First and foremost because Trump has a long, long history of lying under oath.
What is most disturbing in Trump’s sworn statements is the amount of nonsense he spouts as he mangles the English language into meanings no rational person could accept. An unsuccessful “development by Donald Trump” is not a “development by Donald Trump.” A successful project built by another developer who paid to have Trump’s name on the building is a “Donald Trump development.” A payment of $400,000 equals a payment of $1 million. An ownership stake of 30 percent is actually a 50 percent stake. In a single sentence, he says he knows some people’s names but not their identities, as if talking about Batman and Superman. He studied résumés, but he only glanced at them. The list goes on, with one point in common: Every one of his answers, while under oath, depends not on the truth but on whether it makes him look good.
And that ladies and gents is exactly the problem. Trump is incapable, even under oath, of saying something that makes him look bad. Even if only a little bit bad. He weasels his way around words, facts and meaning like a snake. He’s done this for years, largely in civil settings and in many of those cases those lies have cost him dearly and expensively — like his $25 Million settlement in the Trump University case where he was represented by the same attorney his is now — but this time, it could very well cost more than a few $Million, it could cost him the Presidency and ultimately, his freedom.
He lost those cases then, he’s likely to lose this one now.
Here's another example.
Trump often doesn’t even try to make sense when explaining away a lie. In 2011, he was deposed about a failed Florida condo project. The building’s developer had paid a licensing fee to slap the Trump name on it, but—other than allowing his name to be used in marketing to deceive potential buyers—Trump had nothing to do with the project, which closed after taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in nonrefundable deposits. During Trump’s testimony under oath, the plaintiff’s lawyer confronted him with marketing material in which he had boasted that the building would be a “signature development by Donald J. Trump.” Despite the indisputable meaning of those words, Trump disputed them: When the advertising says the building is a development by Donald Trump, “in some cases they’re developed by me and in some cases they’re not.” He never explained how “developed by Trump” can mean “not developed by Trump” but pointed out that the lengthy legal documents signed by those unfortunate buyers disclosed in the fine print that he was not the builder. Why, then, the plaintiff’s lawyer asked, didn’t he include that disclosure in the advertising rather than the misleading “signature development” clause? “You can’t put it in the advertising because there’s not enough room,” Trump replied.
And this one…
The all-time classic Trump deposition is the one he gave in 2007 in a libel lawsuit he brought against Timothy O’Brien, author of TrumpNation, because the book stated that Trump’s net worth was far less than he claimed. (It was. Just ask Deutsche Bank.) Throughout this deposition, Trump sounded delusional, in what some might dismiss as compulsive lying. But knowing Trump, I don’t think he was lying; he believed what he was saying, but the facts just kept getting in his way.
Trump needed to prove he was damaged by the purported libel, but he wasn’t content with just saying he had lost some specific bit of business. Instead, he claimed to have lost business he never knew existed. “The fact is that a lot of people who would have done deals with me didn’t come to do deals with me,” he testified. “I can’t tell you who they are because they never came to me.”
Then there were the questions about what he owns. Trump was shown a nasty note he had written to a reporter in which he claimed to own 50 percent of a Manhattan property called the West Side Yards. In fact, he owned 30 percent, but rather than simply say he’d made a mistake, Trump claimed 30 percent equals 50 percent. “I own 30 percent,” he testified. “And I’ve always felt I owned 50 percent.” The reason, Trump explained, was that he didn’t put up any of his money in the deal, an explanation that makes no sense and does not change the fact that 30 percent is not, nor never will be, 50 percent.
We have to remember to obstruction of justice was used against Nixon as an article impeachment because he said “Uh huh" when one of his staff suggested someone tell the CIA to lie to the FBI to get them to stop investigating Watergate. Trump is alleged to have cut all the middle men out of the picture and done this himself.
Articles of impeachment where issued against Bill Clinton for saying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” when what he was referring to was a specific list of “sexual relations” that the Paula Jones attorneys had given him. His testimony in that case, and in to the Grand Jury, was that he to the best of his recollection didn’t do any of the specific things -- "touching in order to gratify” — on the list. The Special Prosecutor then pretty much published a soft-core porn novel just to prove that he was “lying” because he once, according to Monica, “brush the back of his hand against her breast” — which he frankly might not have remembered — and also the thing with the cigar. Although even with that, he wasn't doing the touching, the cigar was touching. Frankly I think he was that circumspect and not laying his hands on her on purpose since he was a lawyer and already knew about those types of “sexual relations” definitions. IMO He was wise enough to keep himself within a stones throw of “plausible deniability” at all times.
Technically speaking, IMO because he was so careful, Clinton wasn't lying and he didn't perjure himself. He lied to his friends, staff and family by saying “Monica was a stalker” — which was pretty jacked up — but not in court. He later only admitted to making some minor mistakes in testimony, and even at that nothing involving Monica was actually material to what Jones was alleging so he was never real risk for perjury. The Jones attorneys bringing up Monica was an attempt to show a pattern of behavior on Clinton’s part even though the patterns were pretty different between Jones and Lewinski — it was Monica who came on to Clinton in the first place by flashing her thong, not the other way around.
Either way the “He said/She said” of most of this was resolved by the fact that Monica’s complaints about their relationship were [illegally] recorded by her friend Linda Tripp who was friends with Luiciane Goldberg, mother of National Review editor Jonah Goldberg. Those recordings plus the blue dress DNA were what was used to get Clinton impeached, although not removed or prosecuted.
But Trump isn’t as smart, careful or as legally savvy as Bill Clinton. If things get to a similar stage I doubt Trump’s presidency will survive as Clinton’s did.
In the current scenario Trump is claiming that James Comey lied in front of Congress when he claimed that Trump said “I need loyalty” and also when he said “Could you let Flynn go?” He’s also made claims that Comey is a “leaker” but that’s all nonsense and dribble-drabble so let’s leave that aside.
I suppose Trump and his attorney imagine that the opportunity for this testimony will come as a result of their complaint to the DOJ inspector general regarding Comey — although since he is now fired, that may be moot — and Senate Intelligence committee, but the much more likely scenario is that it will be with Robert Mueller’s investigators but he faces several problems with that.
Mueller has already spoken to Comey, we know that because Comey had been scheduled to testify earlier, but had it pushed back so that he could speak with Mueller first, and one of the first things Mueller did when arrived at his DOj offices was to review Comey's memos about Trump.
Because of Comey’s Senate testimony we know a lot of what is likely contained in these memos, but we don’t know everything. Any truly good investigator or prosecutor is not going to give up his best evidence until he can use it most effectively, so I would strongly suspect the reason Meuller hasn't honored congresses request for copies of the memos is he’s waiting to question Trump on them.
However, before he does that he’s going to question others who were potential witnesses to these events, particularly Comey’s own staff who were apparently in the room for Trump’s last phone call where he hinted back at exactly what he now claims never happened.
On March 11th Trump called Comey at his FBI offices:
He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.” I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.
In this call Trump alludes to “that thing” and he specifically mentions “loyalty” in that context so he’s effectively confirming what Comey has said about their two one-on-one face to face conversations. This call happened according to his testimony to the Senate while other members of his staff were in the room, and he immediately began to discuss the call with them.
So what we have isn't just “He said” vs "He said" - we have Trump and his various history of flim flammery about facts and even his own prior statements in public vs Comey and his personal integrity, his contemporaneous notes, his conversations about Trump’s statements with his staff and with his friends.
Excepting from my full Trump/Russia timeline there is a clear pattern of behavior by Trump that fits Comey’s narrative of his desire to curry loyalty and punish anyone who dares defy his wishes in even the smallest way.
To wit;
- December 1, 2016 —
- December 29, 2016 —
- Obama hits Russia with Sanctions for their hacking and involvement in the Election. Flynn calls Russian Ambassador Kislyak, mentions “We’ll review everything” when Obama’s new sanctions are brought up. This conversation is recorded by the NSA/FBI.
- December 30, 2016 —
- January 21st —
- DAY AFTER INAUGURATION: Trump WH officials soon begin pushing State Dept to remove all Russian sanctions. Alarmed State Officials Melinowski and Fried begin to contact congress.
- January 24th —
- January 26th —
- Sally Yates goes to the White House personally and warns WH Counsel McGahn that Flynn may be vulnerable to “blackmail by the Russians” because he’d lied to the FBI & Pence about his contacts with Kislyak.
- Trump is immediately briefed by McGahn but does nothing about Flynn.
- January 27th — THE VERY NEXT DAY
- McGahn calls Yates, she returns to the WH where he asks “why does it matter if Flynn lied to Pence?”
- Trump signs a travel ban against 7 majority Muslim nations.
- Trump invites Comey to dinner at the White House, allegedly asks Comey if he wants to “keep his job” and to pledge him his “Loyalty”, Comey offers his “Honesty” and takes copious notes.
- January 30th —
- January 31st — THE VERY NEXT DAY
- February 6th —
- Februray 7th -—
- Sens. Cardin and Graham — alerted by Fried and Malinowski at State of Trump efforts to scrap sanctions -— author bipartisan legislation to require the approval of Congress for all changes to sanctions.
- February 13th —
- Flynn is fired immediate after Wapo report proving that he lied, allegedly he’s let go because he lied to Vice President Pence and caused him to be embarrassed about what he said on Meet the Press.
- February 14th — THE VERY NEXT DAY
- Comey & Sessions meet Trump in the Oval for a counter-terrorism briefing. Trump clears the room and gets Comey alone to complain about leaks asking him to prosecute some reporters over it and asks if he can just “Let Flynn go” Comey interprets the request to only be about Flynn not the Russia investigation, Comey notes this and discusses it with FBI leadership. He laters asks Sessions not to leave him alone with Trump again as it’s inappropriate. Sessions allegedly doesn’t respond, but later says he responded that the “FBI and DOJ should follow protocol” even though he was the one who violated protocol by leaving the room in the first place.
- February 16th —
- March 17th —
- Even with Flynn fired for lying about discussing sanctions sometime during the later part of the month members of the NSC email the State dept asking if sanctions on Russian Oil could be lifted which would have allowed the Exxon/Rosneft deal to go forward, State informs them this would be bad of U.S. oil companies and also bad to drop the sanctions without getting anything in return.
- March 20th —
- March 22nd —
- March 30th —
- Micheal Flynn asks for immunity in order to testify to congress. Congress declines.
- Trump calls Comey to asked why he’d testified to congress about Russia, to complain about the “Cloud over his head” in relation to the Russia investigation and how Comey can “lift that cloud” by getting out the word that he isn’t personally under investigation. Comey calls acting AG Dana Boente for input/authorization on releasing information about Trump not being a target in the Russia investigation.
- March 31st —
- April 11th —
- Trump calls Comey for an update on efforts to “get the word out” on his not being under investigation personally. Comey says he contacted Boente but hadn’t heard anything back yet, and that WH Counsel should make the request which would be procedure. Trump says he’s been “loyal” and mentions we had “that thing” which baffles Comey. This is his last conversation with Trump.
- April 25th —
- Rep. Chaffetz and Cummings holds a joint press conference where they accuse Flynn of breaking the law by accepting foreign payments without Pentagon permission.
- Trump calls Flynn and tells him to “Stay Strong.”
- May 8th —
- May 9th —THE VERY NEXT DAY
- May 10th — THE VERY NEXT DAY
- May 11th — THE VERY NEXT DAY
- White House spokesperson Huckabee-Sanders openly admits that Comey was fired to “bring the Russia matter to a conclusion”, later that day Trump admits on CBS News to Lester Holt that he was going to fire Comey regardless of Rosenstein’s recommendation and he was thinking about the “made up Russia story” when he did it.
- Acting FBI Director McCabe testifies that morale inside the agency was high under Director Comey directly contradicting Trump and confirming what Comey would later call “A Lie” while under oath.
- NYTimes reports, based on comments shared with his friends, about Comey being asked to a private dinner with Trump and asked to “pledge his loyalty.”
- May 12th —
- May 15th —
- Comey wakes up early that morning and realizes he may have some corroboration for his conversations with Trump, he contacts a friend at Columbia Law School and has him share some of his memos with the press.
- May 16th —
- May 17th — THE VERY NEXT DAY
- May 30th —
- May 31st —
- Trump signals that he’s going to give Russia back the 2 spy compounds that Obama took from them in retaliation for election meddling, in exchange for access to some land in St. Petersburg for a new consulate.
- June 7th —
You can see from this pattern how Trump repeatedly responds by lashing out at when he’s annoyed, time after time after time when something bugs him — someone usually is made to pay for it. First it’s Yates right after she says she won’t defend his Muslim travel ban — which could be construed as retaliation for her focus on Flynn — then it’s Comey immediately after she testifies before congress about Flynn, which could easily be his punishing Comey for not dropping the Flynn case, retaliation for his failure to show "loyalty.”
The White House attempts the clumsiest cover-up ever by trying to redirect responsibility for Comey’s firing on to Rosenstein only to have that fall apart within a day, then immediately after the first details of Comey’s one-on-one meeting with Trump are released he posts up the threat about “Tapes” and the tide turns. It takes a few days for Comey to come back and have a friend share the existence of his memos with the press, but then immediately, the very next day, Rosenstein calls for a special prosecutor just as Comey had hoped.
Also right after it appears that Congress is saying Flynn broke the law by taking foreign money, Trump calls him — which could be construed as Witness Tampering. Does “Stay Strong” mean the same thing as “Y’know we had that thing...”
And there are all these various attempts with people in the White House, who are friends and associates of Trump, and those who had apparently worked for Flynn, to get the sanctions on Russia lifted by the State dept. Over and over again. He's even going to give back the two compounds that Obama took from Russia as punishment for hacking the DNC and Democrats. Why exactly was he so desperate for FBI to “go easy” on Flynn in the first place? Why’s he saying he should get immunity and calling him when he’s being investigated? What's going on with all that?
This is the chain of events that Comey is fully aware of. It should be the chain of events that Mueller knows and he should be fully aware — that he was brought on because of Trump’s actions in relations to Director Comey.
Mueller is going to look at this entire fact pattern, and totality of events, and it frankly doesn’t matter if Trump said the words “Loyalty” and “let Flynn go” in those two private meetings.
The pattern of his actions during this entire time has been screaming it.
Trump is looking at multiple counts of Obstruction, Witness Tampering, Intimidation and illegal retaliation. If he goes to Mueller with the story he’s telling now, that’s Perjury Icing on the top of the cake with multiple sets of documentation and at the time conversation with additional parties all going against him.
The only thing that could save him is if he does have a tape, and it doesn’t have a gap in it.
Sunday, Jun 11, 2017 · 1:35:54 AM +00:00 · Frank Vyan Walton
I’ve added in the points where DNI Dan Coats and CIA Directer Pompea were also asked by Trump to reveal he wasn’t under investigation, to “push’ Comey on the Russia thing, and that although Coats at lease did say there were never ordered to do anything improper, none of them would get into any specifics about conversations with Trump even though WH Counsel McGahn didn’t invoke executive privilege which would have prevented them from talking. A lot of people have found that puzzling, but I think it makes sense because of Robert Mueller.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) questioned acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Andrew McCabe about whether Comey had ever shared details of his conversations with Trump, and specifically whether Comey said “that the president had asked for his loyalty.”
McCabe declined to comment, saying that the matter fell within the scope of issues being investigated by the special counsel Robert Mueller.
“So you’re not invoking executive privilege and obviously it’s not classified,” observed Heinrich. “This is the oversight committee — why would it not be appropriate for you to share that conversation with us?”
McCabe responded that he would let Comey, who testified before the senate intelligence committee on Thursday, “speak for himself.”
McCabe was specifically staying out of issues between Trump and Comey, which is funny because he’s a witness to some of their communications but I suspect he hasn’t had a chance to go over his recollections with Mueller the way that Comey has. The same may be true for Coats, Pompeo and Rogers so when it comes to Congress they’re not talking because they either decided — or were asked by Mueller — not to do so because they might end up being potential witness in a criminal case about Trump.
If, as has been reported, they received instructions from Trump about the Russia investigation similar to what Comey has now testified too, that’s further confirmation of Trump’s pattern of obstruction. Again, unlike Clinton it’s not just He Said/He Said.. it’s He said/THEY SAID. A perjury or obstruction case takes at least two co-oberating witness to reach a conviction — as was the case with former Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby when he lied to the FBI about revealing Valerie Plame’s CIA employment to Judith Miller — they already may have several supporting witnesses in this case plus there’s still the possibility that Flynn could flip.
In total there’s a much wider scope than just what Comey said to all of this with Kushner being investigated for his attempted back-channel to Russia through Kislyak and the head of a sanction Russian bank and his own families weird money links to China. There’s Page who went on his mysterious trip to Moscow and supposed met the head of sanction Russian Rosneft oil company and Felix Sater who tried to get a deal to remove Russian Sanctions with Michael Cohen, who have both previously acted as informations to the FBI against Russian intel agents and the Russian Mob. respectively.
The was also the abrupt settling of another Russian money-laundering case last month — which may indicate there are other new informants available to the FBI whom we don’t even know yet.
All of these people could end up either as targets of prosecution and/or ultimate witnesses and the one thing they all have in common — is Trump and Russia.