President Trump may ask questions, even rhetorical
ones, and even misleading ones without being accused of lying. And so he may
ask, as he did on June 2, "Is the Special Counsel/Justice Department leaking my lawyers letters
to the Fake News Media? Should be looking at Dems corruption instead?"
Share |
....“$17 million spent, it’s a scam Investigation. Americans are being worked. We now know there was Russian collusion, with Russians and the Democrats. The Mueller team is stacked with anti-Trumpers, who actually represented Clinton people (& gave $’s to Crooked H).” Dan Bongino— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 2, 2018
In the vast majority of cases, the leaks pertaining to the
Special Counsel's investigation are coming from his side. The "fake news
media" doesn't exist, unless Trump is referring to the National Enquirer,
Breitbart, and much of the rest of the right-wing media, which he is not.
The President is entitled also to refer to "this very
expensive Witch Hunt Hoax." However, it has cost (as Trump noted)
approximately $17 million compared to Ken Starr's late 1980s probe, which started as an
investigation into an Arkansas land deal but went far afield, That $40
million would be equivalent to more than $60 million in 2018 dollars.
However, Mr. Trump is not entitled to claim "there was
no collusion with Russia (except by the Democrats)" without being called
out for it.
Unless he is delusional, he knows there was no collusion by the Democrats. Moreover, he does not claim that he did not collude with Russia, which is debatable, but
that there was no collusion with the Russians by his gang.
Sorry, gang, but that's extremely close to
inconceivable. On May 1, Jonathan Chait cited as evidence of collusion
Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, Peter W. Smith, Roger Stone, and
Then of course there is the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. I
would argue that the publicly available information pertaining to that episode amounts
to proof of Trump campaign collusion with Russia. You have a Russian agent
dangling Russian assistance in the election (“part of Russia and its
government’s support for Mr. Trump”), and the offer of help being accepted (“if
it’s what you say I love it”). ..
The report from
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee reports that, on June 6, 2016,
Donald Trump Jr. made two phone calls with Emin Agalarov. In between those two
calls — which, based on emails he exchanged around that time with Rob
Goldstone, indicate Trump successfully arranged the meeting during the calls —
Donald Jr. made another call. Phone records show the call, at 4:27 p.m., was to
a blocked phone number. Corey Lewandowski told the House Intelligence Committee
that Donald Trump had a blocked phone number....
There is clear forensic
evidence to show that Donald Trump, Jr. called somebody, quite likely his
father, while he was rushing to set up the Trump Tower meeting. House
Republicans blocked an effort to prove that Donald Trump was the person he
called.
The bombshell 20-page letter written by Donald Trump’s attorneys to special counsel Robert Mueller early this year and obtained by The New York Times Saturday includes the intriguing
revelation that the president “dictated” the misleading statement about Donald Trump Jr.’s controversial meeting with a Russian representative during the
2016 election.
Trump’s eldest son met at Trump Tower in Manhattan in June
2016 with Kremlin-linked attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who said she could deliver damaging information on Democratic presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton.
After the Times reported on the Trump Tower meeting last
summer, “The president dictated a short but accurate response ... on
behalf of his son,” stated the newly obtained letter, written by Trump
attorneys Jay Sekulow and John Dowd (who has since left the Trump legal team).
By one interpretation, President Trump knows his side colluded and the other didn't. By a more generous interpretation, he knows there was collusion on his side and assumes everyone similarly acts in bad faith. In either case, he lied in his Saturday evening tweet.
Share |
No comments:
Post a Comment