A Strong Inference that the WH Counsel Talked to Trump About How to Respond to Yates’ Concerns

The day after Sally Yates talked to White house Counsel (or is it Council?) he came back with questions, somewhat reminiscent of those John Dean might have asked, but much less intelligent or knowledgeable.  Washington post, Dana Milibank:

He called the DOJ officials back to the White House the next day and asked them a perplexing question, Yates recounted to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee Monday afternoon: Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another White House official?

Yates explained what should have been self-evident: Not only were Pence and the American public entitled to know the truth, but the Russians also knew that Flynn had lied to the vice president — so the Russians had the goods on him. “To state the obvious, you don’t want your national security adviser compromised with the Russians,” Yates testified. “Logic would tell you that you don’t want the national security adviser to be in a position where the Russians have leverage over him.”

But Trump didn’t move to fire Flynn. He fired Yates instead.

 At the White House counsel’s request, Yates had arranged for him to see the evidence against Flynn on Monday, Jan. 30. But he didn’t come that day, and that night Yates was sacked for refusing to implement Trump’s order banning travelers from several majority-Muslim nations.
Well, where on earth did counsel Don McGahn come up with that question?  I would have think the answer would have been obvious to the cleaning staff.
But the Donald, not so clear.
Now, as we learned from Watergate, White House calls, meetings, etc., may not have tapes and transcripts, but they are all logged.  So the circumstantial case for Presidential involvement in the Flynn cover-up, for cover up is what it certainly appears to have been, grows, and the lurking question of motive gets larger.  That Obama had previously at least generally warned Trump off Flynn, to no avail, and that Spicer now says that the warning was ignored as sour grapes from a loser, does not help Trump’s case at all.
P.S. Is it not tragically and deliciously ironic that the Trump White House had to ask why it would be a problem if someone lied?  Did they have to look up the meaning of the word?

 

 

Advertisements