Donnie’s tweets did not hold up well
The Post’s fact-checker reports on Trump’s long day of telling lie after lie.
With the House Intelligence Committee on Monday prepared to hold hearings on Russian influence in the 2016 election, the president issued tweets that did not hold up well as the testimony unfolded.
The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017
James Clapper and others stated that there is no evidence Potus colluded with Russia. This story is FAKE NEWS and everyone knows it!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017
But in his opening testimony, FBI Director James Comey announced that a criminal investigation into possible links between Russia and the Trump campaign was indeed active and ongoing:
“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.”
In an unusual declassified report released in January, the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency had announced that they had “high confidence” that “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election” and that “Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.” Comey’s statement was the first official confirmation that activities of people associated with the Trump campaign also were being investigated.
Moreover, Comey firmly rejected Trump’s tweeted claim on March 4 that former president Barack Obama had ordered wiretaps of him in the Trump Tower. “I have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI,” Comey said. “The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets.”
Comey made it clear that no president on his own could order a wiretap; such an action must be approved by a judge.
It goes on like that – comparing Trump’s tweets from the Donnie account and the POTUS one with what Comey said to the committee.
Grade: 4 Pinocchios
Geppetto’s gonna have to get busy, ‘cuz I think we’re gonna need a lot more Pinocchios.
Ha!
The wording of the second tweet has me wondering if he understands that POTUS = him or if he thinks he has some low-level staffer named Potus who keeps getting mentioned on cable news.
I suspect its more a case of his primary school grasp of language; acronyms / initialisms probably confuse him.
Anyone else finding themselves wondering if the Trump campaign actually colluded directly with the Russians with Trump’s blessing? ‘cuz more and more I’m finding I really am not even remotely sure…
Re Blood Knight/#5/Anyone wondering…
Yes.To a larger degree than previously, anyway.
Previously, I think I’d have said I thought it… not even that interesting to pursue? A bit fanciful, even? That Putin’s apparatus was quite blatantly working to damage Clinton’s campaign isn’t even in question, but they just don’t _need_ the involvement of anyone in Trump’s circle for that. So why would they have bothered? Didn’t have to be any kind of quid pro quo, and this is all stuff that’s in Putin’s and his circle’s interest regardless. I thought this thing more on the level of a straightforward disruption/misinformation campaign; you don’t need anything for that but hackers and means to disseminate what you want disseminated; why make phone calls you may just later regret?
But then there’s the contacts that have already come to light. And such a brazen, cowboy quality to the conduct of both sides throughout. It begins to seem possible, at least, that there’s stuff more direct line, here. Just kinda in character. Putin’s people especially don’t even seemed to have cared much how obvious it was what they were doing, and Trump’s seem to think they can just bullshit their way through any damned thing, that laws are for _other_ people…
And then there’s the thought: this is _business_. These people are about money. And on Putin’s side, especially, that seems to me to point a certain way. Ideologues, sure, might throw many, many millions into a campaign with no _direct_ hope of return just on the notion they want the world run the ‘right’ way, and more long-range strategic thinkers might just think, okay, we have this apparatus anyway, and this just puts us on a better footing…
But Putin and co., I can’t help thinking: they’d want to know more directly that any investment was worthwhile. Sure, Trump’s a nut, and likely to destabilize the West anyway, embarrass and reduce the US’ influence… But would they settle for that? Or wouldn’t people cutting cheques want more assurance–even _guarantees_, maybe–that sanctions are gone, and we go back to selling all the oil we like?
So yeah, again, not finding it so fanciful, now.