That's a lie—or else the other statements were lies.
The "WW3" comment was *from the NatSec meeting*.
It seems clear to this former criminal investigator and attorney his lies cover for Trump or someone else.
Why not say that?
It's just *not* consistent with the evidence.
Far from this being some kind of *intricate plot*, I actually feel *insulted* to have to apply my investigatory analyses to this.