We're not colluded, just good friends!Sanders said potus discussed with PUTIN whether he could let McGahn testify. Wut. https://t.co/braSKleNID— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) May 3, 2019
Checking in with the home office https://t.co/WPHGHOfGSq— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) May 3, 2019
A clarification:
But, to be perfectly clear:Deleted tweet quoting NBC report that said Sanders said Trump discuses McGahn w Putin because a CNN reporter said it’s a mischaracherization of what she said.— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) May 3, 2019
Well, I feel better knowing they didn't discuss McGahn's testimony (over which Trump has no control whatsoever. McGahn is in private practice, any privilege was waived so long ago it's eligible for Social Security now.) And clearer still:Trump and Putin spoke by phone, discussed Mueller report @CNN https://t.co/CoDjvYmTHL— David P Gelles (@gelles) May 3, 2019
It bears repeating: We have been given no indication that Trump or his re-election campaign will hesitate to take advantage of Russian help again in 2020, in whatever form it might take. https://t.co/2QCfY4idHu— Dustin Volz (@dnvolz) May 3, 2019
Or we can go straight to the horse's...er...mouth:
Had a long and very good conversation with President Putin of Russia. As I have always said, long before the Witch Hunt started, getting along with Russia, China, and everyone is a good thing, not a bad thing....— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2019
The news is breaking like a bowl of eggs. Or is that the Presidency that's running all over the floor? And this is the cherry on top (yeah, so I mix metaphors like a Waring blender! Sue me! Ya get what ya pay for here!)....We discussed Trade, Venezuela, Ukraine, North Korea, Nuclear Arms Control and even the “Russian Hoax.” Very productive talk!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2019
Contradicting his sec of state. https://t.co/sAhrCafD6P— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) May 3, 2019
Which raises the pertinent question: whose version of the phone call do we accept as true and trustworthy?
No comments:
Post a Comment