,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I'm not buying anything coming out of this panegyric to Trump written by a close friend of his. The idea that Trump would sit at a table WITH KUSHNER talking about how Flynn meeting with Russians (which Flynn did WITH KUSHNER) is what led to Flynn's firing...sorry, it's too much.
2/ Indeed, if what Christie writes is true, it'd suggest Trump knows of a Flynn-Russia meeting we don't know of, because it would be insane for him to refer to one that Kushner was at, in front of Kushner, as a firing offense.
That's the real story Maggie should be reporting on.
That's the real story Maggie should be reporting on.
3/ Remember that what got Flynn in trouble were *phone calls* in December 2016, not meetings. So if Trump was referring to a "meeting" as Christie claims he was, and that meeting *wasn't* one of the ones that Kushner condoned by attending, what the *hell* was Trump talking about?
4/ Flynn *did* meet with the Russian ambassador in December 2015, and did meet with Putin in December 2015, but the chances Trump was referring to these meetings in February 2017 is nil. That is, there may be news in this Christie book if people actually believe what he's saying.
5/ And on the other hand, if Trump was indeed referring to these 2015 Flynn-Russia meetings in explaining his firing of Flynn, it would suggest that these 2015 meetings had a *meaning* to Trump that at present we have no evidence to suggest they do. Maybe media should follow up?
6/ Far more likely is that Christie is not being exact with his language here, and is using the word "meeting" carelessly. It sounds as though the purpose of this scene in the book is to establish Trump as an affable and naive political neophyte, rather than to report out facts.
