Beautiful NY Times nuance in arguable Trump perjury

You have to admire a newspaper that can report that Senate Republicans “rejected” Trump’s claim (under oath) that he did not recall talking to Roger Stone about the perfectly timed release of hacked DNC emails, while fairly pointing out that the Senate Intel Committee report did not state that Trump was lying.   They rejected his claim, yet didn’t claim he was lying, though they rejected the truth of what he submitted under oath.

A neat display of lawyerly Republican contortions and a nice bit of New York Times journalism, in an article that notes Trump and Stone spoke by phone at least 39 times (that are known) from March to November 2016, and that they spoke (on a Trump assistant’s phone, as the careful conspirators often did, for deniability) on the eve of the disclosure of hacked emails that was timed to knock the “you can grab ’em by the pussy” tape off of the news.

Let’s have a look at this neat bit of journalistic fairness:

The Republican-led committee rejected Mr. Trump’s statement to prosecutors investigating Russia’s interference that he did not recall conversations with his longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr. about the emails, which were later released by WikiLeaks.

Senators leveled a blunt assessment: “Despite Trump’s recollection, the committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his campaign about Stone’s access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions.”

The senators did not accuse Mr. Trump of lying in their report, released on Tuesday, the fifth and final volume from a three-year investigation that laid out extensive contacts between Trump advisers and Russians.


Beautiful, no?   They rejected Trump’s claim under oath that he didn’t recall ever talking to Stone about the WikiLeaks dump, yet… they did not accuse Mr. Trump of lying.   

Both fair and balanced. 

Meanwhile, no Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee will talk to the New York Times.   You can’t blame them.  As Mr. Barr told Representative Swalwell in reply to his question about whether he was investigating Mr. Trump for commuting the sentence of Mr. Stone, who bragged about dummying up for Mr. Trump and not turning rat, “why should I?”

As for convicted perjurer Roger Stone, he dismissed the whole thing as a fabrication based on the sworn testimony of two fucking liars, two stinkin’ rats.

In fairness to the Grey Lady, the editorial board did publish this today, entitled The Trump Campaign Accepted Russian Help to Win in 2016.  Case Closed:

A bipartisan report released Tuesday by the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee cuts through the chaff. The simplicity of the scheme has always been staring us in the face: Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign sought and maintained close contacts with Russian government officials who were helping him get elected. The Trump campaign accepted their offers of help. The campaign secretly provided Russian officials with key polling data. The campaign coordinated the timing of the release of stolen information to hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The editorial board takes a paragraph or two to debunk the narrative being spun by AG Barr that “Russiagate” was a transparent partisan attempt to persecute the president.   Then:

The committee documented that, on Oct. 7, 2016, Mr. Stone received advance notice of the impending release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Mr. Trump brags about sexually assaulting women. In response, Mr. Stone made at least two phone calls arranging for WikiLeaks to release stolen internal emails from the Democratic National Committee.

it concludes:

There’s no way to sugarcoat it. In less than three months, the American people could re-elect a man who received a foreign government’s help to win one election and has shown neither remorse nor reservations about doing so again.

Case closed, voters?   Or, a second Civil War against the angry, violent hoards who hate the white Christian values typified by great men like Donald Trump, William Barr, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence and Michael Flynn?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s