Thats the combining of the denial with the collusion is not a crime narrative. The president was focusing on just the straight up no collusion point. You see it in all the tweets. Now it is roaring back because of the thursday Night Bombshell that the president s own former lawyer and fixer cohen is claiming despite all the denials, the president did know about the russia Trump Tower Meeting in advance. When that report drop, you know what happens next, they picked it up and whipped it around and began running with it again. Its hard to see the point of all of this hysteria. What would the crime be . It is not illegal to talk to foreigners. Nobody is claiming that any information changed hands. Even if did it, so what . I dont think it is bad if campaigns are turning to foreign governments for dirt. Its not collusion. It is not something thats impeachable. As they today . Hacking. Donald trump famously doesnt pay his own contractors and his own long time lawyers . Even if his opponents
Meeting. That trumps own son took it explicitly being promised damaging information on clinton and then the times gave the actual information. The meeting, if it is what you say, i love it. If you did that, you might need a wider defense than denial. In october came the multiple denials. October 30, the Special Counsel announcing the indictments against Paul Manafort who goes on trial tomorrow, plus his deputy, Campaign Manager rick gates. Mueller also announced guilty pleas of George Papadopoulos who admitted contacts with who . Russian nationals. Who he thought were tied to the russian government. Who offered him what . Yes. Information about the possible release of Hillary Clintons emails. So following those indictments we then saw allies of the president including now and this is key, the president s own lawyers, picking up the argument like Go Pro Camera, collusion is
it went away for a few months. The president was focusing on just the straight up no collusion point. You see it i
the question is, what was he trying to sell and how does any of this relate to the campaign. there s no reason it has to. a guy had $60 million can t go on trial in america for hiding $60 million. the $60 million, what will jurors take from this? it is very hard to wrap anyone s head around the idea that the most brilliant in the world could be worth that much. it is having seen some of the documents and the financial transcripts, i have a hard time imagining it myself. i would say they re very good at selling their open services. the money came in weird dribs and drabs and large lump sums. and as i said, the sort of, what work he did to he were it is almost extraneous.
question given his history. i think it is cut and dry without a court case. the question is, what was he trying to sell and how does any of this relate to the campaign. there s no reason it has to. a guy had $68 million can t go on trial in america for hiding $60 million. the $60 million, what will jurors take from this? it is very hard to wrap anyone s head around the idea that the most brilliant in the world could be worth that much. it is having seen some of the documents and the financial transcripts, i have a hard time imagining it myself. i would say they re very good at selling their open services. the money came in weird dribs and drabs and large lump sums. and as i said, the sort of, what work he did to he were it is almost extraneous.