Donald Trump had said. Then he could. The president never said anything like what he was accused of uttering, U.S. Sen. David Perdue said Sunday.

To understand Perdue’s wordplay this weekend, it is necessary to note whom he chose as his partner when news broke that, during a White House negotiating session, President Donald Trump had voiced bewilderment. In very crude fashion.

Why, Trump reportedly had asked, did the bipartisan compromise before him allow immigrants from “s—-hole” countries in Africa and from Haiti rather than Norway?

On Friday, when accounts of Trump’s question leaked out, Perdue did not coordinate with U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, as Saxby Chambliss almost certainly would have done back in the day. At least in this instance, Isakson has apparently grown tired of making excuses for Trump’s excesses.

“That is not the kind of statement the leader of the free world should make, and he ought to be ashamed of himself,” Isakson said in one interview. “If he did not make it, he needs to corroborate the facts and prove it and move forward.”

No, Perdue allied himself with Tom Cotton, R-Ark., his partner on a bid to rewrite the purpose of American immigration, and put a harder cap on it. Both men were in the room with Trump when the remarks were made. Their joint statement was an exercise in group amnesia:

“We do not recall the President saying these comments specifically, but what he did call out was the imbalance in our immigration system.”

Later, on Friday evening, in an interview on Newsmax TV, Perdue said much the same thing: “I honestly don’t remember that word being used, but I do remember the conversation about what’s wrong with the current immigration system.”

By Sunday, Perdue’s memory had improved. The senator followed U.S. Rep. John Lewis on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” Lewis had cited the slurs Trump used as proof of racism. With Perdue on camera, Stephanopoulos pointed to statements confirming the use of vulgar language from U.S. Sen. Dick Durban, D-Ill., and U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

They had been in the room, too. But that didn’t matter.

“I’m telling you, he did not use that word, George. And I’m telling you, it’s a gross misrepresentation. How many times do you want me to say that?” the Georgia senator said.

(In a Sunday appearance on Fox News, Perdue accused Democrats of tossing out distractions, but otherwise stayed away from the topic of Trump’s language.)

Look, we have never elected angels to the White House.

Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon often employed the n-word. The difference is that their policies, generally speaking, contradicted their interior prejudices.

Trump’s remarks weren’t made at a dinner party or in a locker room. They were made during the formal presentation of a bipartisan compromise on “dreamer” kids and legal immigration. His “s—-hole” language was a key portion of a policy discussion.

Perdue and Cotton have allied with Trump to change the way we treat immigration. Currently, one might describe our manner of importing new citizens as a matter of self-selection. Those who want the American life badly enough make the effort. And yes, their family members often follow. My own father was a beneficiary of chain migration.

Perdue and Cotton want a merit-based immigration system. Entry would be granted to those who, according to some government standard, fit a particular national need.

You can disagree with Perdue and Cotton, but the approach is legitimate and has its precedent many other countries.

But we do not permit immigration quotas by race. Congress has passed laws forbidding it. And that is precisely what a desire to restrict African immigration in favor of northern European immigration would be.

This is likely why Perdue’s memory of that White House meeting, at first foggy, later hardened into denial. Because he has the president as an ally, acknowledging Trump’s remarks, even with an accompanying condemnation, could call into question the underlying purpose of Perdue’s own bill.

Presidents have gotten away with being racist. It’s harder, at least in the current climate, for Acts of Congress to do so. Court challenges of federal actions often hinge on legislative intent. Motivation — i.e., remarks made during debate and formulation — is important.

Trump’s remarks on Thursday will no doubt become part of multiple legal arguments that already accuse him of racial or religious animus.

Perdue’s word dance this weekend, however awkward and — if others are to be believed — disingenuous, was the senator’s attempt to keep his signature piece of legislation out of that mire.